Forget the choice to receive,

[JGibson]

I'm actually wondering if Kyle Shanahan would have been better going for the TD than the FG on 4th down. They were at the Kansas City 9. Obviously, not getting the TD allows the Chiefs to win on a FG, but part of the reason you go for it deep in the opponents' territory is that upon failure, they have to start deep in their own territory. Frequently, this actually leads to a punt and great field position on your next possession.

It was 4th & 4. Yeah - I'm thinking that this was actually the bigger strategic mistake than receiving the ball first, which seems like the right call to me. However, had that backfired and KC wins on a FG, Shanahan would have been even more slammed in the media than he has already for what I think are completely bizarre things (like the suggestions that he should have rammed C(3.5ypc)Mc into the line more or given the ball to KC in OT).

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

On 2024-02-14, JGibson <james.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm actually wondering if Kyle Shanahan would have been better going
> for the TD than the FG on 4th down. They were at the Kansas City 9.
> Obviously, not getting the TD allows the Chiefs to win on a FG, but
> part of the reason you go for it deep in the opponents' territory is
> that upon failure, they have to start deep in their own territory.
> Frequently, this actually leads to a punt and great field position on
> your next possession.

I was thinking the same thing myself, though I am sure the strong and
accurate leg of Butker was a big consideration.

> It was 4th & 4. Yeah - I'm thinking that this was actually the bigger
> strategic mistake than receiving the ball first, which seems like the
> right call to me. However, had that backfired and KC wins on a FG,
> Shanahan would have been even more slammed in the media than he has
> already for what I think are completely bizarre things (like the
> suggestions that he should have rammed C(3.5ypc)Mc into the line more
> or given the ball to KC in OT).

It's always a crapshoot. A bounce one way or the other and a different
hero is anointed...

--
In a system of free trade and free markets poor countries -- and poor
people -- are not poor because others are rich. Indeed, if others became
less rich the poor would in all probability become still poorer.
-- Margaret Thatcher

[JGibson]

On Thursday, February 15, 2024 at 8:01:55 AM UTC-5, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
> On 2024-02-14, JGibson <james.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm actually wondering if Kyle Shanahan would have been better going
> > for the TD than the FG on 4th down. They were at the Kansas City 9.
> > Obviously, not getting the TD allows the Chiefs to win on a FG, but
> > part of the reason you go for it deep in the opponents' territory is
> > that upon failure, they have to start deep in their own territory.
> > Frequently, this actually leads to a punt and great field position on
> > your next possession.
> I was thinking the same thing myself, though I am sure the strong and
> accurate leg of Butker was a big consideration.
> > It was 4th & 4. Yeah - I'm thinking that this was actually the bigger
> > strategic mistake than receiving the ball first, which seems like the
> > right call to me. However, had that backfired and KC wins on a FG,
> > Shanahan would have been even more slammed in the media than he has
> > already for what I think are completely bizarre things (like the
> > suggestions that he should have rammed C(3.5ypc)Mc into the line more
> > or given the ball to KC in OT).
> It's always a crapshoot. A bounce one way or the other and a different
> hero is anointed...

Yeah, one fumble or something at the end or a failed 4th down by KC, and Shanahan is a genius. Instead, he is getting excessively criticized for a game that came right down to the wire. I'll tell you what: I'd certainly trade the Broncos' last 7 years for the 49ers' last 7 years.