(02-12-2024, 10:34 AM)Jaguarmeister Wrote:

(02-12-2024, 09:01 AM)Cleatwood Wrote: If you go second, you know exactly what you need in order to win the game.

Chiefs actually game planned for this. If the 49ers scored a TD, Chiefs were going for 2 if they scored a TD.

Always better to go second if you know for a fact you’re getting the ball no matter what.

Yes in that scenario that would have been the better choice, but there is more than one scenario.  What if they trade field goals or both defenses force punts on the first two drives?  You’d want the ball in sudden death and going first ensures you do in those scenarios.

Thats why I have less of a problem with that decision because at the time they didn’t know they’d be settling for a FG and their defense would disappear.  I mean, it had been a defensive battle for most of the game.

However, settling for a FG did seem like they were in the position of now hoping for sudden death as I had no doubt Mahomes would be able to lead a FG drive in 4 down territory from the 25. There are scenarios where you kick the FG and play defense as they did, like if you find yourself in 4th and long, though, I think it was a critical mistake not to instead go for it on 4th and 4 from the 9 as I mentioned previously.  I think being inside the 10 in a manageable distance for a 1st down is reason enough to go for it there because it really isn’t the end of the world if you don’t convert.  I know Mahomes is Mahomes, but even his probability of leading a scoring drive goes down the longer the field is for him. Also, even if going 2nd allows you to make the go for 2 and the win decision, it’s still a lower probability situation to be in to not only drive for a TD and also convert the 2 than it is to drive for a TD to tie.

I have no problem with your logic at all, I just have no problem with taking the ball first either especially in what had been a defensive battle to that point.  It’s not a cut and dry decision any more in my opinion with the rules change and so I don’t blame Shanahan there.  I do think he needed a little Dan Campbell angel/devil on his shoulder screaming to go for it on 4th and 4 from the 9 though.

I'll add to this that hypothetically going for it on 4th and 4 from the 9 and not getting it and giving it back to the chiefs there instead of the 25 down by 3, are the chiefs really in 4 down territory at that point? Their defense pulled more than their fair share this year and had been very good in this game.  If the 9ers were able to put them in a 4th and 2 or 3 on their own side of the field do they go for it and risk losing the game right there as it would now be sudden death or do they punt instead and play defense?  The more I think about it the more reasons there are to go for it from the 9 rather than kick the FG there.  

This was the first playoff game that played overtime under these rules I believe. I think coaching across the league will study the 9ers decision here and largely come to this same conclusion.  It will be interesting to see if a similar scenario presents itself in the years to come.

---