Sketchy call from yesterday

[bretts]

Ravens are inside the 5 yard line up a td with like 2 to 3 min left. why in the world did they go for the td? kick a fg and go up two scores. i know steve is new but come on, it was from extra point distance.

knowing the spread, the call sketches me out even more. anyone else think about this?

[effo5231]

We go for the TD because if we fail the worst case scenario is a pile up on the one, and then KC has to drive 99 yards to tie.

If we kick, and it's blocked, KC can run it back and score in a flash.

The decision had nothing to do with Haushka, it was simply smart football.

[Galen Sevinne]

Ravens are inside the 5 yard line up a td with like 2 to 3 min left. why in the world did they go for the td? kick a fg and go up two scores. i know steve is new but come on, it was from extra point distance.

knowing the spread, the call sketches me out even more. anyone else think about this?

I haven't seen the game on DVR yet but it seems that there were problems with the snaps yesterday and after a blocked punt, i think the call was right. The last thing you want is a bad snap or blocked kick that is returned for a TD. I think Harbaugh prefer his chances of maybe bieng stopped at the 1 and forcing KC to go 99 yards w/o timeouts to win. I think it is right call for a team that wasn't feeling too confident at the moment.

[bretts]

blocked kicks from that short a distance happen a lot less often then not getting the 1st on 4th and a few. we miss that td and give them a chance to tie. there was a drive earlier in the game where they started from the 10 and drove all the way down the field.

[bretts]

on top of that, the td got the Ravens to cover the spread. thats what makes it more questionable to me.

[Galen Sevinne]

on top of that, the td got the Ravens to cover the spread. thats what makes it more questionable to me.

the spread talk is conspiracy talk and nonesense. there is no way KC goes 99 yards with no timeouts in 30 seconds.

[ravenjoe]

The go for the TD was ABSOLUTELY the right call, for the reason stated above - no way in Hades do you want the FG to be blocked, and run back for a TD! That would have incited a minor riot, and non-stop radio talk for the remainder of the season, and beyond.

[octscotts]

Yeah, in that position regardless of where you are on the field you keep the ball on the ground. The fact that we got a TD out of it is just bonus. It was mistakes that made the game as close as it was. I got no problem running the ball in that situation. Why chance it? Like someone else said. Worst case scenario, KC has to go the length of the field and score a TD with seconds left.

[bretts]

dont get me wrong, im not into conspiracy theories, and i havent thought into it much more than just having it cross my mind.

they run that play and take a couple yard loss, KC comes up with a miracle play (watch denver highlights) and we have a tie game. kick the easy field goal (much better odds than converted 4th and a few with a run play) and take the win with much less risk.

i didnt agree with the call too much, the spread just crossed my mind.

[bretts]

i think giving the ball back with a chance to tie was more of a risk than kicking virtually an extra point to seal the game.

[Lee Van Cleef]

It was the right call.

Aren't you a Bengals fan?

[bretts]

Bengals fan? I watch Baltimore every week, born and raised in Baltimore. Now im in orlando paying directv an obsurd amount of money to get the games.

the easy FG to seal the deal was the right call. it wasnt getting blocked.

[effo5231]

the easy FG to seal the deal was the right call. it wasnt getting blocked.

Monday morning quarterbacking has gotten so much easier since you invented that device that enables you to peer into alternate dimensions and examine how events would have transpired had the situation changed. Thank you for your definitive explanation that the field goal would definitely not been blocked.

Besides, you're obviously right, it's not like we had any trouble on special teams yesterday. And our offense WAS playing terribly. The field goal sure makes sense when you consider how those two sides of the ball were playing.

[Tspot-D-Ravenator]

Ravens are inside the 5 yard line up a td with like 2 to 3 min left. why in the world did they go for the td? kick a fg and go up two scores. i know steve is new but come on, it was from extra point distance.

knowing the spread, the call sketches me out even more. anyone else think about this?

After they called time out a few times on our drive, it pissed me off and I wanted them to punch it in! Apparently, the Chiefs thought they still had a chance to win...:nerd:

[ravenjoe]

the easy FG to seal the deal was the right call. it wasnt getting blocked.

Well, clearly, we're ALL entitled to our own opinion - I would've jammed the ball down their throats with L-Train running the ball!

[bretts]

Monday morning quarterbacking has gotten so much easier since you invented that device that enables you to peer into alternate dimensions and examine how events would have transpired had the situation changed. Thank you for your definitive explanation that the field goal would definitely not been blocked.

Besides, you're obviously right, it's not like we had any trouble on special teams yesterday. And our offense WAS playing terribly. The field goal sure makes sense when you consider how those two sides of the ball were playing.

Monday morning quarterback works both ways, on every play call.
I'm not playing that game.

I am not saying there is no chance it could have been blocked. I can say, field goals from that distance are blocked less often then 4th and shorts are stopped.

Special Teams yesterday got a punt blocked right in front of the endzone. One mistake. KC didnt get huge gains on returned punts, they didnt get any good returns on a kickoff. it was an extra point to seal the game, vs a 4th and short that would could have given KC a chance to tie if they would not have gotten it.

[Dade]

Monday morning quarterback works both ways, on every play call.
I'm not playing that game.

I am not saying there is no chance it could have been blocked. I can say, field goals from that distance are blocked less often then 4th and shorts are stopped.

Special Teams yesterday got a punt blocked right in front of the endzone. One mistake. KC didnt get huge gains on returned punts, they didnt get any good returns on a kickoff. it was an extra point to seal the game, vs a 4th and short that would could have given KC a chance to tie if they would not have gotten it.

As rare as you said FGs from that distance are block, so to are 99 yard drives with 30 seconds left and no timeouts. IMO even more so.

[effo5231]

As rare as you said FGs from that distance are block, so to are 99 yard drives with 30 seconds left and no timeouts. IMO even more so.

Precisely.

Even KC reporters agree that it was the right call (check the Crazy Newshound thread.)

[bretts]

To me, it was "seal the deal vs give them the slightest chance". i thought the FG was the safer bet. that is just me. (and the spread crossed my mind) i gotta get back to work. I'm pumped for next week though.

[Dade]

To me, it was "seal the deal vs give them the slightest chance". i thought the FG was the safer bet. that is just me. (and the spread crossed my mind) i gotta get back to work. I'm pumped for next week though.

Whatever. A FG would not have "sealed the deal". What if they run the kickoff back, then recover the on side, then hit a hail mary. I swear this must be Preston, trying to make something out of nothing.

[psuasskicker]

We go for the TD because if we fail the worst case scenario is a pile up on the one, and then KC has to drive 99 yards to tie.

If we kick, and it's blocked, KC can run it back and score in a flash.

The decision had nothing to do with Haushka, it was simply smart football.

Sorry dude, terrible logic. QBs never fumble snaps? RBs never fumble the ball? No one here remembers "The Fumble" from 1978? How 'bout Bettis' goal-line fumble against the Colts that almost cost them the game in '04 when the Steelers went on to win the Superbowl?

The odds of something bad happening on a FG vs. odds of something bad happening on a kick pretty much cancel each other out. The difference is, when something bad doesn't happen (i.e. botched snap or fumble or whatever), here's the potential outcomes:

FG kick
- Make FG, at 18 yards, probably 98% or more. KC now must drive to score twice in 85 seconds.
- Miss FG, 2%, KC must drive 92 yards in 85 seconds.

TD attempt
- Make TD, around 60%. KC now must drive to score twice in 85 seconds.
- Get stopped, 40%. KC must drive 99 yards in 85 seconds.

The ONLY way you can justify a move like this is if you have absolutely no faith in your special teams to pull off the FG. Given how poorly our ST played yesterday, it was - to me - an extremely damning statement from Harbaugh about what he thinks of our ST play. Regardless of that, it was still a stupid decision.


there is no way KC goes 99 yards with no timeouts in 30 seconds.

This is a flat false statement and is absolutely moronic being made the same week as the Broncos beating the Bengals in the final 18 seconds of the game. And don't give me crap about the Bengals D vs the Ravens D, because the Bengals had given up 6 points to that point vs. the Ravens D which had given up 17, and the Broncos had 60 fewer seconds to work with than the Chiefs.

There is never, ever "No way" a team can move any distance down the field and tie/win a game if within one score and have the ball with time left on the clock.

- C -

[bretts]

Whatever. A FG would not have "sealed the deal". What if they run the kickoff back, then recover the on side, then hit a hail mary. I swear this must be Preston, trying to make something out of nothing.

Welcome to the "what if" game. where scoring twice in less than a minute has the same odds as scoring once in less than a minute.

i am talking odds here.

and i am not michael preston, and it's not something out of nothing. it is a discussion on a tough play call, and whether or not you agree with it. Is that not one of the many reasons for these types of forums.

this is more entertaining then work, but less profitable.

[bretts]

thanks PSU, i was wondering how i could have been alone on this one.....

[psuasskicker]

thanks PSU, i was wondering how i could have been alone on this one.....

Cause you're on a Ravens message board. "Objectivity" isn't a phrase with a lot of use around here, unfortunately. There are a few, but it's a minority...

- C -

[00Ravens]

The better reason to go for the TD is to run up the score. We should run up the score every chance we get in case we need those points later in the season for a tie-braker when it comes to playoff seeding...or making the playoffs at all.

[Dade]

Welcome to the "what if" game. where scoring twice in less than a minute has the same odds as scoring once in less than a minute.

i am talking odds here.

and i am not michael preston, and it's not something out of nothing. it is a discussion on a tough play call, and whether or not you agree with it. Is that not one of the many reasons for these types of forums.

this is more entertaining then work, but less profitable.

You can play the what if game all you want. You can what if every play of every game to death.

Either way going for the TD or kicking a FG, in that situation, did not or would not have put the game at risk.

I hardly think Harbs had the spread in mind when he went for the TD.

[pyite32]

I admit that before the play I wanted them to kick the field goal. However taking a moment to look at the way the game was going, problems with special teams, and making a statement I think it was the right call.

1. We drove down the field and KC hadn't come even close to stopping our running game. We were overpowering them all day at the line. The TD was a 4th down, 6 inches from the goal line. The way we were running with our strong line I will take that chance all day.

2. Special teams problems from earlier probably had a lot to do with the call. I think Harbaugh believed that even if they failed the defense would hold the W for him, and was worried about another block or bad snap. I don't think he was concerned that Hauschka would miss from that distance on his own.

3. This was an aggressive move, that makes a statement about the toughness of our team. Play like a Raven, jam the ball down their throats, be tougher than the other team.

[Galen Sevinne]

Cause you're on a Ravens message board. "Objectivity" isn't a phrase with a lot of use around here, unfortunately. There are a few, but it's a minority...

- C -

For the remaining 99% of this board, the Ravens coaches and apparently the entire media, allow me to extend our gratitude to you Asskicker for being the beacon of objectivity in the football world. We would all be lost w/o you.

[effo5231]

Cause you're on a Ravens message board. "Objectivity" isn't a phrase with a lot of use around here, unfortunately. There are a few, but it's a minority...

- C -

You and bretts are on one side of the debate. Harbs is on my side. Guess who I think has better football knowledge.

Objectively, there are many reasons to go for the TD and not kick it. They include.

FG's can be blocked and run back by the speedy edge rushers (read a DB) that would likely be first to the ball in the event of a blocked kick. Most likely player to pick up a fumble on the 1 after a run up the gut? A d-lineman. Who do you think we have a better chance of stopping before he can run it 99 yards the other way?

We kick the field goal, kick off and KC runs it back... 3 point game with them going for the onside. We score the TD, kick off and KC runs it back. 7 point game with them going for the onside.

And perhaps the most important reason: The morale boost of putting a big-ass number on the scoreboard.

[psuasskicker]

Edit: Pointless post, not worth it

[psuasskicker]

You and bretts are on one side of the debate. Harbs is on my side. Guess who I think has better football knowledge.

Objectively, there are many reasons to go for the TD and not kick it. They include.

FG's can be blocked and run back by the speedy edge rushers (read a DB) that would likely be first to the ball in the event of a blocked kick. Most likely player to pick up a fumble on the 1 after a run up the gut? A d-lineman. Who do you think we have a better chance of stopping before he can run it 99 yards the other way?

We kick the field goal, kick off and KC runs it back... 3 point game with them going for the onside. We score the TD, kick off and KC runs it back. 7 point game with them going for the onside.

And perhaps the most important reason: The morale boost of putting a big-ass number on the scoreboard.

Yeah but there are more bad things that can happen if you miss out on the TD than the FG. Let's not pretend here that the odds of something catastrophic happening on an 18 yard FG attempt are lower than the odds that we don't successfully punch the ball into the end zone.

Is there anyone here that truly believes the chances that KC blocks and returns the FG for a TD are higher than the odds that they return a fumble for a TD PLUS the odds that they stop the TD and can drive the field in 85 seconds? Maybe if it's a 50 yard att where they could run back a short kick or block a low liner...but an 18 yarder where the ball is going straight up in the air? Someone please show me data on how often an xpt has been blocked and returned to the end zone over the last 20 years...

Like I said. There's ONE excuse for this, and it's got everything to do with having absolutely no faith in the kicking game. If that's the real reason - and we'll never find out if it is or not cause Harbs would be an idiot to come out and say that - then that's fine, I accept that and don't argue the decision.

But bottom line, this is either a terrible decision, or an incredibly damning statement to our ST play.

In general, just saying that it worked and so it was a great call (effo, not you) is results oriented thinking. It's not objective in the least. If McGahee gets stuffed, and Croyle completes a pass to the 15, then completes one to the 35 and is sitting on needing 65 yards in 60 seconds, tell me you all would not absolutely be shitting your pants and cursing Harbs for not taking the FG there...

- C -

[bretts]

You and bretts are on one side of the debate. Harbs is on my side. Guess who I think has better football knowledge.

Objectively, there are many reasons to go for the TD and not kick it. They include.

FG's can be blocked and run back by the speedy edge rushers (read a DB) that would likely be first to the ball in the event of a blocked kick. Most likely player to pick up a fumble on the 1 after a run up the gut? A d-lineman. Who do you think we have a better chance of stopping before he can run it 99 yards the other way?

We kick the field goal, kick off and KC runs it back... 3 point game with them going for the onside. We score the TD, kick off and KC runs it back. 7 point game with them going for the onside.

And perhaps the most important reason: The morale boost of putting a big-ass number on the scoreboard.

There are coaches with much more football knowledge than most on this board that have made horrible decisions looking back.

This has turned into a bunch of people playing the what if game, and less playing the odds game. Most can agree though that they are happy to get the win.

[bretts]

BTW i love Harbaugh as a coach, just questioned the call.

My roomates and i got his tickets the both miami games last year (reg season and playoffs) and Tenn (playoffs).

We met him in Miami and he thanked us for going to the game and supporting them even though he gave us the tickets. My roomates uncle is a long time good friend with him. it is a pretty nice hook up.

[Endzone 84]

I think by far it was the right call. If that was any other team against us, they sure in the hell would of went for the touchdown also. Plus we scored with 31 seconds left. Even if we didn't score, a 99-yard drive with 31 seconds left is very unlikely. Harbaugh played safe by running the ball, instead of passing.

[Unitas]

I think that either call was correct. It isn't this or that. The only thing that matters is the outcome. We scored and held on to win. Bring on the Chargers!

[psuasskicker]

Why do people think there was only a few seconds left for the Chiefs final drive?

There was 1:30 on the clock and 3 on the play-clock when they were reviewing the third down call.

- C -

[RavenScallywag]

Harbaugh spoke a lot about capitalizing on opportunities...I think we saw that going for a FG would leave the door open, going for a TD would close the door on them. Not to mention our offense has been SICK on 3rd and short and 4th and short. We SHOULD'VE had the TD on 3rd and short...replays looked like McGahee broke the plane with the ball, but review said no. So we gave him another chance and he took care of business.

[psuasskicker]

Harbaugh spoke a lot about capitalizing on opportunities...I think we saw that going for a FG would leave the door open, going for a TD would close the door on them.

How on earth is this true? Up 10 and they've got life but up 14 they don't???

- C -

[effo5231]

Harbaugh spoke a lot about capitalizing on opportunities...I think we saw that going for a FG would leave the door open, going for a TD would close the door on them. Not to mention our offense has been SICK on 3rd and short and 4th and short. We SHOULD'VE had the TD on 3rd and short...replays looked like McGahee broke the plane with the ball, but review said no. So we gave him another chance and he took care of business.

(Bolding mine)

I just thought of another reason Harbaugh went for it. And it's so obvious to me I can't believe it took me this long.

Willis McGahee has had a 180 degree change of attitude from this time last year. I was one of MANY fans who called him out for his poor work ethic and bad conditioning. This off season he answered such doubts with a great camp and by being in great shape.

Is it such a stretch to assume Harbs was simply rewarding McGahee for his hard work in the face of a demotion to second string?

[psuasskicker]

Is it such a stretch to assume Harbs was simply rewarding McGahee for his hard work in the face of a demotion to second string?

Probably, but take it tangentially and you might be onto something...maybe building McGahee's confidence more than rewarding him. I still don't think that changes it from a bad to a good decision, but I could see that as part of the reasoning.

- C -

[shaslers]

The odds of something bad happening on a FG vs. odds of something bad happening on a kick pretty much cancel each other out. The difference is, when something bad doesn't happen (i.e. botched snap or fumble or whatever), here's the potential outcomes:

FG kick
- Make FG, at 18 yards, probably 98% or more. KC now must drive to score twice in 85 seconds.
- Miss FG, 2%, KC must drive 92 yards in 85 seconds.

TD attempt
- Make TD, around 60%. KC now must drive to score twice in 85 seconds.
- Get stopped, 40%. KC must drive 99 yards in 85 seconds.


You are not evaluating the right set of possibilities.

The first set of possibilities to consider is whether or not there could be a turnover that gives the Chiefs the ball near their own end zone, with about a minute left, down seven.

The options are:
1. Run it in
2. Kick the FG
3. Pass it in

The odds of a turnover are greater in option two than option one. (bad snap, blocked kick vs. RB fumbles) That's according to Harbaugh in his post-game explanation. Yes, running backs have fumbled it. But not as frequently as bad snaps or blocked kicks...according to the man who made the decision.

In the above scenario, the Chiefs get the ball and still have to drive the length of the field. It's unlikely there would be both a turn over and a 95-yard drive in one minute against the Ravens. Regardless, the question is which of the above scenarios is more likely to present the Chiefs with the opportunity, and Harbaugh claims you and I should have more faith in Flacco and McGahee doing their job on a hand off than faith that Katula and Koch and Hauschka do their job on a snap and hold and kick.

Harbaugh sounded like he had looked up the stats, and as a special teams coach for years, he probably had. Regardless, try to picture the two scenarios in your mind and it's easy to understand the risk equation. A snap from under center, turn, handoff to the RB, and hold onto the ball with two hands is a lot less risky than a long snap, catch, get the ball down, block everyone, and get the kick off. That's without taking into account a rookie kicker and the fact the Ravens already had a punt blocked in the other endzone. Factor that in, and it is relatively preposterous to think the field goal was a smarter choice.

The other scenario, instead of turnover...fall on ball...and march down the field, would be a turnover that is returned the distance. For all the above reasons, a kick is much more likely to result in a turnover, and the Chiefs are much more likely to get the ball in a returnable spot if it's blocked or badly snapped, compared to fumbled running it in. If there is a bad exchange and fumble near the goal it's much easier for McGahee or Flacco to fall on it, or make a tackle, than it would be for a kneeling Kock or Hauschka to fall on it or make a tackle.

Clearly the right call. Not sure why it's such a debate, in fact.

[Galen Sevinne]

Maybe the McGahee confidence builder was a factor but I think it is more simple than that.

The Ravens offense put up 501 total yards with 198 rushing yards and 32 first downs. The defense allowed only 188 yards and 11 first downs on basically 2 drives. Special teams missed a 40 yard field goal, had a punt blocked and several poor long snaps.

1. Who do you trust at that moment in the game?

2. Who has more confidence entering that 4th down play? Any running back with the offensive line OR Hauscha with Katula?

3. Finally what would be the most detrimental failure? A running back getting stopped at the line or a field goal not being successful? I don't think you would want to be in a situation where the ball is actually traveling backwards as in a blocked field goal or a high snap.

Mcgahee scored with 31 seconds left.

[Galen Sevinne]

Clearly the right call. Not sure why it's such a debate, in fact.

i think it has something to do with objectivity.;)

[bmorebirds_24]

Are we seriously here arguing over the Ravens offense being aggresive? I'm just saying.....


We scored the TD, we won the game, now here we come SD.

[bretts]

You are not evaluating the right set of possibilities.

The first set of possibilities to consider is whether or not there could be a turnover that gives the Chiefs the ball near their own end zone, with about a minute left, down seven.

The options are:
1. Run it in
2. Kick the FG
3. Pass it in

The odds of a turnover are greater in option two than option one. (bad snap, blocked kick vs. RB fumbles) That's according to Harbaugh in his post-game explanation. Yes, running backs have fumbled it. But not as frequently as bad snaps or blocked kicks...according to the man who made the decision.



the odds of a turnover are not greater on option 2. it was fourth down, a fumble/int were not the only ways to turn the ball over. a tackle for a loss/no gain would have turned it over, and given them a chance to tie. a field goal from the one yard line would have put us up two scores. extra points almost never get blocked. 4th and shorts get stopped more often.

why are people acting like just because a head coach made a decision, makes it right? Head coaches of football teams have made poor decision. this is not directed at everyone.

[Mista T]

the odds of a turnover are not greater on option 2.

Huh? The odds of a long snap being fumbled or a kick blocked aren't higher? I would be astonished.



it was fourth down, a fumble/int were not the only ways to turn the ball over. a tackle for a loss/no gain would have turned it over, and given them a chance to tie.

Except that KC would have had to drive 99 yards in 40 seconds with no time-outs. Long, long odds.


The TD call was the only logical choice. It was a no-brainer, not even close.

[ravensfan1996]

Why is this 3 pages?? It was the correct FOOTBALL call, its what you do in that situation.

Someone else mentioned it earlier, the snaps were off all day, a few were high, one was real low...so between that and a new guy, running it in where they hadnt stopped us all day was the right choice. If he doesnt make it, still has 99 yds to go without any time.

They scored the TD, so it was the right call and although you may try to say it was wrong, the fact is the right call was made since we scored.

[bretts]

Huh? The odds of a long snap being fumbled or a kick blocked aren't higher? I would be astonished.




Except that KC would have had to drive 99 yards in 40 seconds with no time-outs. Long, long odds.


The TD call was the only logical choice. It was a no-brainer, not even close.

Your telling me there is more of a chance of bad snapping on a FG at the 1 yard line then there is on being stopped on 4th and short? Not a chance.

Further more, it was not the only logical choice. Both were legitimate options... i happen to think the FG was the safer pick. making an extra point distance field goal to put them up two scores has better odds then running fourth and short and giving them a chance to tie. regardless of how difficult it would have been to drive down the field. the difference here was going up to scores to one with little time left.

[Paintballguy]

After having that blocked punt earlier, it was the smart call to not risk another special teams mistake. I don't know why there is a debate. We got the TD and won by 14.

[bretts]

After having that blocked punt earlier, it was the smart call to not risk another special teams mistake. I don't know why there is a debate. We got the TD and won by 14.

its not something that happens regularly. getting stopped on 4th and short is. then they have a chance to tie.

[Aces2Bluff]

Did anyone catch 105.7 this evening (prob around 5:15-5:30 I was in rush hour) with the fan who argued they should have taken a knee....

Was it an aggressive call yes. Was it the right call..in my opinion yes..if they failed would there have been backlash yes, but in the words of Herm Edwards, you play to win the game.

[bretts]

Did anyone catch 105.7 this evening (prob around 5:15-5:30 I was in rush hour) with the fan who argued they should have taken a knee....

Was it an aggressive call yes. Was it the right call..in my opinion yes..if they failed would there have been backlash yes, but in the words of Herm Edwards, you play to win the game.

A FG wasn't playing to lose....

[Aces2Bluff]

Nor is scoring a touchdown... last time I checked they won.

[bretts]

Nor is scoring a touchdown... last time I checked they won.

never said it was, said FG gave better odds of winning.

chip shot FG or 4th and short run. dont know about you, but i have seen short yardage runs for a 1st/td stopped a lot more than an extra point distance field goal.

i know it would have been a difficult drive for KC but it would have given them a chance to tie with just one score.

[Aces2Bluff]

Fair enough. Its 4th and inches and you have 197 yards rushing at that point. I think it makes a statement. I know people will claim its poor sportsmanship or the wrong call. For me it made a statement, you get robbed on the previous call you dont settle for the field goal. You go back out there and hit them in the mouth again.

[bretts]

Fair enough. Its 4th and inches and you have 197 yards rushing at that point. I think it makes a statement. I know people will claim its poor sportsmanship or the wrong call. For me it made a statement, you get robbed on the previous call you dont settle for the field goal. You go back out there and hit them in the mouth again.

i dont care about sportsmanship when it comes to scoring, just questioned the play call, and which would result in better odds of winning. i understand where everyone is coming from, just a disagreement.

all in all i was happy with the outcome of the game and i cannot wait until SD.

[shaslers]

Bretts, you make a good point.

But it sounds you are evaluating the idea of going for it on fourth down and being stopped short. Turnover on downs.

Remember, KC had no timeouts left. So when the Ravens snapped the ball on this particular fourth down there was only :36. I don't know how much time would elapse on the rush attempt, and when the clock would be stopped for the change of possession. But I'm assuming that KC has basically one or two plays at most to move the ball 99 yards and score a TD, and they'd still have to convert two to beat the Ravens (which is what a road underdog does).

That result would have made the Bengals/Broncos ending seem routine.

I believe what was being debated earlier was the idea of kicking the ball on third down when there was still 1:22 on the clock. (KC called their final T.O. at 1:22 after McGahee took the ball on second down, down to the two). If you are kicking a FG in these situations you do it on third down, so if there is a bad snap you can still fall on the ball and line up and kick it again on fourth down.

If you are eschewing the idea of a 3rd down FG try, then you are back to kicking it on fourth down with :36 on the clock.

And under that scenario it's more dangerous to risk a kick getting blocked and returned the length of the field—compared to a rushing attempt that falls short and gives the KC the ball back with ~ :10 left in the game.

[Dena Raven]

They scored the TD, so it was the right call and although you may try to say it was wrong, the fact is the right call was made since we scored.

:iagree:

Obviously it was the right call...we scored didn't we? How can scoring a TD be wrong?

[psuasskicker]

They scored the TD, so it was the right call and although you may try to say it was wrong, the fact is the right call was made since we scored.

This is the most ass-backwards logic of all time. Results oriented thinking is never correct.

- C -

[Khaine]

Given the field position, play of the ST and time on the clock - I think it was the right call to make. If we didn't get in they would have to do a huellova long drive with little to no time to spare.

[Galen Sevinne]

http://necro-equine-sadism.com/beating-a-dead-horse.jpg

[Dave Lap]

For the remaining 99% of this board, the Ravens coaches and apparently the entire media, allow me to extend our gratitude to you Asskicker for being the beacon of objectivity in the football world. We would all be lost w/o you.

LOL! Although PSU's logic with the field goal vs. touchdown WAS interesting.

[bretts]

http://necro-equine-sadism.com/beating-a-dead-horse.jpg

i was about to say the same thing, and i could usually argue forever...

[Jeremiah W]

That was the right move based on the result alone.

The sketchy call was the non TD call the prior play. Willis had his entire torso in the endzone and did not get the call.

Harbs was about sick of the refs robbing us of points, plus it was safer than attempting a FG. The O line was moving them off the ball by a at least a yard almost every time.

[bretts]

That was the right move based on the result alone.

The sketchy call was the non TD call the prior play. Willis had his entire torso in the endzone and did not get the call.

Harbs was about sick of the refs robbing us of points, plus it was safer than attempting a FG. The O line was moving them off the ball by a at least a yard almost every time.

did you read what everyone has been saying? Your points have been made, as well as rebuttles. 4th and shorts get stopped far more often than a very short FG kick goes bad.

[Dade]

Why cant we just let this thread die? Lets just accept the fact we beat KC and move on to beating the Chargers.

[Jeremiah W]

did you read what everyone has been saying? Your points have been made, as well as rebuttles. 4th and shorts get stopped far more often than a very short FG kick goes bad.

Maybe in general with Stover as the kicker.

They already blocked a punt, our snapper has suddenly gone suspect and we have an untested kicker.

Our O line is also driving them 2 yards off the ball on the final drive.

They would also have to go 99 yards on the D if we failed the run, but less yards if we failed the kick and a disaster if they blocked it.

I think the coaches also wanted to let Willis get his TD for being a good role player and send a message to the O line and the team that we have more confidence in them, not that we have less in the kicking game, but that they can not stop us so why not go finish them?

I love it because it was not a win or lose choice, but it was important opportunity to be aggressive on O.

[psuasskicker]

did you read what everyone has been saying? Your points have been made, as well as rebuttles. 4th and shorts get stopped far more often than a very short FG kick goes bad.

That's not even close to the point anymore. The laughable stupidity of someone saying a decision was correct because the outcome was the desired one literally makes me shake my head. The fact that multiple people have made this argument makes me wonder if I've woken up in an alternate dimension.


Why cant we just let this thread die? Lets just accept the fact we beat KC and move on to beating the Chargers.

Dude. No one's forcing you to click the button to read it...

- C -

[Khaine]

That's not even close to the point anymore. The laughable stupidity of someone saying a decision was correct because the outcome was the desired one literally makes me shake my head. The fact that multiple people have made this argument makes me wonder if I've woken up in an alternate dimension.

- C -

What about those of us who say it was the right decision - not because it worked - but because it was the right decision?

[psuasskicker]

What about those of us who say it was the right decision - not because it worked - but because it was the right decision?

That's an opinion and it's what we're here to discuss. I don't think less of anyone that has this opinion...I just share a very different one. It makes for an interesting discussion, if nothing else.

The only issue I have is anyone trying to justify anything as the correct decision simply because it worked. That is never, EVER the way to measure whether someone made the right decision.

- C -

[Khaine]

That's an opinion and it's what we're here to discuss. I don't think less of anyone that has this opinion...I just share a very different one. It makes for an interesting discussion, if nothing else.

The only issue I have is anyone trying to justify anything as the correct decision simply because it worked. That is never, EVER the way to measure whether someone made the right decision.

- C -

Fair enough - I mentioned it, and I'm pretty sure a few others have also mentioned it as well but it may have been too blended with the 'it worked' crowd - but I'll try to articulate it again (something I'm not very good at in written word).

My opinion is it was a better option for a handful of reasons.
- after the blocked punt; our ST were possibly a little shaky, their ST was feeling fired up. Not to mention the possibility of if the FG goes bad - blocked - it can go from bad to abysmal as a run back is certanly not out of the question.
- Our Oline was playing rather well all game and had proven it was capable of moving the line. Especially with some of the jumbo / lopsided lines we had been running.
- If we made it it was pretty much the final coffin nail (better than a door nail).
- As one other poster posted recently it also makes a very good vote of confidence for our young Oline. They leave the game knowing they are growing together as a damn good looking group with potential for a very high ceiling.

I know there were other thoughts scattered in my brain but they (as most other thoughts) ran out like Rice on a well blocked screen pass.


- you troublemaker

[Jeremiah W]

How is the result not a valid factor in explaining the reasoning? It is the only real proof there is.

Obviously it can not be the only reason, but at the end of the day it is the most important. Had the Chiefs stopped us and gone 99 yards, it would have proved to be a bone head call, even though the reasoning was sound, the results would have made the call seem ridiculous anyway.

[effo5231]

How is the result not a valid factor in explaining the reasoning? It is the only real proof there is.

Obviously it can not be the only reason, but at the end of the day it is the most important. Had the Chiefs stopped us and gone 99 yards, it would have proved to be a bone head call, even though the reasoning was sound, the results would have made the call seem ridiculous anyway.

Results based reasoning doesn't work because let's say instead of running it in we chose to line Sam Koch up as the full back and Ngata as the QB. Stupid right? Well, let's just pretend we do it anyway. Ngata takes the snap, drops back and floats a duck to Koch in the flat.

Somehow, perhaps because they fell down laughing, the Chiefs don't stop Koch OR intercept even though it would have been laughably easy. TOUCHDOWN!

Now, results based thinking says that that play was the right decision. Afterall, it worked, but if we had done that (and I admit it's an extra stupid example that would never really happen) would people still be saying "It's was the right call because it worked!"?

[Dade]

I think I know why the majority of people perfer the run on 4th and goal vs a FG. We've watched years of the Ravens offense settle for FGs in the red zone. Years of not shuting the door on teams. How times have the Ravens traded FGs for TDs only to see the other team comeback? That may play a factor in some peoples thinking.

Me I just think going for the TD was the right call.

[hurting]

My opinion is it was a better option for a handful of reasons.

- after the blocked punt; our ST were possibly a little shaky, their ST was feeling fired up. Not to mention the possibility of if the FG goes bad - blocked - it can go from bad to abysmal as a run back is certanly not out of the question.
- Our Oline was playing rather well all game and had proven it was capable of moving the line. Especially with some of the jumbo / lopsided lines we had been running.
- If we made it it was pretty much the final coffin nail (better than a door nail).
- As one other poster posted recently it also makes a very good vote of confidence for our young Oline. They leave the game knowing they are growing together as a damn good looking group with potential for a very high ceiling.

I know there were other thoughts scattered in my brain but they (as most other thoughts) ran out like Rice on a well blocked screen pass.


- you troublemaker


Wow, this is an interesting thread. I am on the side that it was the right decision. And, i think the points of this being the right decision have been made from both sides of the argument.

PSU, even though you think it is the wrong decision you gave a very valid point as to why it is the right decision. It was an indightment on the special teams. This is valid even if it was not the entire basis of the decision.

One thing I wanted to add and I have added the bold above is; we have to consider the decision based on the teams involved and the circumstances.

Our running game was dominant, our defense was playing very good for the most part, and our special teams unit was shaky.

The Chiefs offense was mediocre and their special teams was doing well.


It appears the argument based on stastical probabilty for the outcomes of each scenario are being made based on past statistics. Yes the probability of Any team having a blocked kick from the 8 yard line is extremely low, and the probablility for any team makling the TD on 4th and one and not terrific.

But this was the Ravens running offense agianst the Cheifs Defense. So based on these teams the probabity in each scenario is altered based on the situation.

This makes sense to me, but as i look back to read it, it sounds like i am a rambling lunatic.

any way there it is.


.

[psuasskicker]

- you troublemaker

I do my best. :thumbup:


We've watched years of the Ravens offense settle for FGs in the red zone. Years of not shuting the door on teams. How times have the Ravens traded FGs for TDs only to see the other team comeback? That may play a factor in some peoples thinking.

If there was 3 minutes left, sure. But a FG closes the door on that team just as much as a TD does. This shouldn't be a factor here.

- C -

[shaslers]

Sorry for again pushing this to the top, but I just wanted to comment on the whole "right decision because it led to the right result" argument.

While I was at no point making this argument myself, I would say that the people who are making that argument are 100% right.

Here's why. If in life you are ever facing a tough decision, and you choose a path that leads to the desired outcome, wouldn't you simply say you made the right decision? In fact, who is to say there was even a "wrong" decision to be made by Harbaugh?

Okay, there are limits to the argument. I can choose to drive drunk, and make it home without crashing or getting arrested, but that doesn't make it a good decision. I get that.

But that's not really what's being debated here. No one has really laid how Harbaugh put the game at risk with his decision. No one has made a convincing case that his decision could have easily blown up on him.

So what we're left with is a whole lot of low-risk decisions, any one of which could have led to securing the win, and therefore any one of which could be termed the right decision.

Whether he kicked it, or ran it, or even passed it in for the score it could have been right. Hell, he could have had Flacco hand it to Mark Clayton and let Clayton run 95 yards for a safety, and you could not say it was the wrong decision. Okay, that last one would have been a little like driving drunk.

But let's not pretend this was a black or white, bad or good choice and Harbaugh chose black. Almost every option was a good option.

We're not debating black and white, right or wrong. We're debating degree of risk. Among all the good-choices before him, what was the least-risky decision for Harbaugh?

That's certainly debatable. We've certainly argued to death the relative risk of blocked kicks, versus turnovers on downs followed by length of field drives, versus McGahee fumbles, etc.

I think it's safe to say that all of these risks were low and I think the length of the thread suggests there is no clear choice that stands out as tremendously riskier than the others.

Filmstudy is a pro at assessing risk. Maybe he has a different opinion.

Barring that, I'm going to say Harbaugh chose to make one of the many good decisions available to him.

[psuasskicker]

I just wanted to comment on the whole "right decision because it led to the right result" argument.

While I was at no point making this argument myself, I would say that the people who are making that argument are 100% right.

No. That's not right. Not ever. One poster already gave a good example of this.

Let's take a more empirical example.

I have a normal, standard, Vegas legal six sided die. You would like to make a bet with me to win the most money that you can win. I give you two options.

You can bet $100 to my $100 that you will roll exactly a 6.

Or you can bet $100 to my $100 that you will roll anything except a 6.

You choose the first. You roll a 6.

You chose the "right" bet there???

No, you most certainly did not.

Results never, ever, EVER help to determine if the right decision was made. Not once ever.

- C -

[shaslers]

No. That's not right. Not ever. One poster already gave a good example of this.

Let's take a more empirical example.

I have a normal, standard, Vegas legal six sided die. You would like to make a bet with me to win the most money that you can win. I give you two options.

You can bet $100 to my $100 that you will roll exactly a 6.

Or you can bet $100 to my $100 that you will roll anything except a 6.

You choose the first. You roll a 6.

You chose the "right" bet there???

No, you most certainly did not.

Results never, ever, EVER help to determine if the right decision was made. Not once ever.

- C -

You clearly did not read or comprehend my point. Try to focus on the idea of "right" being a black or white issue, and how that is different than risk, which is a relative term. Your argument has nothing to do with "right" you are making the "risk" argument, as I've described in. In that context your point is correct.

As I've stated, right or wrong should not be the question, however.

[Jeremiah W]

We are also not talking strickly odds. You can not ignore the eye ball test that said they can not stop us from getting 1 foot. We had been moving the interior tackles off the ball. If they had Haynesworth over there, we most likely kick the FG. If if was a spliff we would all be high. You can not prove a right result was wrong based on irrelavent examples about rolling a 6 sided object or taking the FNL as a whole and crunching some numbers. The % chance the Ravens blew KC off the ball and got the 1 foot was 99-100 and you can not prove other wise. They had 1 tackle for loss on a run play out of 40, but that was on Rice and Willis is 20 pounds bigger.

The run right before that got more than enough yardage and the D was one play more tired and deflated. I can not see any evidence they could have stopped us 1 out of 6 times, much less that we only would have made 1 out of 6, when even then they have to go 99 yards.

[psuasskicker]

You clearly did not read or comprehend my point. Try to focus on the idea of "right" being a black or white issue, and how that is different than risk, which is a relative term. Your argument has nothing to do with "right" you are making the "risk" argument, as I've described in. In that context your point is correct.

As I've stated, right or wrong should not be the question, however.

Then you're talking about a different concept. Your argument clearly states that the right "decision" was made. That simply isn't correct. Your point was that "the right outcome was achieved." That's a logical and very valid point.

However, regardless of what point you had, you cannot say that the right decision was made because the outcome was the desired outcome. This isn't just a semantics issue. It's a big deal. I can argue your points till I'm blue in the face that you made the "right decision" on that die roll because it landed six so you maximized the money you earned. You still didn't make the right decision.

There is a HUGE difference between making a correct decision and achieving a desired outcome. It simply should not be okay to just talk about them as though the latter has anything to do with the former...it's not correct to do so.

- C -

[shaslers]

Furthermore, in your example laid out, I bet that I would roll a six, and I rolled a six. I was "right." 100% right.

I was right, but I was not smart. It was dumb to make the riskier bet, even though it was the right bet. Sometimes you bet on a longshot and your hunch is "right."

That's why people are making the argument they are making.

It's a terminology problem, here.

Harbaugh made the right call because the dice came up as he predicted they would.

We could go back to arguing the relative odds he was betting on. I think most would agree that his decision was not as risky as betting on "6."

I would argue that Harbaugh was betting that the die he rolled would come up as a number and not balance on its edge.

So, you see, it is a semantics issue. To most people right = correct. You are treating it as if right = good, or right = smart. Or right = no risk.

Anyway, after five pages I'll leave it at that and if we haven't found common ground, no sweat.

[bretts]

In this situation there were two logical choices. run the ball or kick a FG.

Kick a FG:
make it and put the game away up two scores.
get blocked/bad snap and a) KC has a long field or b) they return the block
miss the fg

run it:
get the td and put the game away up two scores
get stopped and give them a chance to tie
fumble a) return for td b) give them long field to tie


Both working resulting in putting the game away.

the odds of a run not working vs the FG not working were much higher. 4th and shorts get stopped all the time. extra point distance FGs do not.

thats the odds game. i dont think anyone can argue that. now as far as motivational reasons, i get it. but feel like securing a win was more important than making Willis and the o line feel good about themselves. (although it is important and there is a time and a place)

[shaslers]

the odds of a run not working vs the FG not working were much higher. 4th and shorts get stopped all the time. extra point distance FGs do not.

This was discussed earlier. You're right on that point. But simply stopping the run would not have beaten the Ravens. McGahee took the handoff with :36 and the Chiefs had no timeouts. Simply stopping the run was not even the half of it. They would still have to march the length of the field in probably :10 and score (and go for two?). That sort of Broncos v. Bengals result is about as rare as a missed 20 yard field goal. Maybe rarer.

If the Ravens were down by one and the choice was run it or kick it, of course they kick it. But given that a failed run was still relatively without risk, there isn't much to complain about.

[pyite32]

In this situation there were two logical choices. run the ball or kick a FG.

Kick a FG:
make it and put the game away up two scores.
get blocked/bad snap and a) KC has a long field or b) they return the block
miss the fg

run it:
get the td and put the game away up two scores
get stopped and give them a chance to tie
fumble a) return for td b) give them long field to tie


Both working resulting in putting the game away.

the odds of a run not working vs the FG not working were much higher. 4th and shorts get stopped all the time. extra point distance FGs do not.

thats the odds game. i dont think anyone can argue that. now as far as motivational reasons, i get it. but feel like securing a win was more important than making Willis and the o line feel good about themselves. (although it is important and there is a time and a place)


I understand your argument, but sometimes you can't just look at it purely based on statistics. If you were watching the game you would see that KC's D line was getting knocked off the ball consistently on short yardage plays.

Harbaugh made the safest, and most "were badasses you can't stop us" call he could and I agree with it 100%

Reading your post is kind of funny b/c you started a Billick hatred post, and your kind of thinking is exactly the same as Billick's when he kicked a field goal in Miami 2 years ago that led to us being their only win...

[bretts]

This was discussed earlier. You're right on that point. But simply stopping the run would not have beaten the Ravens. McGahee took the handoff with :36 and the Chiefs had no timeouts. Simply stopping the run was not even the half of it. They would still have to march the length of the field in probably :10 and score (and go for two?). That sort of Broncos v. Bengals result is about as rare as a missed 20 yard field goal. Maybe rarer.

If the Ravens were down by one and the choice was run it or kick it, of course they kick it. But given that a failed run was still relatively without risk, there isn't much to complain about.

when a forth and short fails, the clock stops, i dont thing is would have turned into a :20 run.

i know they would have had a difficult time scoring, but running gave them that chance. a field goal would have put us up two scores. i didnt understand why we gave them the chance to tie when a extra point length field goal would 99.9% of the time put the game away.

[bretts]

I understand your argument, but sometimes you can't just look at it purely based on statistics. If you were watching the game you would see that KC's D line was getting knocked off the ball consistently on short yardage plays.

Harbaugh made the safest, and most "were badasses you can't stop us" call he could and I agree with it 100%

Reading your post is kind of funny b/c you started a Billick hatred post, and your kind of thinking is exactly the same as Billick's when he kicked a field goal in Miami 2 years ago that led to us being their only win...

I didn't start a Billick hatred thread..... must have been someone else.

if Billick would have gone for the td and not gotten it, it would have had the same result and you may be on the other side of this argument.

[Jeremiah W]

In this situation there were two logical choices. run the ball or kick a FG.

Kick a FG:
make it and put the game away up two scores.
get blocked/bad snap and a) KC has a long field or b) they return the block
miss the fg

run it:
get the td and put the game away up two scores
get stopped and give them a chance to tie
fumble a) return for td b) give them long field to tie


Both working resulting in putting the game away.

the odds of a run not working vs the FG not working were much higher. 4th and shorts get stopped all the time. extra point distance FGs do not.

thats the odds game. i dont think anyone can argue that. now as far as motivational reasons, i get it. but feel like securing a win was more important than making Willis and the o line feel good about themselves. (although it is important and there is a time and a place)

In gneral the FG is the safer option, but maybe not for the Ravens that day at that time. The kicker already missed one and we had a punt blocked. The special teams were not as solid as the statistical average Sunday.

Then there is 4th and 1 foot in the 1st Q of a 1 score game vs a bad run D and top ranked run O, and then there is 4th Q when they have been out there for 40 mins and just gave up a TD the play before that was somehow not confirmed on replay.

There are plenty of situations where we would have kicked the FG, but with all things factored it turned out to be a great move (especially if you bet on the Ravens to cover).

[pyite32]

I didn't start a Billick hatred thread..... must have been someone else.

if Billick would have gone for the td and not gotten it, it would have had the same result and you may be on the other side of this argument.

Oh, sorry I thought it was you. I didn't fact check first.

I disagree. I wanted Billick to go for that TD in Miami, and I wouldn't have second guessed him if he tried and failed. I felt like Miami had all the momentum at that point in the game and we would lose in OT if we kicked the FG. Just looking at the way the game was going I made my choice which gives me the right to second guess the choice that he made.

[4G63]

Holy shit, guys....lets calm down and back away from the keyboards!

You guys are taking this call waaaaay too serious.

[Khaine]

This makes sense to me, but as i look back to read it, it sounds like i am a rambling lunatic.

.
Damn, are you trying to take my place in the forums?


In gneral the FG is the safer option, but maybe not for the Ravens that day at that time.
I think (aside from typos) that sums it up.
It was the right call based on the play of the two teams on that play on that day.