Chiefs should go for 2 here

[rm18]

[gm2022]

[daggerkobe]

They did and they failed.

[Dbldown11]

they did.....but they shouldnt have

[rm18]

chance of conversion is about 45%, winning in OT about 35% I think

[nysmoneyman]

herm has them playing better

why not take your chances in OT

bad call

[Robust]

wouldn't matter.. KC +14.5!

finally got a break after ten and Ind messed me up..

Robust

[Dbldown11]

how do you figure that a team winning in overtime is 35%???? considering that there are 2 teams and one of them has to win, unless there is a tie, which happens like once every 5 years

[The Seer]

That was stupid as fukk. They barely got in from there to score the TD. They were moving the ball fine. They should have tied it up and went to OT.

[Kingctb27]

Horrible call

[Keith Richard]

Edwards is a loser and of course he did everything he could to lose this game at the end. Going all or nothing on the 2pt. conversion doesn't make sense.

[donjuan]

how do you figure that a team winning in overtime is 35%???? considering that there are 2 teams and one of them has to win, unless there is a tie, which happens like once every 5 years

It's not 35% but it's not 50%. You do understand that the Chargers are a better team than the Chiefs and were at home, right?

[Dbldown11]

the chargers are better than the chiefs????/I think that's highly debatable haha

[Dbldown11]

any coach that says we need to take our chances on this one play because if we get the ball in OT we cant score, and if they get the ball in OT we cant stop them doesnt deserve to coach....

Probably why Herm wont be coaching much longer

[donjuan]

the chargers are better than the chiefs????/I think that's highly debatable haha

No it's not debatable at all. Do you have to make retarded comments in every thread?

any coach that says we need to take our chances on this one play because if we get the ball in OT we cant score, and if they get the ball in OT we cant stop them doesnt deserve to coach....

Was Chris Petersen stupid to go for 2 against Oklahoma in the 2007 Fiesta Bowl?

[daggerkobe]

It's not 35% but it's not 50%. You do understand that the Chargers are a better team than the Chiefs and were at home, right?

Doesn't matter.

Whoever wins the coin flip and gets the ball first wins at a higher rate.

[rm18]

how do you figure that a team winning in overtime is 35%???? considering that there are 2 teams and one of them has to win, unless there is a tie, which happens like once every 5 years

What do you think a line on which team will score first pregame looked like? This is not exactly the same scenario, but 14 point home favorite should win at home at a pretty high clip. I would of layed over -200 if the Chargers won the coin toss in OT.

[rm18]

Doesn't matter.

Whoever wins the coin flip and gets the ball first wins at a higher rate.

Not if they are 14 point dogs, Chargers win well over 50% in this case

[Dbldown11]

No Don Juan first of all my first comment was a joke...Thus the HAHA you ****....

Secondly you are an idiot to use a college football example when we are discussing an NFL overtime seeing how the two are VASTLY DIFFERENT....so you sir are the one making idiotic statements....

And just to get this straight how exactly can you tell me that it is a fact that the Chargers are better than the Chiefs? Please give me factual evidence to support that you ****ing idiot

[daggerkobe]

From the 2000 through 2007 regular seasons, there have been 124 overtime games. In every single game except one (I believe), the team that won the toss elected to receive. And those receiving teams won 60% of the time (and tied once). That's a relatively large advantage, particularly when compared to home field advantage.

Home teams have only won 51% of OT games. The weakness of HFA isn't too surprising given the way it diminishes throughout a game. It's strongest in the 1st quarter and then diminishes through subsequent quarters until it's almost non-existent in OT. Fans are presumably at their most involved at this point in a game, which suggests crowd involvement is not the primary source of HFA.

The dreaded 'lose-the-coin-toss-never-touch-the-ball' scenario happened in 37 out of the 124 OT periods, or about 30% of all overtime games. That's too often in my opinion. The NFL's current sudden death format can be exciting and lead to quick resolutions. But if almost 1 out of 3 games is over before the unlucky coin toss loser even touches the ball, a lot of teams and fans are going to be left with a bitter and empty feeling.

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2008/10/how-important-is-coin-flip-in-ot.html

[Dbldown11]

No people what you are missing is that it is a joke that the chargers were 14 points favorites in the first place. They have not done shit this entire season but prove they are not very good, and the Cheifs have played much much better lately

[rm18]

Whenever you are the inferior team it always is in your best interest to make the game come down to as few plays as possible

[daggerkobe]

Not if they are 14 point dogs, Chargers win well over 50% in this case

Doesn't matter.

Rams won in OT at Wash as 14 pt dogs, didn't they?

NM... it was in regulation. But goes to show that DD dogs do win.

[Dbldown11]

why is everyone so quick to claim the chargers as a far superior team to the chiefs??? i have seen no evidence this season to support that

[rm18]

From the 2000 through 2007 regular seasons, there have been 124 overtime games. In every single game except one (I believe), the team that won the toss elected to receive. And those receiving teams won 60% of the time (and tied once). That's a relatively large advantage, particularly when compared to home field advantage.

Home teams have only won 51% of OT games. The weakness of HFA isn't too surprising given the way it diminishes throughout a game. It's strongest in the 1st quarter and then diminishes through subsequent quarters until it's almost non-existent in OT. Fans are presumably at their most involved at this point in a game, which suggests crowd involvement is not the primary source of HFA.

The dreaded 'lose-the-coin-toss-never-touch-the-ball' scenario happened in 37 out of the 124 OT periods, or about 30% of all overtime games. That's too often in my opinion. The NFL's current sudden death format can be exciting and lead to quick resolutions. But if almost 1 out of 3 games is over before the unlucky coin toss loser even touches the ball, a lot of teams and fans are going to be left with a bitter and empty feeling.

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2008...lip-in-ot.html

Ok but do you understand that the larger the spread the less likely overtime is? Probably 90% of those examples are a dog 7 points or less.

How do you think the Chiefs scoring % after a kickoff compares to the average NFL team?

[Dbldown11]

rm18's.....just because the chargers were 14 point favorites doesnt mean they have a better chance to win in OT....The chiefs scored first in this game didnt they???\

They led for a vast majority of the game didnt they??? That spread was an absolute joke

[donjuan]

Doesn't matter.

Whoever wins the coin flip and gets the ball first wins at a higher rate.

In general, yes. Let's put it this way. If you played NFL overtime rules and put Long Beach Poly HS against the Chargers, would the Chargers be more than 55% to win the game?

Doesn't matter.

Rams won in OT at Wash as 14 pt dogs, didn't they?

We get that you don't understand the concept of a percentage. Back to your hole.

[donjuan]

No people what you are missing is that it is a joke that the chargers were 14 points favorites in the first place. They have not done this entire season but prove they are not very good, and the Cheifs have played much much better lately

NFL lines aren't inefficient by 14 points.

No Don Juan first of all my first comment was a joke...Thus the HAHA you ****....

It was hilarious. Can't wait to see your special on Comedy Central.

Secondly you are an idiot to use a college football example when we are discussing an NFL overtime seeing how the two are VASTLY DIFFERENT....so you sir are the one making idiotic statements....

You obviously have reasoning skills approaching the level of a pre-schooler and can't understand an analogy. That's OK, but maybe you should stick to coloring. Just remember that elephants aren't orange.

And just to get this straight how exactly can you tell me that it is a fact that the Chargers are better than the Chiefs? Please give me factual evidence to support that you ****ing idiot

Factual evidence? I'll start with closing NFL point spreads not being off by 14 points.

[Dbldown11]

Don Juan the point is that if the game goes to OT the teams played pretty evenly throughout the entire game.....you are the one assuming that out of nowhere the "better" team will suddenly start outplaying the "inferior" team.

[Dbldown11]

Please tell me Don Juan how an analogy using a college football OT game, compares when discussing an NFL game.

Dont talk to me like I'm the idiot. You sir are the one making all these drastic ignorant assumptions, and using analogys that do not fit

[Crayzee]

that was great

saved me the under 24 second half

[rm18]

Doesn't matter.

Rams won in OT at Wash as 14 pt dogs, didn't they?

NM... it was in regulation. But goes to show that DD dogs do win.

There is variance that exists. Do you understand that this team lost 47-3 today to a team inferior to the Redskins? The Chiefs did not cover +14.5 at home against Oakland. If they play next week the line is still 12 points at least.

[daggerkobe]

In general, yes. Let's put it this way. If you played NFL overtime rules and put Long Beach Poly HS against the Chargers, would the Chargers be more than 55% to win the game?

Wow, this is the dumbest argument I have ever heard in my entire life.

Why even bother with hypotheticals when there are clear FACTUAL evidence that disproves your assinine theory? Because you can't admit when you're wrong. Gotcha.

[rm18]

Please tell me Don Juan how an analogy using a college football OT game, compares when discussing an NFL game.

Dont talk to me like I'm the idiot. You sir are the one making all these drastic ignorant assumptions, and using analogys that do not fit

Like I said you want it to come down to as few plays as possible. It is why you will see Maryland playing slow if they are leading North Carolina in basketball or why Boise went for 2. In general 2 point conversions are 50% either way, obviously overtime is 50% as an average. So one play for the game gives the dog a better chance than an OT that averages 15 plays or so.

[daggerkobe]

There is variance that exists. Do you understand that this team lost 47-3 today to a team inferior to the Redskins? The Chiefs did not cover +14.5 at home against Oakland. If they play next week the line is still 12 points at least.

Listen.... I already posted a FACT that disproves what you are saying.

From the 2000 through 2007 regular seasons, there have been 124 overtime games. In every single game except one (I believe), the team that won the toss elected to receive. And those receiving teams won 60% of the time (and tied once). That's a relatively large advantage, particularly when compared to home field advantage.

You can continue to disagree with it or not, it's up to you. But my position is backed up with facts.