I think you mean like one Mahomes ago.

Yea, decisions to go for it and generally be aggressive come much easier when you have one of the best QBs to ever play along with probably a top 10 talent of skill players of all time.

Reid was always a good strategist, but like belicheck he will make bonehead ingame decisions

Edit: oh yea, unless you're fat mike

Also Mahomes refuses to come off the field in close situations and stands there like "Let's go!" - making Reid's call easier.

Same goes for late game situations. Mahomes usually knows exactly when and when not to call a TO - leaving Reid only half the time to potentially screw up when we're on D.

A tale of two brains. On one side you have Michael Florio and Tony Dungy, the other you have some ESPN analytics guy I've never heard of. The results are what you'd expect.

My favorite part of Florio's nonsense article is when he sarcastically suggests that maybe going for 2 early was McCarthy using a "Jedi mind trick" on the Falcons making them more likely to recover the onside kick. As if him & Dungy's ENTIRE argument for kicking the XP first isn't wholy intangible/feel based (the opposing team will play "more nervous" up 8 instead of up 9).

lol coaches always and forever

It's a trend. He's been making the correct decisions all year so far. And if the decision is close, he's still going for the more aggressive decision (which is likely slightly +ev). He went for it on 4th and 3 in game 1 in the fourth quarter in field goal range when he was down by 3 points. I'm guessing that's slightly the correct call, but it has to be very very close (they didn't convert).

I was skeptical that he was just spouting off about studying analytics in his barn to get a new job. But so far he's actually following it. He's getting killed by dumbass sports radio media for his decisions who are too dumb to understand why it's the correct play. A few get it, but most don't. But I don't think that will make him change his philosophy. At least I hope not.

While it's obviously bad logic vs. good logic in this discussion I'm not sure it's absolutely clear that more information helps the trailer more than the leader in this spot. Couldn't you argue the Falcons knowing it's 7 vs. 9 helps them more? They're the team that's about to have the ball and the ones that get to first make the playcalling decisions on that info. Note Dallas still kicked off.

I've yet to see anyone show why going 4th and 3 was the correct call.

And going for 2 down 9 in 4th qtr is far less important than going for 2 down 8. Let's see what Fat Mike does when that happens.

The general rule: unless there is some prevailing reason otherwise, procrastinating should be the preferred action. Acting last is generally better than acting first. So, all things being equal going for 2 down 9 is likely not as good as kicking XP and deferring the decision.

What does the winning team do differently up 7 vs 9? Their goal is to run clock and hope to get a first down to win no matter what. Maybe if you know it's 9 you can be even more conservative and value running clock over the first down, but there is a limit on how much time the leading team can burn while the trailing team has the option between going fast and waiting until the very end of the game to score when they get the ball back.

Also since no one has mentioned it in anything I've seen, one other benefit of going for 2 first is that if you make it then score again, you have the ability to go for two again and win! depending on how the game is playing out that might be a good choice to have.

So lets say Fat Mike kicks the xp and Cowboys are down 8.
Cowboys get the ball back after a punt and drive down to the 20 yard line with 2 minutes to go.

Do they try to score right away to save time in case they need another drive but potentially give Atlanta time to score? Or do they take their time and score in the last few seconds, to prevent Atlanta from scoring but potentially ruining the chance for an onside kick and fg attempt?

If they go for 2 and are down 7 or down 9 they know exactly what to do with 2 minutes left at the 20.

In all the talk of FM's "good" decisions I'm shocked there's no talk of how he played that last drive after recovering the onside and then the long pass to Ceedee with a relative ton of time left. Seemed like classic head coach derp where apparently a 46yd FG is 99% to convert or something. Falcons even stopped the clock for em to give them extra time to...do nothing.

2nd & 10 at DAL 46
(1:43 - 4th) (Shotgun) D.Prescott pass short right to C.Lamb to ATL 30 for 24 yards (D.Kazee).

1st & 10 at ATL 30
(1:15 - 4th) (No Huddle, Shotgun) E.Elliott left tackle to ATL 28 for 2 yards (A.Bailey).

(0:58 - 4th) Injury Timeout by ATL at 00:58.

2nd & 8 at ATL 28
(0:42 - 4th) E.Elliott right tackle to ATL 28 for no gain (J.Tuioti-Mariner).

3rd & 8 at ATL 28
(0:05 - 4th) D.Prescott spiked the ball to stop the clock.

4th & 8 at ATL 28
(0:00 - 4th) Greg Zuerlein 46 Yd Field Goal

Run then spike is the only "safe" way to make sure they don't get the ball back with ~25 or more seconds I think (assuming no timeouts) . Fake injury timeout may have been an excellent angle

Could false start or something on the spike and lose which will happen eventually if not already.

Yeah it's fine to run given the risk of dropped passes and giving the ball back in a lame spot.

Falcons stop is also the clear right play to hope they pass on 3rd, fail incomplete and then have 30 seconds to win the game (which is definitely non-zero with their offence).

I feel like there's some results orientation going on here. If Zuerlein doinks the kick off the left upright, are you guys in here saying "wow that was tough luck, but nothing they could do, they sure did have to be sure to not leave :25 on the clock for Atlanta to march back down the field", or are you saying "lolol Fat Mike forever?" Be honest.

It's being results oriented giving reasons to support a decision, or you agree giving the Falcons the ball back with 25 seconds is worse than not at all? I agree shorter field goals are better than longer field goals.

Fair, I get that no one was saying it was clearly correct as played or anything.

I guess the thing would be to quantify how much FG% equity you gain by trying to get another, say, 8-10yd vs. the chances of giving up a FG with the extra time. I realize Zuerlein's solid and it may not be much of a difference.

I will make fun of teams settling for a long fg too, but its also results oriented to assume the falcons defense stopping elliott for no gain is the most likely outcome

I'm sure one can construct permutations which support one decision over another. What happens if opposing team plays stupidly and gets safety, so I am down either 6 (deferring) or down 5/7 (not deferring)?

A team never knows with certainty what to do unless it is the last play.

You guys are trolling, right? If not, what are you even doing in this thread?

Lol wut?

If given a choice, deferring action is generally better than acting first, assuming deferring/acting first have comparatively equal value.

ok but the whole point is that they do not have equal value

Who is stupide, Quinn or the man that continues to employ Quinn?