Maybe Doug Pederson wasn’t asinine after all
Anything that is not “conventional” wisdom gets mocked in the NFL. Until it becomes conventional wisdom and you get mocked for not doing it.
Former Kansas City offensive coordinator Doug Pederson is receiving a ton of flack in NFL circles for his passive approach to the end of Saturday’s Divisional Round contest at New England.
Down a pair of touchdowns, Kansas City, with Pederson calling plays, methodically moved the ball down the field midway through the fourth quarter, eventually scoring with less than two minutes remaining. Throughout the drive, the Chiefs took their time.
“It took us time because No. 1, we did not want to give [Patriots QB] Tom Brady the ball back,’’ said Pederson.
The Chiefs preferred strategy, it appears, was to score a touchdown, recover an onside kick, and score the equalizer. This was preferred over an earlier touchdown and a traditional kickoff.
In the aftermath of Kansas City’s loss, Pederson’s comment has been ridiculed as the worst answer ever, as well as senseless. That was my instinct, too…
View original post 190 more words
Posted on January 20, 2016, in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. 2 Comments.
So apparently historical late-game lead preservation rates are predictive on a per-QB basis? That’s news to me.
Also, expected onside kicks are nowhere near the 20% success rate he quotes from 2009. Major rule change since then…
“Asinine” remains the correct description of how the Chiefs handled the situation.
It’s probably some what predictive, though I wouldn’t imagine it is a very strong predictive relationship. Do you have evidence that this is, in fact, not true?
What is the success rate for onside’s kicks since the rule change? Do you know where I can find that?
Thanks for reading!