For most of the season Kansas City has been the only team to stop Kansas City. And Sunday, those execution errors resurfaced along with some failure of in-game strategy.
Great rationale as always Seth. This GAME! THIS PARTICULAR GAME!!!! I hope the team can put it behind them easier than us fans are because it is KILLING ME! I'd have rather lost 44-13 I think than play John Dorsey (cuda/wuda/shuda) for the past two days.
I agree with you on all points (as I often do). I hope they eliminate the coverage errors and missed tackles on defense and the drops on offense because I do not expect them to learn anything from this and change their tactics on either side of the ball, despite the huge cost this loss likely had. A bye in the playoffs is gold.
They've spent the entire back half of the season not having those same coverage and tackling issues, so I'd HOPE that was just a bad game against high-level competition.
And yeah, losing that bye week is so tough. We'll see what Week 18 holds!
Great analysis once again. I actually think this defeat happening now might be a blessing in disguise. Better to have these errors happen now than in the playoffs.
I was watching with my mom who isn't a football fan. And even she was asking why we didn't let them score on that last drive. She got BIG mad at them. It was funny, despite the frustration
I'm afraid this is who Andy Reid is. His game management has always been questionable. That Hitchens quote frustrates me because they were only planning on letting them score when it was so obvious that Cincy shouldn't score. With tactical decisions, you need to be one step ahead of your opponent. Reid has always been this way. I wonder if anyone has ever looked at Reid's propensity for conservative playcalling in the second ha...oh my goodness!
I'd call tactical decisions like that different than play calling. His clock management, 4th down, and other "Madden" tactics have always been suspect. The idea that he's a more conservative play caller late is less true :). I'll never forget the misplaced ire for the Titans game lol.
Appreciate the analysis, as always. One point I'd like to play coach's advocate on–the decision to not let the Bengals score. Things actually worked out quite well until the penalty on 4th down. The Chiefs stopped them and would have had the ball with a chance to get a field goal to win. The stop was quite impressive (and despite Tony Romo's musing, we can be fairly certain the Bengals were indeed trying to score) and the defense isn't getting any love for it. If that penalty on 4th down doesn't happen, I wonder if we're even having a conversation about the option to "freeway." What do you think?
Exactly. It was a good call but the defenders were getting so handsy. Try to defend the score but for the love of everything good in this world do not commit a penalty, it's better to score. And again, the defenders could've had this mentality, and we'dve had the ball and been able to mass push the ball away from the endzone. No score is great, get the tie, but do not do not do not give them a new set of downs. As much as most people say it was a bad call, the DB's should've been on notice that they would not get away with any contact with that officiating crew. Reid trusted them to know this and they toed the line too close and lost the game. If he had called freeway at 2:00 that would've been crushing to the defense's spirits, and Andy's sensitive to that. They need to be aware in return.
I would not let the outcome influence your decision. The odds of scoring from 1st and goal from the 1 are so high that time becomes a much bigger factor than how many points you have to score. According to one study, 85% chance of scoring a TD and 95% chance of scoring at all. So a 1 in 20 chance they don't score. What are the odds Mahomes can score a TD with 2 min and 2 TO? Higher than 5% I'm sure. But that likelihood drops quickly with less time on the clock.
When Reid made that decision, I was on board, partly because my gut agreed with your math. I felt like there was an 85% chance we'd be down by 7 regardless, and a 10% chance we'd be down by 3, with some amount of time and timeouts between 2 minutes and 2 timeouts (in the event they scored on 1st down) and 50 seconds/0 timeouts (in the event we made a goal line stand on 3rd/4th down). And I kinda *preferred* less time on the clock, because I believed Mahomes would drive us down the field regardless, and didn't want to leave time for Burrow/Chase to answer back with a long strike.
What my gut failed to account for was, within that probability distribution was an unlikely, but still plausible scenario that wasn't accounted for in my mental calculations: an additional first down that allowed the Bengals to end the game without us getting the ball again. That tail risk (which was probably on the order of 5%, hidden within the 95% odds of scoring a TD or FG) came back to bite us.
Eh... Even in the BEST case scenario there (assuming you can somehow stop someone on 3 straight downs, which is highlight unlikely, particularly when one factors in the possibility of penalties/etc), the Chiefs then get the ball back down 3 with under a minute left and no timeouts.
I personally might prefer being down 7 with 2 minutes left and having 2 timeouts. It's a MUCH more manageable position to be in clock-wise. I'm back and forth on it.
But I think it's more notable that the BEST case scenario is only arguably better than the scenario you can guarantee if you let them score and you're not guaranteed it the way you are the "let them score" scenario. You might stop them on 1st down but not 2nd down, and now you're still down a TD but have lost a TO and another 5-8 seconds. Or you stop them on 1st/2nd but not 3rd down and you're still down a TD but are out BOTH timeouts and about 10-15 seconds.
In other words, by allowing them to score once they've hit that 1st down, you guarantee an outcome you know you can live with and you also "block" a bunch of potentially much worse results. By trying to go for an unlikely result you are maybe getting a slightly better result (again, maybe, I'm not totally convinced it's that much better given the time and timeouts) but also leaving the door open for a whole slew of worse results.
BUT if the penalties on 4th didn't happen the Chiefs had the ball with a tied game. Isn't that the best case scenario? No points given up and the ball in hand?
I understand that outcome was incredibly unlikely but it actually happened twice if not for penalties; 1) 0:58 4th and 1 - holding on Ward but negated with offensive holding, 2) 0:50 4th and 1 illegal use of hands on Sneed.
At any rate, at what point should the defense concede in terms of time remaining and timeouts remaining? One of our stat nerds needs to come through with a slightly variable cut-off point. In this particular instance the Bengals had the ball 1st and goal from the 1 at the 2:00 minute warning and the Chiefs had two timeouts remaining.
Maybe the best way to figure it is to find an average of drive times with timeouts required and work backwards?
What you said!!! So damn frustrating on so many plays and so many levels. Add all this to why Spags never decided to double team the record setting receiver previously discussed *steam coming out of ears* Thanks
I was screaming at the TV to let them score as soon as they got the first down at the one. But that whole sequence reminded me of the Raiders game in which the refs were determined to give the Raiders as many downs as necessary to get the winning score. That may have to to do with the aggressive form of man coverage Spags teaches but those ticky tack penalties seem to get called much more often against the Chiefs than their opponents. A conspiracy theorist might say the Shield had a plan for the playoffs and brought in a ringer ref to make it happen. Not that I personally would ever suspect such a thing.
In real time I was made at Ward for not diving at Chase's feet. Watching this gif, I'm mad at him for not flying to the football. You can't just assume someone else is going to make the tackle. Grrr.
The coaching decisions are made much easier by proper execution. Burrow was good, but also got help from his receivers. Had Hill and Kelce each made another catch, our coaches would likely not have been put in excruciating situations. If the defense makes tackles (it looked like a combination of lack of focus, under estimating their opponent and at times lack of effort), a different discussion would be had. It is clear that this coaching staff needed to be placed in this situation, so maybe there is sunlight behind the clouds currently engulfing us. Hopefully, we will be laughing about this on February 13th about 9 P.M. But getting guys healthy and keeping them that way just got harder. Also, and I'm struggling to let this go: Chiefs coaches and players, please insulate yourselves from bad officiating. 4 stops on 3rd and 4th downs turned into points for the Bengals. 6 total 1st downs from Chiefs penalties. They had too much impact on the outcome. Don't let them! Andy, put the hammer down like you did in Vegas (where you succeeded on a fake punt with the lead) (go for it on 4th and 6, PLEASE)!
Absolutely true, execution can fix a lot of issues! And you can insulate yourself for sure with better execution and prevent things like the refs from having all that impact.
We both acknowledge that the 4th and 6th was a close call, but I come down on the other side and think the decision to punt was sound. I agree with your analysis by and large but would add just a couple of points which I think point in the other direction.
First, the Chiefs I think are pretty clearly the more talented, well-rounded team. Any given Sunday, and all that, and Cincy clearly has some amazing offensive skill position players. But it makes sense as the "better team" to play a lower variance style than when facing a talent discrepancy. If we had played against Carolina the way they played against us last year, we would think our coaches had lost it. That is definitely a more extreme example, but I think this is an important point in the broader context of the game.
Second, it is relatively early in the game - still in the third quarter - and the one thing that the Bengals had not done all game is sustain drives. There was zero reason to believe that the offense would only have the ball one more time. I was driving home from out of town, so I listened to Mitch's radio broadcast. I sat down to watch the game Sunday night, even knowing the outcome, and I didn't believe they would only get the ball one more time even though I knew the outcome.
Given that, I think there is every tendency to trust the defense. Except for a couple ridiculous plays, the defense had played pretty well. The defensive line was clearly winning over and over again. Chris Jones was a beast the whole game (as usual) and it sure felt like the entire defensive line was contributing with pressures.
The Cincy offensive skill players give them a puncher's chance in any game, but the correct strategy facing that opponent is not to get into the center of the ring and trade haymakers. Offensively, we didn't try to counter 70 yard touchdowns with forcing the ball down the field, but were patient and ruthlessly efficient.
I think the offensive game plan was pretty much perfectly calibrated to the game on the field. The defensive game plan was to throw haymakers; that I do not understand in the slightest, especially as we got deeper into the game.
I think the place where we might end up agreeing is where you said this:
"and the one thing that the Bengals had not done all game is sustain drives."
This specific facet to the game is one reason why I believe going for it is the right call. Because they'd been so reliant on big plays and hadn't really sustained drives, I believe that field position is somewhat irrelevant. Because they're either going to get a big play (and the field position doesn't help you) or they aren't (and their great field position is unlikely to hurt you).
That's the biggest reason I'd be OK risking that 4th and 6; Because of the way their offense had worked that day made the field position "help" of a punt not really valuable in the same way even potentially holding possession does.
Yes, definitely. My framework in general tends to be on how high or low variance I want the game to be until the end of game situation is in play. The end scenario was not in view yet, even though it turned out we would only get one more possession. I found this circumstance very interesting because I almost always am on the same page with people saying be more aggressive but wasn't this time.
I think the "let them score" scenario is right but the timing is wrong. The time to let them score was on first and goal from the one (maybe 2nd and goal). By the time you get to 3rd down you have to assume they will kick a field goal on 4th and therefore you have to try to stop them. Then on 4th down you have to try to stop them because you've already held them 3 downs and the pressure is on the offense.
Again, I think let them score is correct but I think you have to do it on 1st down when the clock is over 2 minutes and you have 2 timeouts.
Although I don't believe the NFL "fixes" games, I believe they do what they can to maximize revenue for the league and for certain entities in Vegas, including coaching the refs on how they'd like a game to play out and instructing them to do what they can to make it so.
I heard from a "source" that big money had come in on the Chiefs over 12.5 wins for the season. I think that may have played a part in how this game turned out.
That being said, sometimes this goes against you and sometimes it's in your favor. It's part of being in the NFL, and Reid knows this. Just so happened that Sunday was not their day.
To me the circumstancial evidence is overwhelming, and considering the owners all share revenue and there's no transparency to the public regarding team or league finances...one has to wonder...
I’m still not in full agreement that the zero blitz on 3rd and 27 was a “terrible” decision. If you were asked before knowing the outcome of the play what you would rather have between these two options then what would you say:
1. Play deep coverage thus making it easy for Cincinnati to pick up 10-15 yards to get into field goal range.
2. Play an aggressive blitz requiring Burrow to throw up a long jump ball roughly 1.5 seconds after the snap, resulting in having to punt to the Chiefs in a tie game with 3 minutes left if it’s incomplete.
Keeping Cincinnati out of field goal range there would have been HUGE, especially since they only had one time out left. That means the Chiefs would only have to move the ball about 40 yards with a few runs sprinkled in to basically ice the game with a field goal of their own. Yes I know Chase is really good, but he’s not the creator incarnate. Even Hill as good as he is dropped a pass right in his bread basket earlier; Chase making that 30 yard catch was a low probability play, you can’t assume otherwise and ignore the benefit of the higher probability of keeping points off the board.
It's not between those two options, though. You could say "play aggressive press on Chase with a guy haloing right there to force someone else to win, then send a front four that's been destroying CIN's OL all game to get pressure anyways while flooding the rest of the field with 5 guys in coverage."
They could've had their cake and eaten it too, instead they put all their eggs in the basket of a play call that hadn't been effective since the first half.
By sending that sort of blitz you guarantee them the matchup they wanted (1x1 for Chase with no help). They did them a favor, essentially, and all Burrow had to do was just throw it up there.
Given how the rest of the game went, it was a good bet that KC would've gotten pressure with 4. They didn't NEED to send extra guys. That's what made it such a rough decision.
hahahaha appreciated!
Great rationale as always Seth. This GAME! THIS PARTICULAR GAME!!!! I hope the team can put it behind them easier than us fans are because it is KILLING ME! I'd have rather lost 44-13 I think than play John Dorsey (cuda/wuda/shuda) for the past two days.
hahaha for sure, it's been a little bit of torture seeing how many little moments (or big moments) could have swung the game!
I agree with you on all points (as I often do). I hope they eliminate the coverage errors and missed tackles on defense and the drops on offense because I do not expect them to learn anything from this and change their tactics on either side of the ball, despite the huge cost this loss likely had. A bye in the playoffs is gold.
They've spent the entire back half of the season not having those same coverage and tackling issues, so I'd HOPE that was just a bad game against high-level competition.
And yeah, losing that bye week is so tough. We'll see what Week 18 holds!
Great analysis once again. I actually think this defeat happening now might be a blessing in disguise. Better to have these errors happen now than in the playoffs.
Here's hoping it helps them tighten up!
I was watching with my mom who isn't a football fan. And even she was asking why we didn't let them score on that last drive. She got BIG mad at them. It was funny, despite the frustration
hahaha good on her for figuring it out!
I'm afraid this is who Andy Reid is. His game management has always been questionable. That Hitchens quote frustrates me because they were only planning on letting them score when it was so obvious that Cincy shouldn't score. With tactical decisions, you need to be one step ahead of your opponent. Reid has always been this way. I wonder if anyone has ever looked at Reid's propensity for conservative playcalling in the second ha...oh my goodness!
https://www.arrowheadpride.com/2016/12/22/14050720/is-chiefs-coach-andy-reid-too-conservative-testing-narratives
I'd call tactical decisions like that different than play calling. His clock management, 4th down, and other "Madden" tactics have always been suspect. The idea that he's a more conservative play caller late is less true :). I'll never forget the misplaced ire for the Titans game lol.
REALLY hoping Reid and his coaches are having THIS conversation…
From your lips to God's ears...
Appreciate the analysis, as always. One point I'd like to play coach's advocate on–the decision to not let the Bengals score. Things actually worked out quite well until the penalty on 4th down. The Chiefs stopped them and would have had the ball with a chance to get a field goal to win. The stop was quite impressive (and despite Tony Romo's musing, we can be fairly certain the Bengals were indeed trying to score) and the defense isn't getting any love for it. If that penalty on 4th down doesn't happen, I wonder if we're even having a conversation about the option to "freeway." What do you think?
Exactly. It was a good call but the defenders were getting so handsy. Try to defend the score but for the love of everything good in this world do not commit a penalty, it's better to score. And again, the defenders could've had this mentality, and we'dve had the ball and been able to mass push the ball away from the endzone. No score is great, get the tie, but do not do not do not give them a new set of downs. As much as most people say it was a bad call, the DB's should've been on notice that they would not get away with any contact with that officiating crew. Reid trusted them to know this and they toed the line too close and lost the game. If he had called freeway at 2:00 that would've been crushing to the defense's spirits, and Andy's sensitive to that. They need to be aware in return.
I would not let the outcome influence your decision. The odds of scoring from 1st and goal from the 1 are so high that time becomes a much bigger factor than how many points you have to score. According to one study, 85% chance of scoring a TD and 95% chance of scoring at all. So a 1 in 20 chance they don't score. What are the odds Mahomes can score a TD with 2 min and 2 TO? Higher than 5% I'm sure. But that likelihood drops quickly with less time on the clock.
Don't come at me with your stats and facts. Haha. Kidding aside, I'm with you. But the defense should get a little love for their stop.
I think that's a good way of explaining it using math!
When Reid made that decision, I was on board, partly because my gut agreed with your math. I felt like there was an 85% chance we'd be down by 7 regardless, and a 10% chance we'd be down by 3, with some amount of time and timeouts between 2 minutes and 2 timeouts (in the event they scored on 1st down) and 50 seconds/0 timeouts (in the event we made a goal line stand on 3rd/4th down). And I kinda *preferred* less time on the clock, because I believed Mahomes would drive us down the field regardless, and didn't want to leave time for Burrow/Chase to answer back with a long strike.
What my gut failed to account for was, within that probability distribution was an unlikely, but still plausible scenario that wasn't accounted for in my mental calculations: an additional first down that allowed the Bengals to end the game without us getting the ball again. That tail risk (which was probably on the order of 5%, hidden within the 95% odds of scoring a TD or FG) came back to bite us.
Eh... Even in the BEST case scenario there (assuming you can somehow stop someone on 3 straight downs, which is highlight unlikely, particularly when one factors in the possibility of penalties/etc), the Chiefs then get the ball back down 3 with under a minute left and no timeouts.
I personally might prefer being down 7 with 2 minutes left and having 2 timeouts. It's a MUCH more manageable position to be in clock-wise. I'm back and forth on it.
But I think it's more notable that the BEST case scenario is only arguably better than the scenario you can guarantee if you let them score and you're not guaranteed it the way you are the "let them score" scenario. You might stop them on 1st down but not 2nd down, and now you're still down a TD but have lost a TO and another 5-8 seconds. Or you stop them on 1st/2nd but not 3rd down and you're still down a TD but are out BOTH timeouts and about 10-15 seconds.
In other words, by allowing them to score once they've hit that 1st down, you guarantee an outcome you know you can live with and you also "block" a bunch of potentially much worse results. By trying to go for an unlikely result you are maybe getting a slightly better result (again, maybe, I'm not totally convinced it's that much better given the time and timeouts) but also leaving the door open for a whole slew of worse results.
BUT if the penalties on 4th didn't happen the Chiefs had the ball with a tied game. Isn't that the best case scenario? No points given up and the ball in hand?
I understand that outcome was incredibly unlikely but it actually happened twice if not for penalties; 1) 0:58 4th and 1 - holding on Ward but negated with offensive holding, 2) 0:50 4th and 1 illegal use of hands on Sneed.
At any rate, at what point should the defense concede in terms of time remaining and timeouts remaining? One of our stat nerds needs to come through with a slightly variable cut-off point. In this particular instance the Bengals had the ball 1st and goal from the 1 at the 2:00 minute warning and the Chiefs had two timeouts remaining.
Maybe the best way to figure it is to find an average of drive times with timeouts required and work backwards?
What you said!!! So damn frustrating on so many plays and so many levels. Add all this to why Spags never decided to double team the record setting receiver previously discussed *steam coming out of ears* Thanks
hopefully it was at least a little cathartic!
I was screaming at the TV to let them score as soon as they got the first down at the one. But that whole sequence reminded me of the Raiders game in which the refs were determined to give the Raiders as many downs as necessary to get the winning score. That may have to to do with the aggressive form of man coverage Spags teaches but those ticky tack penalties seem to get called much more often against the Chiefs than their opponents. A conspiracy theorist might say the Shield had a plan for the playoffs and brought in a ringer ref to make it happen. Not that I personally would ever suspect such a thing.
The ending definitely felt somewhat inevitable, but of course that's just my bias talking!
In real time I was made at Ward for not diving at Chase's feet. Watching this gif, I'm mad at him for not flying to the football. You can't just assume someone else is going to make the tackle. Grrr.
He wasn't the only one, either. I get it to an extent, and against a less explosive WR it wouldn't have mattered much. But MAN that hurt.
The coaching decisions are made much easier by proper execution. Burrow was good, but also got help from his receivers. Had Hill and Kelce each made another catch, our coaches would likely not have been put in excruciating situations. If the defense makes tackles (it looked like a combination of lack of focus, under estimating their opponent and at times lack of effort), a different discussion would be had. It is clear that this coaching staff needed to be placed in this situation, so maybe there is sunlight behind the clouds currently engulfing us. Hopefully, we will be laughing about this on February 13th about 9 P.M. But getting guys healthy and keeping them that way just got harder. Also, and I'm struggling to let this go: Chiefs coaches and players, please insulate yourselves from bad officiating. 4 stops on 3rd and 4th downs turned into points for the Bengals. 6 total 1st downs from Chiefs penalties. They had too much impact on the outcome. Don't let them! Andy, put the hammer down like you did in Vegas (where you succeeded on a fake punt with the lead) (go for it on 4th and 6, PLEASE)!
Absolutely true, execution can fix a lot of issues! And you can insulate yourself for sure with better execution and prevent things like the refs from having all that impact.
I don't think they underestimated the opponent. I can't explain the hesitancy and half-heartedness I saw from our safety group.
Usually, I agree with Spags's thinking, even when it doesn't work out as planned. This was one of those games where I just shake my head.
We both acknowledge that the 4th and 6th was a close call, but I come down on the other side and think the decision to punt was sound. I agree with your analysis by and large but would add just a couple of points which I think point in the other direction.
First, the Chiefs I think are pretty clearly the more talented, well-rounded team. Any given Sunday, and all that, and Cincy clearly has some amazing offensive skill position players. But it makes sense as the "better team" to play a lower variance style than when facing a talent discrepancy. If we had played against Carolina the way they played against us last year, we would think our coaches had lost it. That is definitely a more extreme example, but I think this is an important point in the broader context of the game.
Second, it is relatively early in the game - still in the third quarter - and the one thing that the Bengals had not done all game is sustain drives. There was zero reason to believe that the offense would only have the ball one more time. I was driving home from out of town, so I listened to Mitch's radio broadcast. I sat down to watch the game Sunday night, even knowing the outcome, and I didn't believe they would only get the ball one more time even though I knew the outcome.
Given that, I think there is every tendency to trust the defense. Except for a couple ridiculous plays, the defense had played pretty well. The defensive line was clearly winning over and over again. Chris Jones was a beast the whole game (as usual) and it sure felt like the entire defensive line was contributing with pressures.
The Cincy offensive skill players give them a puncher's chance in any game, but the correct strategy facing that opponent is not to get into the center of the ring and trade haymakers. Offensively, we didn't try to counter 70 yard touchdowns with forcing the ball down the field, but were patient and ruthlessly efficient.
I think the offensive game plan was pretty much perfectly calibrated to the game on the field. The defensive game plan was to throw haymakers; that I do not understand in the slightest, especially as we got deeper into the game.
I think the place where we might end up agreeing is where you said this:
"and the one thing that the Bengals had not done all game is sustain drives."
This specific facet to the game is one reason why I believe going for it is the right call. Because they'd been so reliant on big plays and hadn't really sustained drives, I believe that field position is somewhat irrelevant. Because they're either going to get a big play (and the field position doesn't help you) or they aren't (and their great field position is unlikely to hurt you).
That's the biggest reason I'd be OK risking that 4th and 6; Because of the way their offense had worked that day made the field position "help" of a punt not really valuable in the same way even potentially holding possession does.
Yes, definitely. My framework in general tends to be on how high or low variance I want the game to be until the end of game situation is in play. The end scenario was not in view yet, even though it turned out we would only get one more possession. I found this circumstance very interesting because I almost always am on the same page with people saying be more aggressive but wasn't this time.
I think the "let them score" scenario is right but the timing is wrong. The time to let them score was on first and goal from the one (maybe 2nd and goal). By the time you get to 3rd down you have to assume they will kick a field goal on 4th and therefore you have to try to stop them. Then on 4th down you have to try to stop them because you've already held them 3 downs and the pressure is on the offense.
Again, I think let them score is correct but I think you have to do it on 1st down when the clock is over 2 minutes and you have 2 timeouts.
I thought that's the timing I laid out... I may be kinda tired.
Although I don't believe the NFL "fixes" games, I believe they do what they can to maximize revenue for the league and for certain entities in Vegas, including coaching the refs on how they'd like a game to play out and instructing them to do what they can to make it so.
I heard from a "source" that big money had come in on the Chiefs over 12.5 wins for the season. I think that may have played a part in how this game turned out.
That being said, sometimes this goes against you and sometimes it's in your favor. It's part of being in the NFL, and Reid knows this. Just so happened that Sunday was not their day.
Results like that game can make a conspiracy theorist out of anyone!
To me the circumstancial evidence is overwhelming, and considering the owners all share revenue and there's no transparency to the public regarding team or league finances...one has to wonder...
I’m still not in full agreement that the zero blitz on 3rd and 27 was a “terrible” decision. If you were asked before knowing the outcome of the play what you would rather have between these two options then what would you say:
1. Play deep coverage thus making it easy for Cincinnati to pick up 10-15 yards to get into field goal range.
2. Play an aggressive blitz requiring Burrow to throw up a long jump ball roughly 1.5 seconds after the snap, resulting in having to punt to the Chiefs in a tie game with 3 minutes left if it’s incomplete.
Keeping Cincinnati out of field goal range there would have been HUGE, especially since they only had one time out left. That means the Chiefs would only have to move the ball about 40 yards with a few runs sprinkled in to basically ice the game with a field goal of their own. Yes I know Chase is really good, but he’s not the creator incarnate. Even Hill as good as he is dropped a pass right in his bread basket earlier; Chase making that 30 yard catch was a low probability play, you can’t assume otherwise and ignore the benefit of the higher probability of keeping points off the board.
It's not between those two options, though. You could say "play aggressive press on Chase with a guy haloing right there to force someone else to win, then send a front four that's been destroying CIN's OL all game to get pressure anyways while flooding the rest of the field with 5 guys in coverage."
They could've had their cake and eaten it too, instead they put all their eggs in the basket of a play call that hadn't been effective since the first half.
By sending that sort of blitz you guarantee them the matchup they wanted (1x1 for Chase with no help). They did them a favor, essentially, and all Burrow had to do was just throw it up there.
Given how the rest of the game went, it was a good bet that KC would've gotten pressure with 4. They didn't NEED to send extra guys. That's what made it such a rough decision.