Pre-Game Thread: We're onto Kansas City

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
This is something I've been wondering about with L Jax esp. Glad to hear Bill bring it up.
I've seen Mark Ingram blocking 3-5 yards downfield while Jackson is still in the pocket and can't believe it isn't called even though the play is a designed run. Would love to see the announcers start picking up on this more.
How can it be offensive pass interference if the offense doesn’t throw a pass?
 

j44thor

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
10,961
How can it be offensive pass interference if the offense doesn’t throw a pass?
I thought the rule was you can't block beyond 1 yard of the LOS when the QB still has the ball but I do see you can't call OPI if the pass isn't thrown.

Wonder if this is something the competition committee looks at with all the running QBs now. Essentially an RB can block a defender with impunity on a designed QB run but at the same time a defender can't directly impede an incoming RB if there is a chance the QB will still throw a pass. Since only the RB knows if the play is a designed run or not that gives him a significant advantage.
 

BusRaker

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 11, 2006
2,371
... Since only the RB knows if the play is a designed run or not that gives him a significant advantage.
I feel with Baltimore that Ingram doesn't even know what Jackson is going to do (which probably makes him sell it even better). In the scientific method they would call that a "Double-blind" run pass option
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,298
deep inside Guido territory
Phil Perry on Zo and Bertrand says in his opinion that Tyreek Hill does not look like the same WR since coming back from injury. Says the majority of the plays to him were short throws. Also mentions that Watkins is not even the same player he was last year. Says Mahomes has had his 2 worst games throwing the football coming into this one.
 

j44thor

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
10,961
Phil Perry on Zo and Bertrand says in his opinion that Tyreek Hill does not look like the same WR since coming back from injury. Says the majority of the plays to him were short throws. Also mentions that Watkins is not even the same player he was last year. Says Mahomes has had his 2 worst games throwing the football coming into this one.
It was quite windy last week which probably played a role in the lack of downfield passing game. That and they really didn't need the offense to do much since OAK kept imploding.
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
4,432
I thought the rule was you can't block beyond 1 yard of the LOS when the QB still has the ball but I do see you can't call OPI if the pass isn't thrown.

Wonder if this is something the competition committee looks at with all the running QBs now. Essentially an RB can block a defender with impunity on a designed QB run but at the same time a defender can't directly impede an incoming RB if there is a chance the QB will still throw a pass. Since only the RB knows if the play is a designed run or not that gives him a significant advantage.
Defender can impede him all he wants within 5 yards. I don't see the issue.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,838

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,367
D Williams OUT
So that puts j44thor's query front and center:.

Damien Williams not practicing today.
Could be a combo of McCoy, Darwin Thompson and Spencer Ware for KC.
All smaller pass catching backs, wonder if we see a lot of dime come Sunday. Don't want to see KVN or HT trying to cover those backs in space.

I hope the plan is to attempt to knock Kelce on his butt at the LOS on virtually every play.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,187
The theory is that you increase your chances of keeping the game close, particularly against a potent offense, if possessions are limited because fewer possessions introduces a higher degree of variance in outcomes. It’s not dissimilar from basketball shots: a better shooter is more likely to shoot a higher percentage of makes than a lesser shooter the bigger the sample size. Or, put differently, the smaller the sample size the more likely you get an aberrant outcome. That cuts both ways of course, and it makes each possession even more important. You play an eight possession game apiece, the premium on red zone efficiency is even higher.

Viewed from the other side, if you think you’re down to down the team more likely to score more points over, say, a huge sample size like 50 possessions (matchups accounted for), then it’s generally better to maximize possessions.

It’s not so much about gaining extra possessions from the opponent, although that’s actually possible to do, and not uncommon to see happen, in end of half situations where a team stacks possessions by draining all or most of the final minutes of game clock on a scoring drive and receives the second half kickoff.
The other aspect to it, and Mike Lombardi talks incessantly about it, is that the fewer minutes your defense is on the field the easier it is for them to play well becasue they are rested. So, at least in his descriptions, there are defenses who can hold up for 25 minutes a game who are much more likely to give up a ton of points at 35 minutes on the field. There's obviously some corrleated variables at work there, but I do think the notion that fewer possessions = more focused defensive effort resonates
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
The other aspect to it, and Mike Lombardi talks incessantly about it, is that the fewer minutes your defense is on the field the easier it is for them to play well becasue they are rested. So, at least in his descriptions, there are defenses who can hold up for 25 minutes a game who are much more likely to give up a ton of points at 35 minutes on the field. There's obviously some corrleated variables at work there, but I do think the notion that fewer possessions = more focused defensive effort resonates
The people who've studied this empirically have not found evidence for this idea: https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2018/defense-and-rest-time

One example is the AFCCG: the Patriots defense was barely on the field in the game (KC had less than 21 minutes of possession and only ran 52 plays vs NE's 97), but the Chiefs scored on their last three drives and five of their last seven. So it probably doesn't matter much in general, and I'm very skeptical it matters in this particular matchup.
 

Ferm Sheller

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2007
20,404
Folk’s cool. I’m on board with that. But I kinda wanted to see them sign Belichick to fill the spot and just have him stand on the sidelines in uniform as “player/coach” and have them go for 2 on any TD.
 

JMDurron

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,127
The people who've studied this empirically have not found evidence for this idea: https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2018/defense-and-rest-time

One example is the AFCCG: the Patriots defense was barely on the field in the game (KC had less than 21 minutes of possession and only ran 52 plays vs NE's 97), but the Chiefs scored on their last three drives and five of their last seven. So it probably doesn't matter much in general, and I'm very skeptical it matters in this particular matchup.
I doubt we will ever have empirical evidence to comfortably state that we know how rest and defensive performance correlate, but I would think that we can reasonably say that we know it is an effect that exists and that can have a significant impact in a given game. I also suspect that using last year's AFCCG as an example might be something of a skewed example if we want to talk about fatigue effects on a defense.

One could attempt to think about erosion of defensive performance in the 2nd half of a given game as potentially falling into three broad categories of causes: Opponent adjustments/scheme, Fatigue, and Injuries. I'd argue that last year's AFCCG was a clear case of Andy Reid making excellent adjustments at halftime to break out of the box that BB skillfully trapped his offense in for the first two quarters. The Patriots-Falcons Super Bowl would be a similarly clear base of Fatigue wearing down the opposing defense, with both the press coverage and pass rush becoming less fierce by the time of the final drive. A clear case of a 2nd half injury breakdown doesn't readily come to mind, but it seems intuitive to me that this category needed to exist for cases where a cornerstone of the defense's scheme goes down and leads to cascading performance impacts across the rest of the unit.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,187
The people who've studied this empirically have not found evidence for this idea: https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2018/defense-and-rest-time

One example is the AFCCG: the Patriots defense was barely on the field in the game (KC had less than 21 minutes of possession and only ran 52 plays vs NE's 97), but the Chiefs scored on their last three drives and five of their last seven. So it probably doesn't matter much in general, and I'm very skeptical it matters in this particular matchup.
That’s an interesting article. Note that he takes as a given that fewer defensive possessions correlates to fewer points, and presumably also that fewer possessions correlates to lower TOP. So, without a super deep dive into his data I’m not sure whether he’s actually disproving the hypothesis so much as saying we can’t discern the positive case for it from the noise in the data. This is, for example, what the “clutch” debate often looks like—people confuse inability to prove the case with evidence it does not exist.

I think your KC example has it backwards: no one has argued that any defense will do well with a lot of rest, only that some defenses will do worse with little rest.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
I doubt we will ever have empirical evidence to comfortably state that we know how rest and defensive performance correlate, but I would think that we can reasonably say that we know it is an effect that exists and that can have a significant impact in a given game.
I mean, I just gave you a link. I don't think it's the final word or anything, but if it was as major a factor as you seem to think (and as supposed by many), we would expect to see it somewhere in the data.

I also suspect that using last year's AFCCG as an example might be something of a skewed example if we want to talk about fatigue effects on a defense.

One could attempt to think about erosion of defensive performance in the 2nd half of a given game as potentially falling into three broad categories of causes: Opponent adjustments/scheme, Fatigue, and Injuries. I'd argue that last year's AFCCG was a clear case of Andy Reid making excellent adjustments at halftime to break out of the box that BB skillfully trapped his offense in for the first two quarters.
I would agree with this, but I also think it proves my point. The schematic adjustment made the Patriots extremely well-rested defense completely irrelevant.

The Patriots-Falcons Super Bowl would be a similarly clear base of Fatigue wearing down the opposing defense, with both the press coverage and pass rush becoming less fierce by the time of the final drive.
FWIW, the Falcons had three of their five sacks in the fourth quarter that game. I would not dismiss fatigue as a factor entirely in this one, but it should be noted it was an extreme example; the Patriots offense had basically two extra possessions in the first half. Even if we accept that fatigue played a factor in this one, it tells us nothing about strategy going forward. You can't scheme for having a 90 to 45 offensive play disparity, and the evidence suggests that the fatigue factor in a more normal ratio (75 to 65, say) is going to be minimal if anything.

One element you didn't mention that's relevant here: variance. The Patriots moved the ball in the first half, they just didn't put points on the board. Belichick has said that while they didn't have control of the scoreboard, they didn't feel like they weren't in control of the game. They just executed a little better in the second half.

A clear case of a 2nd half injury breakdown doesn't readily come to mind, but it seems intuitive to me that this category needed to exist for cases where a cornerstone of the defense's scheme goes down and leads to cascading performance impacts across the rest of the unit.
I can think of several: both Rodney Harrison and Eugene Wilson going down in the SB vs the Panthers, Cliff Avril and Jeremy Lane going down for the Seahawks in SB49, even Tevin Coleman going down for the Falcons (not a major play-to-play impact, but Freeman screwed up the pass protection on a critical play).

That’s an interesting article. Note that he takes as a given that fewer defensive possessions correlates to fewer points, and presumably also that fewer possessions correlates to lower TOP.
Of course it does. More at-bats correlates with more hits, more shot attempts correlates with more points, more pass attempts correlates with more completions, etc. I take that as a given and I don't really think it's relevant, unless (as others have stated above) you are at a talent disadvantage and want to increase variance by minimizing possessions. I don't really think that applies to the Patriots, this week or almost ever.

(A quirk of football the sport/game is that while we often talking about running the ball to help time of possession and reduce number of drives / increase variance, running the ball is fundamentally lower variance than passing. So a team at a talent disadvantage should probably be throwing more, not running more. [And FWIW, the correlation between running the ball and TOP is also somewhat dubious.])

EDIT: A minor point but worth clarifying: I would not assume fewer possessions correlates to lower TOP in any particular game. Fewer possessions for one team almost always means fewer possessions for the other team. So minimizing number of drives/possessions likely means little in terms of TOP.

So, without a super deep dive into his data I’m not sure whether he’s actually disproving the hypothesis so much as saying we can’t discern the positive case for it from the noise in the data. This is, for example, what the “clutch” debate often looks like—people confuse inability to prove the case with evidence it does not exist.
I think this analogy is mostly fair, but I would argue with the NFL we're where baseball was in the 80's and 90's when we still thought it was cool that Joe Carter batted in the middle of the order with a .310 OBP because he drove in runs. Clutch might exist but it's way noisier / less important than we used to think. Based on the best evidence we have, that applies to the idea of rest / TOP as well.

I think your KC example has it backwards: no one has argued that any defense will do well with a lot of rest, only that some defenses will do worse with little rest.
I think this would make the idea of running the ball to avoid a shootout even more dubious. If there's little/no advantage from the D only being out there 50 plays vs 60 or 60 vs 70 and the only important thing is to avoid being out there for 75+, fatigue would have basically no bearing on my run/pass ratio.
 
Last edited:

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,187
I think this analogy is mostly fair, but I would argue with the NFL we're where baseball was in the 80's and 90's when we still thought it was cool that Joe Carter batted in the middle of the order with a .310 OBP because he drove in runs. Clutch might exist but it's way noisier / less important than we used to think. Based on the best evidence we have, that applies to the idea of rest / TOP as well.
I think football analytics is where baseball was in the late 90s/early 2000s---there's a lot of stuff emerging, some is being actively used and validated by teams, but the theorizing and model building is also well ahead of validation and "peer review" and there is not super granular to support a lot of the analysis yet. That also has the implication that studies like the FO one are as likely to be over-extrapolations as insight. I tend to think it is the former, but I acknwledge it also could be the latter.

To my eyes, your characterization of "best evidence" feels like an attempt to force-fit the data to your incoming assumption---as you saw on the Patriots and analytics that is as likely to fool you into the wrong conclusion as be right. You're very sharp on the Pats stuff overall so you may land in a different place, but to me it is better to view all this in degrees of uncertainty as we figure out what is and is not real. To make the simple point about why fewer defensive plays is valuable, let's think about the flip-side of the discussion: if we believe a good offense generates 6.5 yards/play (and we make no assumptions at all about the defense) isn't the right starting point to say that you want them to have fewer offensive plays? I think that is pretty clearly true.

Relatedly, as to your second comment on my post: I was making a narrow point about TOP and defense. I am not nearly as sure that running the ball makes sense unless you do it well, so I think I'm probably on your side of that part of the larger discussion. The goal is to keep the other team from having chances to score, but whether running or passing accomplishes that depends on your offensive capabilities and their defensive capabilities. I am pretty confident BB would say that there is no single right answer there, though (I think consistent with your view) there certainly are more and less likely ways to get there on average. But this is about matchups and schemes at the individual game level, so (for example) KC potentially being especially terrible at run defense matters a lot here, as does your point that the Pats have been inconsistent at running the ball.

We know the Pats are willing to go very run-heavy---witness the game vs Colts that spawned Deflategate, among many others. I am uncertain if tomorrow's is one of those or not, I am I guess more optimistic than you about the Pats chances to run but I certainly agree there's a real chance they will not succeed running.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
To my eyes, your characterization of "best evidence" feels like an attempt to force-fit the data to your incoming assumption---as you saw on the Patriots and analytics that is as likely to fool you into the wrong conclusion as be right.
It's certainly not the be-all and end-all, but it's the most (only?) serious attempt I've seen to study the issue. If you're aware of studies that suggest otherwise, I'm all ears. I don't disagree with your characterization of football analytics generally; we're still kind of where we were in the 90's where people were suggesting you could put Frank Thomas at SS and it would be fine. There is definitely stuff that's being missed now that we will understand better 10 or 15 years from now.

You're very sharp on the Pats stuff overall so you may land in a different place, but to me it is better to view all this in degrees of uncertainty as we figure out what is and is not real. To make the simple point about why fewer defensive plays is valuable, let's think about the flip-side of the discussion: if we believe a good offense generates 6.5 yards/play (and we make no assumptions at all about the defense) isn't the right starting point to say that you want them to have fewer offensive plays? I think that is pretty clearly true.
There is more than one way to limit a team's number of offensive plays. Obviously if you're generating quick turnovers or holding teams to three-and-outs, that's awesome. Obviously if you're allowing defensive or return touchdowns (in which case the other team doesn't get an offensive drive) or letting the offense score in just a couple plays, that's bad (Miami had few offensive plays in the Miracle game, for instance). What the thrust of this thread has discussed, which is the idea of limiting the opposition's offensive plays by employing an offensive strategy designed to limit total drives by both teams, I view as indifferent to winning. If you tell me today the Chiefs are only going to have 8 or 9 drives instead of the typical 11 or 12, I have no opinion on whether that makes it more or less likely the Patriots win. It's like hearing that the Red Sox are going to get rained out after 7 innings.

In general I imagine there is correlation between number of plays / time of possession and offensive success, because good offenses generate more first downs and thus hold the ball longer. If the Patriots are playing effective defense, the Chiefs are probably not going to have a lot of plays. It's the direction of the causation arrow that's the question here.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,187
It's certainly not the be-all and end-all, but it's the most (only?) serious attempt I've seen to study the issue. If you're aware of studies that suggest otherwise, I'm all ears. I don't disagree with your characterization of football analytics generally; we're still kind of where we were in the 90's where people were suggesting you could put Frank Thomas at SS and it would be fine. There is definitely stuff that's being missed now that we will understand better 10 or 15 years from now.


There is more than one way to limit a team's number of offensive plays. Obviously if you're generating quick turnovers or holding teams to three-and-outs, that's awesome. Obviously if you're allowing defensive or return touchdowns (in which case the other team doesn't get an offensive drive) or letting the offense score in just a couple plays, that's bad (Miami had few offensive plays in the Miracle game, for instance). What the thrust of this thread has discussed, which is the idea of limiting the opposition's offensive plays by employing an offensive strategy designed to limit total drives by both teams, I view as indifferent to winning. If you tell me today the Chiefs are only going to have 8 or 9 drives instead of the typical 11 or 12, I have no opinion on whether that makes it more or less likely the Patriots win. It's like hearing that the Red Sox are going to get rained out after 7 innings.

In general I imagine there is correlation between number of plays / time of possession and offensive success, because good offenses generate more first downs and thus hold the ball longer. If the Patriots are playing effective defense, the Chiefs are probably not going to have a lot of plays. It's the direction of the causation arrow that's the question here.
Agree we should be reading and thinking about the best stuff out there. I only note that we should also accept "best stuff out there' does not mean right/perfect and thus my comment about thinking about this in degrees of uncertainty.

I do not agree that there is no correlation for the specific Pats-Chiefs matchup between number of drives and probability of winning---and actually, I think you are committing the logical flaw I warned about earlier. It may be true that, in aggregate across all games, we cannot discern a strong correlation between number of drives and who wins. But that does NOT mean that in any individual matchup the team's offenses and defenses benefit equially from more chances. We are not running a large sample Sunday--we're running one game with specific dynamics. This is the 'clutch' problem---it is what Bill James' "Fog" article warned about---overextrapolating from a large sample to a specific case. https://sabr.org/research/underestimating-fog

At least, I should say this: if you feel there is no correlation between number of drives and chances to win Sunday because you feel the offenses and defenses are relatively equally paired. If that's your point, fair enough. But I tend to think the Chiefs offense has a greater advantage than the Pats offense, and thus the Pats will (on average) do better in a fewer-possession game.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
Agree we should be reading and thinking about the best stuff out there. I only note that we should also accept "best stuff out there' does not mean right/perfect and thus my comment about thinking about this in degrees of uncertainty.

I do not agree that there is no correlation for the specific Pats-Chiefs matchup between number of drives and probability of winning---and actually, I think you are committing the logical flaw I warned about earlier. It may be true that, in aggregate across all games, we cannot discern a strong correlation between number of drives and who wins. But that does NOT mean that in any individual matchup the team's offenses and defenses benefit equially from more chances. We are not running a large sample Sunday--we're running one game with specific dynamics. This is the 'clutch' problem---it is what Bill James' "Fog" article warned about---overextrapolating from a large sample to a specific case. https://sabr.org/research/underestimating-fog

At least, I should say this: if you feel there is no correlation between number of drives and chances to win Sunday because you feel the offenses and defenses are relatively equally paired. If that's your point, fair enough. But I tend to think the Chiefs offense has a greater advantage than the Pats offense, and thus the Pats will (on average) do better in a fewer-possession game.
I do think the offenses and defenses are fairly evenly paired. The Chiefs are probably the second-best offense in the league; the Patriots have probably the best defense. The Patriots offense and Chiefs defense are both averageish. It's in Foxboro. Vegas has the Patriots as three-point favorites. It's not a game where one team is a big underdog and stands to benefit from increasing variance by limiting the number of possessions.

There may be matchup-specific reasons why the Patriots would fare better in a low-possession game, but there are probably just as many arguments in the other direction. It's also an equation that can shift on the fly (if you're losing, you want to maximize the number of possessions, which was one of their problems @ HOU last week in a game where they dominated plays / TOP).
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,187
That's a good reason not to worry about possessions.

I worry that the Pats O is weaker today than full-season numbers suggest, and the defense may be as well (I have more faith there). Some think the Chiefs offense is also down---I haven't watched them enought to say. On net, I worry more about this game than i would have 3-4 weeks ago.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,367
It would seem that the more marginal your offense is, the more likely it can have a drive spoiled by a key holding penalty or drop or whatever that can't be overcome. If that's true, then you would want more possessions, yes?
 

nothumb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 27, 2006
7,065
yammer's favorite poster
It would seem that the more marginal your offense is, the more likely it can have a drive spoiled by a key holding penalty or drop or whatever that can't be overcome. If that's true, then you would want more possessions, yes?
It's not about the absolute strength of your offense, in my understanding it's about 1) the relative strength of your offense vs. theirs, and 2) the relative marginal value of any "extra" possessions that both teams might receive. So the argument for shortening the game would be to introduce more variance if you think they're better or more explosive, in hopes of schemes, gimmicks, preparation, a fast start or plain old luck giving you enough to come out on top (relative to argument #1). And, relative to argument #2, if you think their offense becomes more explosive or harder to contain as the game wears on (particularly when compared to yours), then having fewer total possessions denies the opponent the chance to operate at a greater advantage with those extra possessions.

We haven't found ourselves in the situation of thinking the opposing offense is that much better too often in the last decade or so, but right now I think they probably are.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
Folk’s cool. I’m on board with that. But I kinda wanted to see them sign Belichick to fill the spot and just have him stand on the sidelines in uniform as “player/coach” and have them go for 2 on any TD.
Sure, until they’re down 2 with a 4th and 8 from the 12, inside 2 mins in the fourth and just need someone to hit a chip shot, so they have to trot out someone that hasn’t kicked since high school.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
It's not about the absolute strength of your offense, in my understanding it's about 1) the relative strength of your offense vs. theirs, and 2) the relative marginal value of any "extra" possessions that both teams might receive. So the argument for shortening the game would be to introduce more variance if you think they're better or more explosive, in hopes of schemes, gimmicks, preparation, a fast start or plain old luck giving you enough to come out on top (relative to argument #1). And, relative to argument #2, if you think their offense becomes more explosive or harder to contain as the game wears on (particularly when compared to yours), then having fewer total possessions denies the opponent the chance to operate at a greater advantage with those extra possessions.

We haven't found ourselves in the situation of thinking the opposing offense is that much better too often in the last decade or so, but right now I think they probably are.
But offense is only half the equation. The two teams play defense, too. So it's whether the matchup of their offense vs our defense becomes less advantageous as the game wears on relative to the matchup of our offense vs their defense. I don't have any particular reason to believe the great offense / average defense team has an advantage with more possessions vs the great defense / average offense team.

(And while this discussion has centered around O or O vs D, it should be noted that there are more special teams plays in a high-possession game, so that comes into play as well)
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,838
Cheating Pats at it again
The article actually says: "Kansas City is responsible, not the Patriots or the league. The Chiefs did not take the equipment off the plane. "

Because if it didn't, well, you know...
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,894
Los Angeles, CA
Apparently, they'll have to forfeit if the equipment doesn't make it in time. So.......anyone got any spike strips?

How awesome would it be to see a professional football team have to forfeit a game due to equipment error? And I'm not even saying that because they happen to be playing us.