Why are NFL head coaches so horrible at end game clock management (1 Viewer)

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Color me shuked.

Coughlin. 1st and goal with 1 min to go. Down by 8. And you pass every down so as to preserve a minute fora QB who is playing at as high a level as any NFL QB ever? Even a 10 yr old who plays madden knows that you need to run the ball there to whittle down the clock to score with time near expired. I was even thinking as he kicked off that i wouldn't blame him for trying a surprise onside here, as there is NO CHANCE Rogers isn't gonna get em in FG range in a minute. You know what happened next.

Garrett. huge play on 3 rd and long to get to the 30 with 20 seconds to go. TWO TO's. After completing the pass do you call on of em and try for a few extra yards on some short passes (or even a run up the gut) to make the kick easier? You have TWO TO's?NO. You call a clock spike play that burns 17 precious seconds. Then to add insult to injury you use one of the aforementioned TO's to ice your own Kicker (who made the first kick btw).

Frazier. This one is much less egregious, but at home I'm running the ball at my 20 with a minute and change to go to OT, not putting my rookie QB who has played a helluva game in a position to throw an int inside FG range vs the Denver Tebows. Not as HORRIBLE as the other two, but certainly questionable logic at best. IF I throw there I am throwing SAFE or DEEP routes, not short semi quick outs that are low reward and high risk.

Honestly I might draw up a resume and send it to 32 teams to be their EGCM coordinator. Maybe because playing the game and the concussions that some with it have taken their toll. Or maybe just being innately smarter than your avg Football Player to begin with is what is needed for these decisions as jocks aren't usually that brilliant to begin with (save fitzpatrick maybe). It's damn near laughable I tell you to watch them blow 'no brainer moves' that anyone who has played 40 games of madden and has an IQ above 70 wouldn't make.

and IBT "you think you are so smart" Honestly? 75% of the people at this board could handle the position of EGCM Coordinator better than these buffoons. I certainly can't run a team better than them, but I clearly can run the end game clock management better than these clowns, and odds are you can too.

 

[FavreCo]

The same reason the Colts defenders were playing 10 yards off the WRs. The same reason Garrett called timeout. Some of them are really dumb.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Coughlin. 1st and goal with 1 min to go. Down by 8. And you pass every down so as to preserve a minute fora QB who is playing at as high a level as any NFL QB ever? Even a 10 yr old who plays madden knows that you need to run the ball there to whittle down the clock to score with time near expired. I was even thinking as he kicked off that i wouldn't blame him for trying a surprise onside here, as there is NO CHANCE Rogers isn't gonna get em in FG range in a minute. You know what happened next.

Down by 7, sure, but it's impossible to say what the right call is there when you're down by 8. If they run all the time off the clock and then miss the 2-pt conversion, they screw themselves out of a shot for another possession.

 

[GregR]

Coughlin. 1st and goal with 1 min to go. Down by 8. And you pass every down so as to preserve a minute fora QB who is playing at as high a level as any NFL QB ever? Even a 10 yr old who plays madden knows that you need to run the ball there to whittle down the clock to score with time near expired. I was even thinking as he kicked off that i wouldn't blame him for trying a surprise onside here, as there is NO CHANCE Rogers isn't gonna get em in FG range in a minute. You know what happened next.

This is an example of a key point in the You're down by 15 with 7:00 minutes left in the game thread.If the Giants are going to eventually make the 2 point conversion the correct play is to run the ball as you say to chew up clock. If the Giants are going to eventually miss the 2 point conversion, then he made the right call and they should try to preserve every second to be able to get an onside kick and then go score again.

From what I saw skimming that thread, when the question of how to play down 8 is asked, it's been overwhelming agreement on both sides of the argument that preserving every second is the right play. Two point conversions fail more than they succeed, so in general you should play as if that will be the outcome.

This was the textbook example of just how useful it is to know whether you will just need the one touchdown, or will need an additional score, and what can happen when you have to guess.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Coughlin. 1st and goal with 1 min to go. Down by 8. And you pass every down so as to preserve a minute fora QB who is playing at as high a level as any NFL QB ever? Even a 10 yr old who plays madden knows that you need to run the ball there to whittle down the clock to score with time near expired. I was even thinking as he kicked off that i wouldn't blame him for trying a surprise onside here, as there is NO CHANCE Rogers isn't gonna get em in FG range in a minute. You know what happened next.

Down by 7, sure, but it's impossible to say what the right call is there when you're down by 8. If they run all the time off the clock and then miss the 2-pt conversion, they screw themselves out of a shot for another possession.

The odds of getting the 2 pt (40%) are far higher than getting the onsides (which is what 10%). Plus if you get the onsides you don't need much more than 1-2 plays to get in GW fg range. Playing the %'s I'd say the downside of giving Roogers 1 minute vs the upside how much time you'd need to get in FG range after an onsides still fall towards at least running half of that minute off the clock.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Coughlin. 1st and goal with 1 min to go. Down by 8. And you pass every down so as to preserve a minute fora QB who is playing at as high a level as any NFL QB ever? Even a 10 yr old who plays madden knows that you need to run the ball there to whittle down the clock to score with time near expired. I was even thinking as he kicked off that i wouldn't blame him for trying a surprise onside here, as there is NO CHANCE Rogers isn't gonna get em in FG range in a minute. You know what happened next.

This is an example of a key point in the You're down by 15 with 7:00 minutes left in the game thread.If the Giants are going to eventually make the 2 point conversion the correct play is to run the ball as you say to chew up clock. If the Giants are going to eventually miss the 2 point conversion, then he made the right call and they should try to preserve every second to be able to get an onside kick and then go score again.

From what I saw skimming that thread, when the question of how to play down 8 is asked, it's been overwhelming agreement on both sides of the argument that preserving every second is the right play. Two point conversions fail more than they succeed, so in general you should play as if that will be the outcome.

This was the textbook example of just how useful it is to know whether you will just need the one touchdown, or will need an additional score, and what can happen when you have to guess.

It might in a 'normal' situation vs a 'normal' QB. When Aaron Rogers 2011 is the other QB I think you need to deviate from that norm. But I can at least see that perspective (as opposed to say what Garrett did)ETA that the Packers D 2011 is the D you are running the 2pt conversion against that prolly swings the %'s to where you calculate the conversion at a rate higher than 50% (especially with woodson out)

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Coughlin. 1st and goal with 1 min to go. Down by 8. And you pass every down so as to preserve a minute fora QB who is playing at as high a level as any NFL QB ever? Even a 10 yr old who plays madden knows that you need to run the ball there to whittle down the clock to score with time near expired. I was even thinking as he kicked off that i wouldn't blame him for trying a surprise onside here, as there is NO CHANCE Rogers isn't gonna get em in FG range in a minute. You know what happened next.

Down by 7, sure, but it's impossible to say what the right call is there when you're down by 8. If they run all the time off the clock and then miss the 2-pt conversion, they screw themselves out of a shot for another possession.

The odds of getting the 2 pt (40%) are far higher than getting the onsides (which is what 10%). Plus if you get the onsides you don't need much more than 1-2 plays to get in GW fg range. Playing the %'s I'd say the downside of giving Roogers 1 minute vs the upside how much time you'd need to get in FG range after an onsides still fall towards at least running half of that minute off the clock.

You shouldn't be comparing the probability of making the 2-pt conversion to the probability of recovering an onside kick. You should be comparing the probability of making the 2-pt conversion to the probability of missing the 2-pt conversion.

 

[Sea Duck]

Frazier. This one is much less egregious, but at home I'm running the ball at my 20 with a minute and change to go to OT, not putting my rookie QB who has played a helluva game in a position to throw an int inside FG range vs the Denver Tebows. Not as HORRIBLE as the other two, but certainly questionable logic at best. IF I throw there I am throwing SAFE or DEEP routes, not short semi quick outs that are low reward and high risk.

That's not a clock management issue, that's a GAME management issue. Frazier was calling for plays that even Brett Favre shouldn't be throwing (wait, I guess that should say "plays that ESPECIALLY Brett Favre shouldn't be throwing"!)

 

[Reepicheep]

Coughlin. 1st and goal with 1 min to go. Down by 8. And you pass every down so as to preserve a minute fora QB who is playing at as high a level as any NFL QB ever? Even a 10 yr old who plays madden knows that you need to run the ball there to whittle down the clock to score with time near expired. I was even thinking as he kicked off that i wouldn't blame him for trying a surprise onside here, as there is NO CHANCE Rogers isn't gonna get em in FG range in a minute. You know what happened next.

This is an example of a key point in the You're down by 15 with 7:00 minutes left in the game thread.If the Giants are going to eventually make the 2 point conversion the correct play is to run the ball as you say to chew up clock. If the Giants are going to eventually miss the 2 point conversion, then he made the right call and they should try to preserve every second to be able to get an onside kick and then go score again.

From what I saw skimming that thread, when the question of how to play down 8 is asked, it's been overwhelming agreement on both sides of the argument that preserving every second is the right play. Two point conversions fail more than they succeed, so in general you should play as if that will be the outcome.

This was the textbook example of just how useful it is to know whether you will just need the one touchdown, or will need an additional score, and what can happen when you have to guess.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Coughlin. 1st and goal with 1 min to go. Down by 8. And you pass every down so as to preserve a minute fora QB who is playing at as high a level as any NFL QB ever? Even a 10 yr old who plays madden knows that you need to run the ball there to whittle down the clock to score with time near expired. I was even thinking as he kicked off that i wouldn't blame him for trying a surprise onside here, as there is NO CHANCE Rogers isn't gonna get em in FG range in a minute. You know what happened next.

Down by 7, sure, but it's impossible to say what the right call is there when you're down by 8. If they run all the time off the clock and then miss the 2-pt conversion, they screw themselves out of a shot for another possession.

The odds of getting the 2 pt (40%) are far higher than getting the onsides (which is what 10%). Plus if you get the onsides you don't need much more than 1-2 plays to get in GW fg range. Playing the %'s I'd say the downside of giving Roogers 1 minute vs the upside how much time you'd need to get in FG range after an onsides still fall towards at least running half of that minute off the clock.

You shouldn't be comparing the probability of making the 2-pt conversion to the probability of recovering an onside kick. You should be comparing the probability of making the 2-pt conversion to the probability of missing the 2-pt conversion.

I disagree. Since the odds of me actually getting the onside kick are so low I am evaluating whether or not the minute on the clock is going to help me or hurt me. In order for the time on the clock to help me I have to recover the onside kick, making the'upside of keeping the clock full less valuable in my decision calculus. Plus as I already said with the GB D being without woodson being the 2 pt Defense, I have already adjusted the 2 pt conversion % in my decision calculus to greater than 50%. I have also also increased the 'downside/negative utility of the full clock because Aaron Rogers 2011 is the one who will be using it.Also as I said above, IF I need to onside and recover it I won't need as much clock because I will have an extremely short field and only need a FG. As such I only need enough clock to run 1-3 plays at most to get into FG range which further decreases the value of keeping the clock full vs the harm that a full clock will cause me if I give Aaron Rogers 2011 the ball with time on the clock.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Coughlin. 1st and goal with 1 min to go. Down by 8. And you pass every down so as to preserve a minute fora QB who is playing at as high a level as any NFL QB ever? Even a 10 yr old who plays madden knows that you need to run the ball there to whittle down the clock to score with time near expired. I was even thinking as he kicked off that i wouldn't blame him for trying a surprise onside here, as there is NO CHANCE Rogers isn't gonna get em in FG range in a minute. You know what happened next.

Down by 7, sure, but it's impossible to say what the right call is there when you're down by 8. If they run all the time off the clock and then miss the 2-pt conversion, they screw themselves out of a shot for another possession.

The odds of getting the 2 pt (40%) are far higher than getting the onsides (which is what 10%). Plus if you get the onsides you don't need much more than 1-2 plays to get in GW fg range. Playing the %'s I'd say the downside of giving Roogers 1 minute vs the upside how much time you'd need to get in FG range after an onsides still fall towards at least running half of that minute off the clock.

You shouldn't be comparing the probability of making the 2-pt conversion to the probability of recovering an onside kick. You should be comparing the probability of making the 2-pt conversion to the probability of missing the 2-pt conversion.

I disagree. Since the odds of me actually getting the onside kick are so low I am evaluating whether or not the minute on the clock is going to help me or hurt me. In order for the time on the clock to help me I have to recover the onside kick (making the 'upside of keeping the clock full less valuable in my decision calculus. Plus as I already said with the GB D being without woodson being the 2 pt Defense, I have already adjusted the 2 pt conversion % in my decision calculus to greater than 50%. I have also also increased the 'downside/negative utility of the full clock because Aaron Rogers 2011 is the one who will be using it.

It hardly matters what the probability of recovering an onside kick is. You're never going to be in a position where you need to decide whether or not to onside kick. If you miss the 2-pt conversion, you have to onside kick. The only question is whether or not you think you'll make the 2-pt conversion. if you make it, you want to do so with as little time left as possible. If you miss it, you want to do so with as much time left as possible. Because making the conversion is almost a 50/50 proposition, there's no "correct" strategy to employ. You just have to pick one and hope it works out.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I disagree with the Coughlin example. In that situation, you can't assume you will eventually score, and giving away a down by running the ball to get the clock moving is giving one of your downs away. Plus, like has been said, if they missed the 2-pointer, they need time to score on the off chance that they recover the onside kick.

I agree with the other examples. Not sure what Garrett was thinking.

 

[cvnpoka]

garret not trying to get more yards with 2 tos and 30s is just unreal.

 

[Sea Duck]

I agree with the other examples. Not sure what Garrett was thinking.

The mentality seems to be "Don't give the other team a chance to catch its breath". But why should that matter when you're kicking a field goal? If you've got TWO timeouts, there's no reason why you can't use one right away, then run the ball up the middle for a couple yards (or more), then call another TO with ~3 seconds left.

 

[Manster]

Garrett is becoming known as a poor gameday coach in some ways. Today did not help his cause.

Arent these guys typically going over possible outcomes in their heads before they happen? Isnt Garrett supposed to be smart?

 

[Warrior]

Whole lotta fuzzy math going on in here.

 

[ShaHBucks]

Andy Reid would be pissed you left him out this thread. How about his clock management at the end of the half against SEA. He had two TO left and let SEA run off a minute and kick a FG to put you down two scores. He probably wanted to eat the timeouts as a halftime snack. What pissed me off most is that the kickoff went out of bounds giving the eagles the ball at the 40. Here's the play by play:

2nd and 13 at PHI 40 T.Jackson pass short right to G.Tate to PHI 33 for 7 yards (N.Allen).

Timeout #1 by SEA at 01:07.

3rd and 6 at PHI 33 T.Jackson pass short left to B.Obomanu to PHI 31 for 2 yards (J.Chaney).

Timeout #2 by SEA at 00:21.

4th and 4 at PHI 31 S.Hauschka 49 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-C.Gresham, Holder-J.Ryan. 7 17

S.Hauschka kicks 60 yards from SEA 35 to PHI 5, out of bounds.

DRIVE TOTALS: PHI 7, SEA 17, 7 plays, 49 yards, 2:33 elapsed



Philadelphia Eagles at 0:16 PHI SEA

1st and 10 at PHI 40 (Shotgun) V.Young pass incomplete short right to R.Cooper [T.Hargrove].

2nd and 10 at PHI 40 (Shotgun) V.Young scrambles left end ran ob at SEA 47 for 13 yards.

1st and 10 at SEA 47 (Shotgun) V.Young pass incomplete deep right to R.Cooper.

End of 1st Half

 

[cobalt_27]

garret not trying to get more yards with 2 tos and 30s is just unreal.

Inexcusable. This is Rich Kotite bad. He needs to go. Bottom line, if you cannot calculate the math necessary to manage a clock, you are not HC material. I don't care about the Ivy League pedigree. That's just stoopid.

 

[Donnybrook]

Frazier. This one is much less egregious, but at home I'm running the ball at my 20 with a minute and change to go to OT, not putting my rookie QB who has played a helluva game in a position to throw an int inside FG range vs the Denver Tebows. Not as HORRIBLE as the other two, but certainly questionable logic at best. IF I throw there I am throwing SAFE or DEEP routes, not short semi quick outs that are low reward and high risk.

That's not a clock management issue, that's a GAME management issue. Frazier was calling for plays that even Brett Favre shouldn't be throwing (wait, I guess that should say "plays that ESPECIALLY Brett Favre shouldn't be throwing"!)

First, Frazier doesn't call the plays.Second, those short passes to Harvin resulted in the last two TDs. It is, what it is: simply a bad decision by Ponder.

 

[coolnerd]

Garrett is becoming known as a poor gameday coach in some ways. Today did not help his cause. Arent these guys typically going over possible outcomes in their heads before they happen? Isnt Garrett supposed to be smart?

They should and probably do run through situations, but I can think of 100s things that I think have worked out in my head, but until the actual life situation comes up, I don't truly know that I will react properly (many of which I don't need/want tested). Remember on the sidelines in the chaos of a two-minute drive, coaches don't have a nice television screen with most of the key information laid out neatly. Learning how and where this information is coming from is a part game organization and management, so it is on Garrett etc when are making decisions based on wrong or missing information, but this is one of the sthat I think it generally takes coaches a few yeaars and in many cases a job or two to this part of the gig down.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Garrett is becoming known as a poor gameday coach in some ways. Today did not help his cause.

Arent these guys typically going over possible outcomes in their heads before they happen? Isnt Garrett supposed to be smart?

They should and probably do run through situations, but I can think of 100s things that I think have worked out in my head, but until the actual life situation comes up, I don't truly know that I will react properly (many of which I don't need/want tested). Remember on the sidelines in the chaos of a two-minute drive, coaches don't have a nice television screen with most of the key information laid out neatly. Learning how and where this information is coming from is a part game organization and management, so it is on Garrett etc when are making decisions based on wrong or missing information, but this is one of the sthat I think it generally takes coaches a few yeaars and in many cases a job or two to this part of the gig down.

There's an app for that.

 

[delusional]

Watch any eagles game the past 13 years and that is the eye of hte hurricane for how not to manage time

 

[GroveDiesel]

Let's add in Chan Gailey. Buffalo was down by 14 with 8 minutes left and they managed to chew up 6 minutes driving down the field. They even ran the playclock down to about zero 3 times while sauntering to the line and taking their time.

They had to use all their timeouts then and got the ball back with a minute left and no timeouts on their own 20. At that point they basically panicked and had no shot as they rushed terrible throws towards the sideline.

 

[Manster]

Garrett is becoming known as a poor gameday coach in some ways. Today did not help his cause. Arent these guys typically going over possible outcomes in their heads before they happen? Isnt Garrett supposed to be smart?

They should and probably do run through situations, but I can think of 100s things that I think have worked out in my head, but until the actual life situation comes up, I don't truly know that I will react properly (many of which I don't need/want tested). Remember on the sidelines in the chaos of a two-minute drive, coaches don't have a nice television screen with most of the key information laid out neatly. Learning how and where this information is coming from is a part game organization and management, so it is on Garrett etc when are making decisions based on wrong or missing information, but this is one of the sthat I think it generally takes coaches a few yeaars and in many cases a job or two to this part of the gig down.

good point.But, what happened in the Cowboys game wasnt rocket science decision kinda stuff. use your timeouts to try to get more yards. dont ice your own kicker with a timeout. Get your friggin plays in so you're not snapping the ball at 0 on the play clock.

 

[coolnerd]

Garrett is becoming known as a poor gameday coach in some ways. Today did not help his cause. Arent these guys typically going over possible outcomes in their heads before they happen? Isnt Garrett supposed to be smart?

They should and probably do run through situations, but I can think of 100s things that I think have worked out in my head, but until the actual life situation comes up, I don't truly know that I will react properly (many of which I don't need/want tested). Remember on the sidelines in the chaos of a two-minute drive, coaches don't have a nice television screen with most of the key information laid out neatly. Learning how and where this information is coming from is a part game organization and management, so it is on Garrett etc when are making decisions based on wrong or missing information, but this is one of the sthat I think it generally takes coaches a few yeaars and in many cases a job or two to this part of the gig down.

good point.But, what happened in the Cowboys game wasnt rocket science decision kinda stuff. use your timeouts to try to get more yards. dont ice your own kicker with a timeout. Get your friggin plays in so you're not snapping the ball at 0 on the play clock.

Agree. He was trying to claim that the Cowboys were in Bailey's range, but even without being a stat maven, pretty much anyone around football knows that some where between 45-50 yards field goals go from being almost gaurantees to 50/50 propositions. Pretty simple, you rather not kick a field goal from a kicker's far outer range.

 

[Marauder]

Coughlin. 1st and goal with 1 min to go. Down by 8. And you pass every down so as to preserve a minute fora QB who is playing at as high a level as any NFL QB ever? Even a 10 yr old who plays madden knows that you need to run the ball there to whittle down the clock to score with time near expired. I was even thinking as he kicked off that i wouldn't blame him for trying a surprise onside here, as there is NO CHANCE Rogers isn't gonna get em in FG range in a minute. You know what happened next.

Down by 7, sure, but it's impossible to say what the right call is there when you're down by 8. If they run all the time off the clock and then miss the 2-pt conversion, they screw themselves out of a shot for another possession.

The odds of getting the 2 pt (40%) are far higher than getting the onsides (which is what 10%). Plus if you get the onsides you don't need much more than 1-2 plays to get in GW fg range. Playing the %'s I'd say the downside of giving Roogers 1 minute vs the upside how much time you'd need to get in FG range after an onsides still fall towards at least running half of that minute off the clock.

You shouldn't be comparing the probability of making the 2-pt conversion to the probability of recovering an onside kick. You should be comparing the probability of making the 2-pt conversion to the probability of missing the 2-pt conversion.

I disagree. Since the odds of me actually getting the onside kick are so low I am evaluating whether or not the minute on the clock is going to help me or hurt me. In order for the time on the clock to help me I have to recover the onside kick (making the 'upside of keeping the clock full less valuable in my decision calculus. Plus as I already said with the GB D being without woodson being the 2 pt Defense, I have already adjusted the 2 pt conversion % in my decision calculus to greater than 50%. I have also also increased the 'downside/negative utility of the full clock because Aaron Rogers 2011 is the one who will be using it.

It hardly matters what the probability of recovering an onside kick is. You're never going to be in a position where you need to decide whether or not to onside kick. If you miss the 2-pt conversion, you have to onside kick. The only question is whether or not you think you'll make the 2-pt conversion. if you make it, you want to do so with as little time left as possible. If you miss it, you want to do so with as much time left as possible. Because making the conversion is almost a 50/50 proposition, there's no "correct" strategy to employ. You just have to pick one and hope it works out.

But what does matter is what are the chances that your opponent will be able to get into field goal range with a minute left as opposed to less than 20 seconds. I think the correct strategy against GB or NE is very different than it would be against, say KC.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Coughlin. 1st and goal with 1 min to go. Down by 8. And you pass every down so as to preserve a minute fora QB who is playing at as high a level as any NFL QB ever? Even a 10 yr old who plays madden knows that you need to run the ball there to whittle down the clock to score with time near expired. I was even thinking as he kicked off that i wouldn't blame him for trying a surprise onside here, as there is NO CHANCE Rogers isn't gonna get em in FG range in a minute. You know what happened next.

Down by 7, sure, but it's impossible to say what the right call is there when you're down by 8. If they run all the time off the clock and then miss the 2-pt conversion, they screw themselves out of a shot for another possession.

The odds of getting the 2 pt (40%) are far higher than getting the onsides (which is what 10%). Plus if you get the onsides you don't need much more than 1-2 plays to get in GW fg range. Playing the %'s I'd say the downside of giving Roogers 1 minute vs the upside how much time you'd need to get in FG range after an onsides still fall towards at least running half of that minute off the clock.

You shouldn't be comparing the probability of making the 2-pt conversion to the probability of recovering an onside kick. You should be comparing the probability of making the 2-pt conversion to the probability of missing the 2-pt conversion.

I disagree. Since the odds of me actually getting the onside kick are so low I am evaluating whether or not the minute on the clock is going to help me or hurt me. In order for the time on the clock to help me I have to recover the onside kick (making the 'upside of keeping the clock full less valuable in my decision calculus. Plus as I already said with the GB D being without woodson being the 2 pt Defense, I have already adjusted the 2 pt conversion % in my decision calculus to greater than 50%. I have also also increased the 'downside/negative utility of the full clock because Aaron Rogers 2011 is the one who will be using it.

It hardly matters what the probability of recovering an onside kick is. You're never going to be in a position where you need to decide whether or not to onside kick. If you miss the 2-pt conversion, you have to onside kick. The only question is whether or not you think you'll make the 2-pt conversion. if you make it, you want to do so with as little time left as possible. If you miss it, you want to do so with as much time left as possible. Because making the conversion is almost a 50/50 proposition, there's no "correct" strategy to employ. You just have to pick one and hope it works out.

But what does matter is what are the chances that your opponent will be able to get into field goal range with a minute left as opposed to less than 20 seconds. I think the correct strategy against GB or NE is very different than it would be against, say KC.

Again, that only matters if you're going to make the 2-pt conversion. But you have no idea whether or not you're going to make it, so you don't know which strategy is correct.

 

[Sweet Love]

Coughlin. 1st and goal with 1 min to go. Down by 8. And you pass every down so as to preserve a minute fora QB who is playing at as high a level as any NFL QB ever? Even a 10 yr old who plays madden knows that you need to run the ball there to whittle down the clock to score with time near expired. I was even thinking as he kicked off that i wouldn't blame him for trying a surprise onside here, as there is NO CHANCE Rogers isn't gonna get em in FG range in a minute. You know what happened next.

Down by 7, sure, but it's impossible to say what the right call is there when you're down by 8. If they run all the time off the clock and then miss the 2-pt conversion, they screw themselves out of a shot for another possession.

The odds of getting the 2 pt (40%) are far higher than getting the onsides (which is what 10%). Plus if you get the onsides you don't need much more than 1-2 plays to get in GW fg range. Playing the %'s I'd say the downside of giving Roogers 1 minute vs the upside how much time you'd need to get in FG range after an onsides still fall towards at least running half of that minute off the clock.

The percentage on the 2 pt. conversion may be greater than that of an on-side kick, but I would love to see what the conversation for "obvious" two point conversion (QB under center) is versus trick plays with the holder/kicker running/tossing it. I doubt it is a huge dropoff, but when everyone in the stadium knows you are going for two, the pressure is on. I see your point about Rodgers, but at some point you need to draw the line and say, "let's get the freakin' points first before we worry about whether our defense can hold a QB off for the next 1 minute". I think in a situation like that, teams need to not worry about whether they lose by 6 or 3 and scrap the prevent D. If you get beat on a play and put them in FG range, you live with it; but as you said, if you go soft on prevent with Rodgers, he is going to get into FG range anyways.

 

[Joe Summer]

Garrett is becoming known as a poor gameday coach in some ways. Today did not help his cause. Arent these guys typically going over possible outcomes in their heads before they happen? Isnt Garrett supposed to be smart?

They should and probably do run through situations, but I can think of 100s things that I think have worked out in my head, but until the actual life situation comes up, I don't truly know that I will react properly (many of which I don't need/want tested). Remember on the sidelines in the chaos of a two-minute drive, coaches don't have a nice television screen with most of the key information laid out neatly. Learning how and where this information is coming from is a part game organization and management, so it is on Garrett etc when are making decisions based on wrong or missing information, but this is one of the sthat I think it generally takes coaches a few yeaars and in many cases a job or two to this part of the gig down.

good point.But, what happened in the Cowboys game wasnt rocket science decision kinda stuff. use your timeouts to try to get more yards. dont ice your own kicker with a timeout. Get your friggin plays in so you're not snapping the ball at 0 on the play clock.

Colin Cowherd was defending Dallas today, saying "Look what happened when San Diego tried to run another play after getting into field goal position last week -- they lost 4 yards and it cost them the game."Cowherd went on to say that you should kick the field goal the moment you get into a kicker's "comfortable" range.

 

[Marauder]

Coughlin. 1st and goal with 1 min to go. Down by 8. And you pass every down so as to preserve a minute fora QB who is playing at as high a level as any NFL QB ever? Even a 10 yr old who plays madden knows that you need to run the ball there to whittle down the clock to score with time near expired. I was even thinking as he kicked off that i wouldn't blame him for trying a surprise onside here, as there is NO CHANCE Rogers isn't gonna get em in FG range in a minute. You know what happened next.

Down by 7, sure, but it's impossible to say what the right call is there when you're down by 8. If they run all the time off the clock and then miss the 2-pt conversion, they screw themselves out of a shot for another possession.

The odds of getting the 2 pt (40%) are far higher than getting the onsides (which is what 10%). Plus if you get the onsides you don't need much more than 1-2 plays to get in GW fg range. Playing the %'s I'd say the downside of giving Roogers 1 minute vs the upside how much time you'd need to get in FG range after an onsides still fall towards at least running half of that minute off the clock.

You shouldn't be comparing the probability of making the 2-pt conversion to the probability of recovering an onside kick. You should be comparing the probability of making the 2-pt conversion to the probability of missing the 2-pt conversion.

I disagree. Since the odds of me actually getting the onside kick are so low I am evaluating whether or not the minute on the clock is going to help me or hurt me. In order for the time on the clock to help me I have to recover the onside kick (making the 'upside of keeping the clock full less valuable in my decision calculus. Plus as I already said with the GB D being without woodson being the 2 pt Defense, I have already adjusted the 2 pt conversion % in my decision calculus to greater than 50%. I have also also increased the 'downside/negative utility of the full clock because Aaron Rogers 2011 is the one who will be using it.

It hardly matters what the probability of recovering an onside kick is. You're never going to be in a position where you need to decide whether or not to onside kick. If you miss the 2-pt conversion, you have to onside kick. The only question is whether or not you think you'll make the 2-pt conversion. if you make it, you want to do so with as little time left as possible. If you miss it, you want to do so with as much time left as possible. Because making the conversion is almost a 50/50 proposition, there's no "correct" strategy to employ. You just have to pick one and hope it works out.

But what does matter is what are the chances that your opponent will be able to get into field goal range with a minute left as opposed to less than 20 seconds. I think the correct strategy against GB or NE is very different than it would be against, say KC.

Again, that only matters if you're going to make the 2-pt conversion. But you have no idea whether or not you're going to make it, so you don't know which strategy is correct.

But it all factors into the equation in determining which strategy is correct. You have to look at what are the chances of you winning the game if you make the conversion with a minute left, if you make the converson with 10 seconds left, if you miss the conversion with a minute left, if you miss the conversion with 10 seconds left (and all the other permutations of time left on the clock). It is no where near as simple as either you or Hipple are making it out to be.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Coughlin. 1st and goal with 1 min to go. Down by 8. And you pass every down so as to preserve a minute fora QB who is playing at as high a level as any NFL QB ever? Even a 10 yr old who plays madden knows that you need to run the ball there to whittle down the clock to score with time near expired. I was even thinking as he kicked off that i wouldn't blame him for trying a surprise onside here, as there is NO CHANCE Rogers isn't gonna get em in FG range in a minute. You know what happened next.

Down by 7, sure, but it's impossible to say what the right call is there when you're down by 8. If they run all the time off the clock and then miss the 2-pt conversion, they screw themselves out of a shot for another possession.

The odds of getting the 2 pt (40%) are far higher than getting the onsides (which is what 10%). Plus if you get the onsides you don't need much more than 1-2 plays to get in GW fg range. Playing the %'s I'd say the downside of giving Roogers 1 minute vs the upside how much time you'd need to get in FG range after an onsides still fall towards at least running half of that minute off the clock.

You shouldn't be comparing the probability of making the 2-pt conversion to the probability of recovering an onside kick. You should be comparing the probability of making the 2-pt conversion to the probability of missing the 2-pt conversion.

I disagree. Since the odds of me actually getting the onside kick are so low I am evaluating whether or not the minute on the clock is going to help me or hurt me. In order for the time on the clock to help me I have to recover the onside kick (making the 'upside of keeping the clock full less valuable in my decision calculus. Plus as I already said with the GB D being without woodson being the 2 pt Defense, I have already adjusted the 2 pt conversion % in my decision calculus to greater than 50%. I have also also increased the 'downside/negative utility of the full clock because Aaron Rogers 2011 is the one who will be using it.

It hardly matters what the probability of recovering an onside kick is. You're never going to be in a position where you need to decide whether or not to onside kick. If you miss the 2-pt conversion, you have to onside kick. The only question is whether or not you think you'll make the 2-pt conversion. if you make it, you want to do so with as little time left as possible. If you miss it, you want to do so with as much time left as possible. Because making the conversion is almost a 50/50 proposition, there's no "correct" strategy to employ. You just have to pick one and hope it works out.

But what does matter is what are the chances that your opponent will be able to get into field goal range with a minute left as opposed to less than 20 seconds. I think the correct strategy against GB or NE is very different than it would be against, say KC.

Again, that only matters if you're going to make the 2-pt conversion. But you have no idea whether or not you're going to make it, so you don't know which strategy is correct.

But it all factors into the equation in determining which strategy is correct. You have to look at what are the chances of you winning the game if you make the conversion with a minute left, if you make the converson with 10 seconds left, if you miss the conversion with a minute left, if you miss the conversion with 10 seconds left (and all the other permutations of time left on the clock). It is no where near as simple as either you or Hipple are making it out to be.

I never said it was simple. On the contrary, my point is basically that it's an impossible problem to solve, which is why it's hard to fault a head coach for the way they choose to play an 8 point deficit at the end of the game.

 

[jackdubl]

That Garrett situation goes right up there with dumbest of all time. Blows the Indy's coach's Super Bowl timeout out of the water. Atlanta's coach going for it on fourth from his own 30 is right behind.

 

[Dizzy]

Whole lotta fuzzy math going on in here.

Sure is. The NYG analysis is purely "hindsight 20/20"... if they only needed a FG, sure you chew clock. But needing a TD? Gotta take it as soon as you can get it.Garret's move was the worst of the weekend.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Colin Cowherd was defending Dallas today, saying "Look what happened when San Diego tried to run another play after getting into field goal position last week -- they lost 4 yards and it cost them the game."Cowherd went on to say that you should kick the field goal the moment you get into a kicker's "comfortable" range.

Yeah, but Cowherd is brain dead. Can you imagine the Raiders employing that strategy? Down by 2 with 85 seconds left, the Raiders, despite having three timeouts at their disposal, inexplicably attempted a 61-yard FG on 1st and 10, which Sebastion Janikowski missed wide right. Oops.

 

[massraider]

Colin Cowherd was defending Dallas today, saying "Look what happened when San Diego tried to run another play after getting into field goal position last week -- they lost 4 yards and it cost them the game."Cowherd went on to say that you should kick the field goal the moment you get into a kicker's "comfortable" range.

Yeah, but Cowherd is brain dead. Can you imagine the Raiders employing that strategy? Down by 2 with 85 seconds left, the Raiders, despite having three timeouts at their disposal, inexplicably attempted a 61-yard FG on 1st and 10, which Sebastion Janikowski missed wide right. Oops.

Hmm, I am not sure if Cowherd is braindead, or just a dip####. I go back and forth.Screw that whole idea. You rush to put the ball in the hands of your long snapper (scrub LB from Ping Pong Tech), holder (failed QB or punter), and kicker (frustrated soccer player)? I think coaches like to only decide the game with a kick when there is no other choice.

 

[Joe Summer]

Colin Cowherd was defending Dallas today, saying "Look what happened when San Diego tried to run another play after getting into field goal position last week -- they lost 4 yards and it cost them the game."

Cowherd went on to say that you should kick the field goal the moment you get into a kicker's "comfortable" range.

Yeah, but Cowherd is brain dead. Can you imagine the Raiders employing that strategy? Down by 2 with 85 seconds left, the Raiders, despite having three timeouts at their disposal, inexplicably attempted a 61-yard FG on 1st and 10, which Sebastion Janikowski missed wide right. Oops.

I agree. I think what Cowherd is missing is that the Expected Value of Novak kicking a 49-yarder is less than the Expected Value of running a play on 3rd-and-6, then kicking the FG. Cowherd based his conclusion solely on the outcome; but if Novak had missed from 49 yards then Cowherd would have come to a different conclusion and he'd be calling for the Chargers to run another play to get closer.

 

[jackdubl]

Cowherd went on to say that you should kick the field goal the moment you get into a kicker's "comfortable" range.

49 yards isn't within anyone's comfortable range, unless that person is a moron.

 

[LargeMouthBass]

"I don't call timeouts very often but when I do, I call them to ice my kicker." -Jason Garrett

 

[gradin123]

I agree the Garrett screw up was the worst. Really no excuse whatsoever. However, I have to say Romo gets some blame there too ,he could have called a timeout too but instead rushed up for the spike.

 

[Dexter Manley]

Colin Cowherd was defending Dallas today, saying "Look what happened when San Diego tried to run another play after getting into field goal position last week -- they lost 4 yards and it cost them the game."Cowherd went on to say that you should kick the field goal the moment you get into a kicker's "comfortable" range.

Yeah, but Cowherd is brain dead. Can you imagine the Raiders employing that strategy? Down by 2 with 85 seconds left, the Raiders, despite having three timeouts at their disposal, inexplicably attempted a 61-yard FG on 1st and 10, which Sebastion Janikowski missed wide right. Oops.

Yea, but this is apparently how the Cowboys prepare for games. According to Garrett, they have a range they're comfortable with their kicker making fg's in, and they were within the kicker's range! Also, Cowherd basically assumes that the Cowboys will lose yardage if they run another play, because the Card's defense had x amount of tfl's and sacks earlier. Just dumb.To me, Garrett's whole strategy here reeks of not trusting Romo in critical game situations. Like not even trusting Romo to handle the snap and hand off the ball cleanly in that situation.

 

[mrspree15]

Frazier. This one is much less egregious, but at home I'm running the ball at my 20 with a minute and change to go to OT, not putting my rookie QB who has played a helluva game in a position to throw an int inside FG range vs the Denver Tebows. Not as HORRIBLE as the other two, but certainly questionable logic at best. IF I throw there I am throwing SAFE or DEEP routes, not short semi quick outs that are low reward and high risk.

No complaints about Frazier not letting Denver score so they can get the ball back one more time? That was much worse than him choosing whether or not to trust Ponder.

 

[dfwboiler]

I agree the Garrett screw up was the worst. Really no excuse whatsoever. However, I have to say Romo gets some blame there too ,he could have called a timeout too but instead rushed up for the spike.

What do you trust more... Bailey kicking a 49 yard field goal, or Romo somehow not screwing up?

 

[Joe Summer]

I agree the Garrett screw up was the worst. Really no excuse whatsoever. However, I have to say Romo gets some blame there too ,he could have called a timeout too but instead rushed up for the spike.

What do you trust more... Bailey kicking a 49 yard field goal, or Romo somehow not screwing up?

Considering that Bailey probably hits a 49-yarder about 70% of the time, I'd rather trust Romo to get some positive yards first.

 

[Donnybrook]

Frazier. This one is much less egregious, but at home I'm running the ball at my 20 with a minute and change to go to OT, not putting my rookie QB who has played a helluva game in a position to throw an int inside FG range vs the Denver Tebows. Not as HORRIBLE as the other two, but certainly questionable logic at best. IF I throw there I am throwing SAFE or DEEP routes, not short semi quick outs that are low reward and high risk.

No complaints about Frazier not letting Denver score so they can get the ball back one more time? That was much worse than him choosing whether or not to trust Ponder.

And if he let them score and they still lost, he would never hear the end of it. The alternate play always has a success rate of 100 % in peoples imagination.

 

[mrspree15]

Frazier. This one is much less egregious, but at home I'm running the ball at my 20 with a minute and change to go to OT, not putting my rookie QB who has played a helluva game in a position to throw an int inside FG range vs the Denver Tebows. Not as HORRIBLE as the other two, but certainly questionable logic at best. IF I throw there I am throwing SAFE or DEEP routes, not short semi quick outs that are low reward and high risk.

No complaints about Frazier not letting Denver score so they can get the ball back one more time? That was much worse than him choosing whether or not to trust Ponder.

And if he let them score and they still lost, he would never here the end of it. The alternate play always has a success rate of 100 % in peoples imagination.

All I heard on twitter at the time was how dumb he was for not letting them score, so one could argue the opposite. And if he's coaching to avoid criticism from a fan dumb enough to criticize him for that, he should not be coaching.Which one is the alternate play, the chip shot FG? Yeah it's like 99%.

 

[Donnybrook]

Frazier. This one is much less egregious, but at home I'm running the ball at my 20 with a minute and change to go to OT, not putting my rookie QB who has played a helluva game in a position to throw an int inside FG range vs the Denver Tebows. Not as HORRIBLE as the other two, but certainly questionable logic at best. IF I throw there I am throwing SAFE or DEEP routes, not short semi quick outs that are low reward and high risk.

No complaints about Frazier not letting Denver score so they can get the ball back one more time? That was much worse than him choosing whether or not to trust Ponder.

And if he let them score and they still lost, he would never here the end of it. The alternate play always has a success rate of 100 % in peoples imagination.

All I heard on twitter at the time was how dumb he was for not letting them score, so one could argue the opposite. And if he's coaching to avoid criticism from a fan dumb enough to criticize him for that, he should not be coaching.Which one is the alternate play, the chip shot FG? Yeah it's like 99%.

This is a team with a subpar Oline and a rookie QB. It is highly unlikely he going to drive the length of the field with no timeout and less than a minute left in the game. Tom Brady couldn't even do it with his 16-0 team in the Super Bowl against the Giants.

 

[Joe Summer]

Frazier. This one is much less egregious, but at home I'm running the ball at my 20 with a minute and change to go to OT, not putting my rookie QB who has played a helluva game in a position to throw an int inside FG range vs the Denver Tebows. Not as HORRIBLE as the other two, but certainly questionable logic at best. IF I throw there I am throwing SAFE or DEEP routes, not short semi quick outs that are low reward and high risk.

No complaints about Frazier not letting Denver score so they can get the ball back one more time? That was much worse than him choosing whether or not to trust Ponder.

And if he let them score and they still lost, he would never here the end of it. The alternate play always has a success rate of 100 % in peoples imagination.

All I heard on twitter at the time was how dumb he was for not letting them score, so one could argue the opposite. And if he's coaching to avoid criticism from a fan dumb enough to criticize him for that, he should not be coaching.Which one is the alternate play, the chip shot FG? Yeah it's like 99%.

For his career, Prater has made 98.4% of PATs and 93.3% of FGs under 30 yards. If you account for freak occurrences like botched snaps, I'd say that Denver was going to win that game 96% of the time. Maybe Frazier thought that the chances of Ponder leading the team on a TD drive (in less than a minute) were under 4%?

 

[mrspree15]

Frazier. This one is much less egregious, but at home I'm running the ball at my 20 with a minute and change to go to OT, not putting my rookie QB who has played a helluva game in a position to throw an int inside FG range vs the Denver Tebows. Not as HORRIBLE as the other two, but certainly questionable logic at best. IF I throw there I am throwing SAFE or DEEP routes, not short semi quick outs that are low reward and high risk.

No complaints about Frazier not letting Denver score so they can get the ball back one more time? That was much worse than him choosing whether or not to trust Ponder.

And if he let them score and they still lost, he would never here the end of it. The alternate play always has a success rate of 100 % in peoples imagination.

All I heard on twitter at the time was how dumb he was for not letting them score, so one could argue the opposite. And if he's coaching to avoid criticism from a fan dumb enough to criticize him for that, he should not be coaching.Which one is the alternate play, the chip shot FG? Yeah it's like 99%.

This is a team with a subpar Oline and a rookie QB. It is highly unlikely he going to drive the length of the field with no timeout and less than a minute left in the game. Tom Brady couldn't even do it with his 16-0 team in the Super Bowl against the Giants.

One thing has a greater chance of occurring than the other. And not that it should change his decision, but they scored 32 points and Ponder had 380 yards passing.

 

[Donnybrook]

BTW: If you let them score a TD, then score a last second TD - you still don't win. It will be a tie and you could still lose in OT.

 

[mrspree15]

BTW: If you let them score a TD, then score a last second TD - you still don't win. It will be a tie and you could still lose in OT.

Yes, of course. You don't think the odds are better than facing the chip shot fg?