GreenNGold

Post here when coaches do something obviously stupid

1,143 posts in this topic

A better discussion might begin by pointing out that most coaches in every sport feel compelled to go by the dreaded book. Doing so provides cover to all of their decisions and limits the postgame media swarm that is sure to follow when a coach deviates from conventional coach wisdom.

I think the "win percentage" angle is a good place to start challenging the current status quo for most NFL coaching decisions. I agree wholeheartedly with the idea that far too many coaches play to not lose rather than play to win. I also agree that the worry over "demoralizing" your team is highly overvalued. I expect many players enjoy the aggressive mentality of going all out to win and would embrace the notion once they see it used consistently.

I believe that it's hard for a lot of people to understand that there always comes a point when the game is on the line, and that having that time come earlier than the latest possible moment is not necessarily smart strategy. Coaches need to understand that taking a risk earlier may be the best chance to win the game even if failing at that opportunity all but guarantees a loss. Underdogs in particular need to understand that bucking conventional wisdom is the most likely way they can defeat a much stronger opponent.

:goodposting:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seattle had a 94% win probability when Arizona lined up for the field goal. After the conversion, they had a 97% WP.

http://live.advancednflstats.com/

so the premise of this whole thread is calling the coach stupid for giving up 3%???

He cut his team's chance of winning in half by kicking a successful field goal. Think about that.

If the goal is to actually win the game, rather than try to "stay in the game" and make the final score look respectable, this is exactly the kind of decision you'd never make.

This is exactly it. Coaches make decisions not to maximize their chances of winning, but to minimize their chances of being second-guessed.

Going for it on 4th down there is obviously the right move. What are the chances that you're going to get that close two more times in the game? However, if the 4th down attempt fails, the game is over right now and everyone second-guesses the decision. Kicking the field goal makes the loss pretty much inevitable, but hey, you're theoretically still in the game and it was a "successful" play, so nobody points to that decision as the reason you lost.

"Keeping your team in the game as long as possible" is the wrong criterion for making these decisions, but it's inevitably the one that coaches use. Giving your team the best chance to win often entails taking on risk.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still ticked at Payton for throwing a low percentage pass deep to Colston with under 3:00 left vs NE, it saved the Pats their final timeout and directly led to a loss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going for it on 4th down there is obviously the right move. What are the chances that you're going to get that close two more times in the game? However, if the 4th down attempt fails, the game is over right now and everyone second-guesses the decision. Kicking the field goal makes the loss pretty much inevitable, but hey, you're theoretically still in the game and it was a "successful" play, so nobody points to that decision as the reason you lost.

Why would "everyone second guess the decision" if it is "obviously the right move"? Do people tend to question things that have obvious answers? To many people, there is nothing "obvious" about saying a successful FG reduces your chance to win. Just because something is obvious to some stat nerds, doesn't mean it's going to be obvious to everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seattle had a 94% win probability when Arizona lined up for the field goal. After the conversion, they had a 97% WP.

http://live.advancednflstats.com/

Seattle had a 100% chance of winning if the go for it and fail. What's your point.

I think this is the fallacy. On fourth down, people believe field goals are free points, and an offensive play is a turnover. This was about as good a chance for a touchdown he needed as he could get. If you needed one touchdown, (or 2) and your team was offered one play from the 4 yard line or a possession from kickoff, which would you take?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going for it on 4th down there is obviously the right move. What are the chances that you're going to get that close two more times in the game? However, if the 4th down attempt fails, the game is over right now and everyone second-guesses the decision. Kicking the field goal makes the loss pretty much inevitable, but hey, you're theoretically still in the game and it was a "successful" play, so nobody points to that decision as the reason you lost.

Why would "everyone second guess the decision" if it is "obviously the right move"? Do people tend to question things that have obvious answers? To many people, there is nothing "obvious" about saying a successful FG reduces your chance to win. Just because something is obvious to some stat nerds, doesn't mean it's going to be obvious to everyone.

I think you can take out the word "obviously" from his statement, and his point remains intact.

It's the right move, but it's also the one most likely to be second-guessed by the masses if it fails. Thus the conundrum. You're pointing out that people are generally stupid, which just supports rather than refutes the post you're responding to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A better discussion might begin by pointing out that most coaches in every sport feel compelled to go by the dreaded book. Doing so provides cover to all of their decisions and limits the postgame media swarm that is sure to follow when a coach deviates from conventional coach wisdom.

I think the "win percentage" angle is a good place to start challenging the current status quo for most NFL coaching decisions. I agree wholeheartedly with the idea that far too many coaches play to not lose rather than play to win. I also agree that the worry over "demoralizing" your team is highly overvalued. I expect many players enjoy the aggressive mentality of going all out to win and would embrace the notion once they see it used consistently.

I believe that it's hard for a lot of people to understand that there always comes a point when the game is on the line, and that having that time come earlier than the latest possible moment is not necessarily smart strategy. Coaches need to understand that taking a risk earlier may be the best chance to win the game even if failing at that opportunity all but guarantees a loss. Underdogs in particular need to understand that bucking conventional wisdom is the most likely way they can defeat a much stronger opponent.

:goodposting:

Agreed. I think there are some fascinating psychological angles as to why football in particular has proved so resistant to the sabremetric movement. There is clearly an element of conservatism, along with loss aversion. Also, as Barnwell has frequently pointed out, a single football season remains a very small sample size, so it's harder to show definitive proof and convince the skeptics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would "everyone second guess the decision" if it is "obviously the right move"? Do people tend to question things that have obvious answers?

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This should fill up with Harbug (both) and Kubiak posts on Sunday.

Oh btw, Harbug (BALT) lost the game for them last week going for it on 4th down a full 5 minutes before the half. Should have kicked the FG like Arians did. Take the points, Loser 17-19.

4-1-GB1 (5:22) B.Pierce left guard to GB 1 for no gain (M.Daniels; M.Hyde).

Mike Smith will join in with his patented 2nd and 8 at the 50, trot out the FB and tell the defense 'we are going to run the football'. End result is always 3rd and 8 or worse.

Edited by lod01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bevel not letting lynch run it in from the six inch line after he worked so hard to get that close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This should fill up with Harbug (both) and Kubiak posts on Sunday.

Oh btw, Harbug (BALT) lost the game for them last week going for it on 4th down a full 5 minutes before the half. Should have kicked the FG like Arians did. Take the points, Loser 17-19.

4-1-GB1 (5:22) B.Pierce left guard to GB 1 for no gain (M.Daniels; M.Hyde).

Mike Smith will join in with his patented 2nd and 8 at the 50, trot out the FB and tell the defense 'we are going to run the football'. End result is always 3rd and 8 or worse.

Because the game would have played out exactly the same, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This should fill up with Harbug (both) and Kubiak posts on Sunday.

Oh btw, Harbug (BALT) lost the game for them last week going for it on 4th down a full 5 minutes before the half. Should have kicked the FG like Arians did. Take the points, Loser 17-19.

4-1-GB1 (5:22) B.Pierce left guard to GB 1 for no gain (M.Daniels; M.Hyde).

Mike Smith will join in with his patented 2nd and 8 at the 50, trot out the FB and tell the defense 'we are going to run the football'. End result is always 3rd and 8 or worse.

Because the game would have played out exactly the same, of course.

Rephrasing. Yeah, they might have won the game if the kicked the FG.

Edited by lod01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bevel not letting lynch run it in from the six inch line after he worked so hard to get that close.

didn't they score anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tonight, Bruce Arians, head coach of the Arizona Cardinals chose to kick a field goal from the 4 yard line while down 18 points in the 4th quarter. I thought NFL coaches were supposed to understand the game? I mean, how do people who are so incompetent get these jobs that pay millions of dollars per year? I really feel like acts like this should be a fireable offense, similar to how John Fox cost the Broncos any chance in the playoffs last year (2012), yet he still has a job too.

I made a post similar to this in the Seahawks-Cardinals game thread tonight, but thought it could make a good thread.

I don't think you understand football at all. Or math.

18 pts - 3 (FG) = 15. 15 - 8 (TD, conversion) = 7. 7-7 (TD, xtra) = 0

0 = tie game, which is what you're hoping for when down 18 in the 4th quarter. Absolutely NOTHING wrong with Arians' decision here.

/thread

I don't think you understand. Everyone can do the math, but there is more going on than how many points they need to score. It's not as simple as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FG attempt was fine. Going for 2 down 12 was more questionable, since they could have kicked the XP on 4th down near the end to get within 8, and then could have at least given themselves a chance with the onside kick, a possible recovery, Hail Mary and then go for 2.

A failed 2pt conversion with 5 minutes left gives Arizona information. It informs them that they still need 2 TDs to win this thing and they can play accordingly. A failed 2pt conversion after a last second Hail Mary just ends the game. Strategy should be about maximizing your chances of actually winning the game...not keeping "hope" alive for as long as possible.

Possibly, but I am just a believer in not chasing the points until you absolutely have to get them. I see both sides of the argument on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FG attempt was fine. Going for 2 down 12 was more questionable, since they could have kicked the XP on 4th down near the end to get within 8, and then could have at least given themselves a chance with the onside kick, a possible recovery, Hail Mary and then go for 2.

A failed 2pt conversion with 5 minutes left gives Arizona information. It informs them that they still need 2 TDs to win this thing and they can play accordingly. A failed 2pt conversion after a last second Hail Mary just ends the game. Strategy should be about maximizing your chances of actually winning the game...not keeping "hope" alive for as long as possible.

Possibly, but I am just a believer in not chasing the points until you absolutely have to get them. I see both sides of the argument on this one.

Chasing points, to me, implies reducing your expected return in exchange for a higher variance. That doesn't make sense in the context of two point conversions generally, but it also doesn't make sense here when the Cardinals will absolutely need a 2-point conversion at some point, and if they don't, they missing the 2-point conversion here won't hurt them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is stupid.

:noted:

No, it is not. The fact that there are actually people in this thread defending Bruce Arian's decision is proof that this thread needs to exist. His decision was 100% wrong and there should be zero debate about that.

Edited by GreenNGold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is stupid.

:noted:

No, it is not. The fact that there are actually people in this thread defending Bruce Arian's decision is proof that this thread needs to exist. His decision was 100% wrong and there should be zero debate about that.

This is his point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does everyone think you have to be close to the endzone to score a touchdown?

I've seen plenty of 70 yard+ TDs in my lifetime, but have never once seen a 70+ yard FG.

When you're in FG range, you take the FG. You're always in TD range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does everyone think you have to be close to the endzone to score a touchdown?

I've seen plenty of 70 yard+ TDs in my lifetime, but have never once seen a 70+ yard FG.

When you're in FG range, you take the FG. You're always in TD range.

Right, because the fact that you can score a TD from anywhere on the field means that it's equally likely from your own 30 as from your opponent's 4. :rolleyes:

I have yet to see any of the pro-Arians side offer an answer to this question: If you know you need to score at least one TD, would you rather run one play from the 4 or have to complete a drive starting deep in your own territory?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great article:

... Kicking a field goal down by 18 this late in the game is a poor decision unless it’s fourth and impossible. Since 1940, do you know how many teams have kicked a field goal, when trailing by 18 or more points in the second half, and went on to win the game? THREE. The “They Are Who We Thought They Were” game, when Chicago kicked a 23-yard field goal down 20-0 midway through the third quarter. After that field goal, Mike Brown, Charles Tillman, and Devin Hester scored touchdowns for the Bears, which doesn’t seem like the best model to follow in the future since none of those players played offense.

In 1998, the Rams kicked a field goal in Buffalo to make it 28-13 in the third quarter, ultimately winning 34-33 on a touchdown run in the final seconds. And in 1996, in Bill Parcells’ return to the Meadowlands to face the Giants, Adam Vinatieri kicked a third-quarter field goal down 22-0, and then Terry Glenn, Dave Meggett (on a punt return), and Ben Coates scored fourth quarter touchdowns.

You know what hasn’t happened? A team kicking a field goal, down by 18 or more points in the fourth quarter, and going on to win the game. Including the two teams this year, 117 teams since 1940 have kicked a fourth quarter field goal when trailing by more than 17 points, and none of them have ever won. I know, trailing by 18, it’s so comforting to kick a field goal and think “hey look, all we need to do is stop them, score a touchdown, stop them again, score a touchdown, convert a two-point conversion, and then win in overtime.” But that’s never, ever happened before.

According to Brian Burke, the Cardinals had a 3% chance of winning the game if they kicked the field goal, a 1% chance of winning if they failed on 4th down, and a 10% chance if they converted and scored a touchdown. Those numbers seem reasonable to me, but maybe you want to use different numbers. It doesn’t really matter. When you’re that big of an underdog, you need to play aggressively. You’re almost certainly going to lose, and you’re only chance of not losing is having some high-leverage plays go your way. For the avoidance of doubt, a 22-yard field goal is not considered a high-leveraged play.

...

One other thing: I've seen a lot of bad coaching. I think this just puts a bad message to the team, it's basically capitulation, shows lack of faith in them, tells them there's a time to hang up their hat. In his first year as head coach he should be doing the very opposite, getting behind his players and telling then 'never say die.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This one isn't all that much different from Atlanta's choice to kick early two weeks ago. The issue of the game being over with a stuff is irrelevant: The game is over with a failed conversion either way. Tennessee's only chance of winning in regulation is by scoring two touchdowns, and if it wants to tie, it has to decide whether this drive will be more likely to produce a touchdown than the next one. Given how the Titans had struggled to move the ball on offense, it's pretty clear they needed to try to score a touchdown eight yards out of the end zone.

That's really all there is to it in the Cardinals example also. The over-reliance on numbers to prove some other point misses the point. The Cards weren't going to get to the 4 yard line (or closer) 2 more times in the game.

If you want to see some stupid coaching, watch when the Redskins have the ball with 2 minutes or less left in a half. Or when they are trailing and have the ball in the latter half of the 4th quarter. You'll see clock management designed to keep a patient in a coma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does everyone think you have to be close to the endzone to score a touchdown?

I've seen plenty of 70 yard+ TDs in my lifetime, but have never once seen a 70+ yard FG.

When you're in FG range, you take the FG. You're always in TD range.

Right, because the fact that you can score a TD from anywhere on the field means that it's equally likely from your own 30 as from your opponent's 4. :rolleyes:

No, it's not "equally as likely", but it IS infinitely more likely that you will score a TD from your own 30 than kick a FG from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great article:

... Kicking a field goal down by 18 this late in the game is a poor decision unless it’s fourth and impossible. Since 1940, do you know how many teams have kicked a field goal, when trailing by 18 or more points in the second half, and went on to win the game? THREE. The “They Are Who We Thought They Were” game, when Chicago kicked a 23-yard field goal down 20-0 midway through the third quarter. After that field goal, Mike Brown, Charles Tillman, and Devin Hester scored touchdowns for the Bears, which doesn’t seem like the best model to follow in the future since none of those players played offense.

In 1998, the Rams kicked a field goal in Buffalo to make it 28-13 in the third quarter, ultimately winning 34-33 on a touchdown run in the final seconds. And in 1996, in Bill Parcells’ return to the Meadowlands to face the Giants, Adam Vinatieri kicked a third-quarter field goal down 22-0, and then Terry Glenn, Dave Meggett (on a punt return), and Ben Coates scored fourth quarter touchdowns.

You know what hasn’t happened? A team kicking a field goal, down by 18 or more points in the fourth quarter, and going on to win the game. Including the two teams this year, 117 teams since 1940 have kicked a fourth quarter field goal when trailing by more than 17 points, and none of them have ever won. I know, trailing by 18, it’s so comforting to kick a field goal and think “hey look, all we need to do is stop them, score a touchdown, stop them again, score a touchdown, convert a two-point conversion, and then win in overtime.” But that’s never, ever happened before.

According to Brian Burke, the Cardinals had a 3% chance of winning the game if they kicked the field goal, a 1% chance of winning if they failed on 4th down, and a 10% chance if they converted and scored a touchdown. Those numbers seem reasonable to me, but maybe you want to use different numbers. It doesn’t really matter. When you’re that big of an underdog, you need to play aggressively. You’re almost certainly going to lose, and you’re only chance of not losing is having some high-leverage plays go your way. For the avoidance of doubt, a 22-yard field goal is not considered a high-leveraged play.

...

One other thing: I've seen a lot of bad coaching. I think this just puts a bad message to the team, it's basically capitulation, shows lack of faith in them, tells them there's a time to hang up their hat. In his first year as head coach he should be doing the very opposite, getting behind his players and telling then 'never say die.'

If Im going to be given that "out of the blue" fourth down stat... then tell me the results of all 4th down of teams that have overcome 3 score deficits in the 4th quarter.

Also, how many of those completely avoid 4th downs on subsequent scoring drives (whether by Offense or by Def/STs).

*Seriously, the Cardinals were averaging only 3.3 yards for every play on offense (and still just 3.9 on a pass) ... let alone on a shortened GL field setting with the 'Hawks stacked..

Edited by BigSteelThrill
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great article:

... Kicking a field goal down by 18 this late in the game is a poor decision unless it’s fourth and impossible. Since 1940, do you know how many teams have kicked a field goal, when trailing by 18 or more points in the second half, and went on to win the game? THREE. The “They Are Who We Thought They Were” game, when Chicago kicked a 23-yard field goal down 20-0 midway through the third quarter. After that field goal, Mike Brown, Charles Tillman, and Devin Hester scored touchdowns for the Bears, which doesn’t seem like the best model to follow in the future since none of those players played offense.

In 1998, the Rams kicked a field goal in Buffalo to make it 28-13 in the third quarter, ultimately winning 34-33 on a touchdown run in the final seconds. And in 1996, in Bill Parcells’ return to the Meadowlands to face the Giants, Adam Vinatieri kicked a third-quarter field goal down 22-0, and then Terry Glenn, Dave Meggett (on a punt return), and Ben Coates scored fourth quarter touchdowns.

You know what hasn’t happened? A team kicking a field goal, down by 18 or more points in the fourth quarter, and going on to win the game. Including the two teams this year, 117 teams since 1940 have kicked a fourth quarter field goal when trailing by more than 17 points, and none of them have ever won. I know, trailing by 18, it’s so comforting to kick a field goal and think “hey look, all we need to do is stop them, score a touchdown, stop them again, score a touchdown, convert a two-point conversion, and then win in overtime.” But that’s never, ever happened before.

According to Brian Burke, the Cardinals had a 3% chance of winning the game if they kicked the field goal, a 1% chance of winning if they failed on 4th down, and a 10% chance if they converted and scored a touchdown. Those numbers seem reasonable to me, but maybe you want to use different numbers. It doesn’t really matter. When you’re that big of an underdog, you need to play aggressively. You’re almost certainly going to lose, and you’re only chance of not losing is having some high-leverage plays go your way. For the avoidance of doubt, a 22-yard field goal is not considered a high-leveraged play.

...

One other thing: I've seen a lot of bad coaching. I think this just puts a bad message to the team, it's basically capitulation, shows lack of faith in them, tells them there's a time to hang up their hat. In his first year as head coach he should be doing the very opposite, getting behind his players and telling then 'never say die.'

If Im going to be given that "out of the blue" fourth down stat... then tell me the results of all 4th down of teams that have overcome 3 score deficits in the 4th quarter.

Also, how many of those completely avoid 4th downs on subsequent scoring drives (whether by Offense or by Def/STs).

*Seriously, the Cardinals were averaging only 3.3 yards for every play on offense (and still just 3.9 on a pass) ... let alone on a shortened GL field setting with the 'Hawks stacked..

The bolded part was also my initial post.

That's the issue with this whole thread - the real problem is being down in the 4th to begin with, but a coach gets killed for making a decision that may or may not "slightly" improve his dismal (at that point) chance of winning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bevel not letting lynch run it in from the six inch line after he worked so hard to get that close.

That's why he got the Bird... Agreed that was bone head call of the week.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In economics, there's a concept called "loss aversion" which says that people will strongly prefer avoiding losses to acquiring gains. If I offer you a bet that has a 50% chance of you gaining $X and a 50% chance of you losing $Y, in theory you should take the bet in any situation where X>Y, since that would have a positive expected value. But in reality, most people will demand that X=2Y before they'll take the bet (ie, you have a 50% chance of winning $200 and a 50% chance of losing $100).

That's ultimately what this boils down to. The people who think Arians should have taken the FG are focused on the negative consequences of failing on 4th down. But what they're missing out on is that 4th and goal from the 4 is a really great chance to score a TD! It's unlikely you'll have a play during the rest of the game where there will be a higher probability, at the moment you snap the ball, of scoring 7 points. Let's say you kick the FG, then kick off to your opponent, force a three-and-out, and get the ball back with 1st and 10 on your own 30. What are the chances, at the moment you start that drive, that it will end up with a TD? Certainly less than the likelihood that you will advance the ball four yards on a single play.

So by kicking the FG, you're giving up the opportunity cost of scoring those extra four points in an advantageous situation. But "opportunity cost" is far less salient in people's minds compared to failing to convert and coming away with no points. Furthermore, from the coach's perspective, the cost of failing falls directly on him in the form of fan/media criticism, whereas the lost opportunity cost is diffused (ie, the team lost because they weren't able to put together any more TD drives, or because they couldn't stop their opponent from running a clock-killing drive when they got the ball back). That will tend to reinforce the loss aversion bias already in place.

I should add that this doesn't make Arians "stupid". Loss aversion is an incredibly powerful force, and just one of many psychological phenomena that lead people to act in ways contrary to their long-term self interests. But kicking the FG is definitely a sub-optimal choice.

Edited by zftcg
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Down by 18... you have two get 2 TDs and 1 FG.

You also need a 2pt conversion to tie.

Why is the FG so "obviously stupid"? Maybe "questionable" would be a better adjective.

The correct adjective is "cowardly".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seattle had a 94% win probability when Arizona lined up for the field goal. After the conversion, they had a 97% WP.

http://live.advancednflstats.com/

so the premise of this whole thread is calling the coach stupid for giving up 3%???

Arians was essentially forfeiting by going for the FG. This isn't about what the score differential was at that moment, it's about understanding that Seattle would likely score again thereby rendering Arians "safe" choice a losing play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Burke's calculator suggests EP of 2.94 from going for it and 2.36 from kicking FG, so it seems like going for it would be the right call.

OTOH, according to the drive chart (I didn't watch the game), it seems like AZ couldn't even move the ball a yard with any regularity, so probability of them converting a 4th and 4 is probably (much) lower than teams historically.

the lack of offensive production makes it even more important to go for it here. much better chance of luckboxing the 4 yards and a td when close to end zone than luckboxing a long drive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, being a cleveland fan, there are just too many. There are so many they just run together as one big ball of idiocy.

I guess I would say, traditionally (which is amazing that several coaches have done this here) the Brown's coaches have misused timeouts more than any team, ever.

For example.....down 7 with about 2:50 left in the game, 2 timouts left, other team has the ball. They run a play, get tackled at 2:42, and our idiot coaches (yes plural, coachES), will call a time out. Then, the other team runs another play that takes enough time to where the play clock starts at like 2:33, and the clock runs down to the 2 minute warning..............hence, an absolute waste of a timeout, since the would have had to run a play at about 2:07 anyway.

This isn't even just one if the, it's ALL ove them. Pat Shurmur should have his own self made DVD showing future coaches what NOT to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More on Arians from Warren Sharp....

"The stupidity of NFL coaches. Entering the game with the Seahawks, the Cardinals had to know that Seattle was tremendous on 1st down run defense. But on 8 of the Cardinals first downs in the first 3 quarters, the Cardinals called runs. In those 8 plays, they gained a TOTAL of 5 yards! Setting up Carson Palmer, a QB who can only succeed if managed correctly, with 3rd and an average of 9.5 yards to go. That's not a formula for success, and there's no reason why Arians should have run into a brick wall repeatedly."

Reminds me of the Rams vs the 49ers a couple weeks ago when they kept running Richardson up the middle 12 times for 16 yds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More on Arians from Warren Sharp....

"The stupidity of NFL coaches. Entering the game with the Seahawks, the Cardinals had to know that Seattle was tremendous on 1st down run defense. But on 8 of the Cardinals first downs in the first 3 quarters, the Cardinals called runs. In those 8 plays, they gained a TOTAL of 5 yards! Setting up Carson Palmer, a QB who can only succeed if managed correctly, with 3rd and an average of 9.5 yards to go. That's not a formula for success, and there's no reason why Arians should have run into a brick wall repeatedly."

Reminds me of the Rams vs the 49ers a couple weeks ago when they kept running Richardson up the middle 12 times for 16 yds.

I bet on the Seahawks this past week.................I giggled just a little each time. I felt like Arians also bet on Seattle and just wanted to make sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4th and 4 from the PHI36, Garrett just chose to punt.

53 yarder... whats the weather like? Kicker situation? Not as dumb as you think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4th and 4 from the PHI36, Garrett just chose to punt.

53 yarder... whats the weather like? Kicker situation? Not as dumb as you think.

If he isn't comfortable with the FG he should have went for it. Punting was terrible.

Edited by GreenNGold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4th and 4 from the PHI36, Garrett just chose to punt.

53 yarder... whats the weather like? Kicker situation? Not as dumb as you think.

If he isn't comfortable with the FG he should have went for it. Punting was terrible.

36 yard line vs. inside the 10 (hopefully)

You don't know much about football, huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.