GreenNGold

Post here when coaches do something obviously stupid

953 posts in this topic

4 minutes ago, ghostguy123 said:

It might have been ideal even before XPs were moved so far back.

Yeah Levin wrote that article in 2013, under the old rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, now we need a thread for when players do something obviously stupid.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ghostguy123 said:

Well, now we need a thread for when players do something obviously stupid.

YOU HAD ONE JOB!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, ghostguy123 said:

Vikings leaving too much time left in 3...2......

Saints left too much time on the clock!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, zftcg said:

I've been harping on this since almost the beginning of the thread, but if you're down 14 in the fourth and score a TD, the numbers overwhelmingly favor going for two. Steelers were in that situation twice today and kicked both times.

I thought Tomlin used to go for two nearly all the time. What changed his mind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Johnny Rock said:

I thought Tomlin used to go for two nearly all the time. What changed his mind?

He never did it consistently. Didn't seem like it was math-driven, just when he felt like it.

In any event, as Levin documents in that article, no one ever goes for two in that situation. My guess is that don't even consider it. The thinking is you take the point, score again, and then you're "back in the game". I'll admit it is very counterintuitive to go for two, but the numbers are pretty clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Johnny Rock said:

I thought Tomlin used to go for two nearly all the time. What changed his mind?

I remember a game vs the Packers where they went for 2 four times, missed them all, and lost by 3 or so. I suspect he started going for it a lot less after that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, zftcg said:

He never did it consistently. Didn't seem like it was math-driven, just when he felt like it.

This is what bothered me about them going for 2 so much that year - didn't seem like there was any logic/math/whatever behind it - just whenever they felt like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We may need to start a "Post here when coaches do something obviously smart" thread in honor of Doug Pederson. Everyone's talking about the "guts" he showed going for it on 4th, but the one at the end of the first half was a high-percentage play (and great play design!) and the one in the 4th quarter was pretty clearly the right move at that point in the game -- no way you want to give the ball back to Brady if you can avoid it.

I hope the Eagles' success encourages more teams to follow Pederson's lead. Maybe we'll be able to finally retire this thread because coaches actually get smart about managing game situa--damn, I almost made it all the way through that sentence without cracking up :lmao:

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, zftcg said:

We may need to start a "Post here when coaches do something obviously smart" thread in honor of Doug Pederson. Everyone's talking about the "guts" he showed going for it on 4th, but the one at the end of the first half was a high-percentage play (and great play design!) and the one in the 4th quarter was pretty clearly the right move at that point in the game -- no way you want to give the ball back to Brady if you can avoid it.

I hope the Eagles' success encourages more teams to follow Pederson's lead. Maybe we'll be able to finally retire this thread because coaches actually get smart about managing game situa--damn, I almost made it all the way through that sentence without cracking up :lmao:

Well he did get caught up in chasing that missed extra point in the 1st half. No reason to go for 2 when up 12 in the 2nd quarter and if they'd gotten there by more conventional means (2 field goals instead of a TD with a missed xp) he almost certainly would have kicked there. 

Regardless, a minor quibble in an otherwise brilliantly coached Super Bowl where a coach finally chucked aside tradition and job security play calling in favor of making decisions to actually increase your chances of winning. 

Those were the only 2 coaches in the league last night that would have gone for it in both of those scenarios and I don't think it's a coincidence they were playing in the Super Bowl. Like you said hopefully in this copy cat league it will finally be a big next step on coaches coaching to win instead of coaching to keep their job, or coaching because that's how people used to do it 50 years ago before we had analytics telling us how bad those overly conservative decisions were. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where does "benching Malcolm Butler" land on the stupid hierarchy? 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, zftcg said:

We may need to start a "Post here when coaches do something obviously smart" thread in honor of Doug Pederson. Everyone's talking about the "guts" he showed going for it on 4th, but the one at the end of the first half was a high-percentage play (and great play design!) and the one in the 4th quarter was pretty clearly the right move at that point in the game -- no way you want to give the ball back to Brady if you can avoid it.

I hope the Eagles' success encourages more teams to follow Pederson's lead. Maybe we'll be able to finally retire this thread because coaches actually get smart about managing game situa--damn, I almost made it all the way through that sentence without cracking up :lmao:

Hey when you back up Brett Favre for years, you begin to think anything is possible.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Walking Boot said:

Where does "benching Malcolm Butler" land on the stupid hierarchy? 

Pretty dang high, especially when your defense is garbage.  Did they ever say what Butler did to earn the Hoody's wrath?  Did he like show up a minute late to the team brunch or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Sabertooth said:

Pretty dang high, especially when your defense is garbage.  Did they ever say what Butler did to earn the Hoody's wrath?  Did he like show up a minute late to the team brunch or something?

 

No one has spilled the beans yet. Butler claimed he wasn't told why. He did play on Special Teams, so no idea what the benching was really about. Rumors range from "was so sick on Wednesday he was late to the team flight" to "showed up high and shoved an assistant coach".

Regardless, it was obvious that the Eagles saw he wasn't there and targeted his replacement, Rowe, endlessly. Most of the big plays of the first half were thrown at Rowe. 

BB could have put Butler in as a decoy at least in the second half, just to keep the heat off of Rowe. Oh well.

 

Edit: My semi-annual tradition, born out of being a Giants/Yankees fan, is to browse the SonsOfSamHorn forums the day after the Patriots lose the Super Bowl and really revel in the schadenfreude. Reading their gameday threads after having their souls crushed by Eli makes it all that much sweeter.

Anyway, my favorite post so far is the one, after the Tom Brady strip-sack with 2 minutes left, after a slew of "Game over" posts, asking "Think we can put Butler in on defense now?" :lmao:

Edited by Walking Boot
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Walking Boot said:

He did play on Special Teams.

He played only 1 special teams snap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

He played only 1 special teams snap.

So, it wasn't disciplinary, because then, why let him suit up and then actually play.

It wasn't for football (Rowe was a better fit?), because then, why not let let Rowe get in some practice, why not tell them sooner than kickoff they were getting switched, and why not let Butler play a snap or ten in the second half and see if he could help them get any stops at all. 

 

Maybe Belichick just really, really likes Malcolm Butler and wants him to get an enormous contract with another team by proving how awful the Patriots D is without him, and how vital he was to their success?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why was Butler benched?  He cleaned out his locker early, because he knew the Pats would play hardball with him during free agency.  He knew this was his last game as a Patriot.  Belichick decided to do what he could to ruin his career by not giving him playing time during the biggest stage.  Not only was it obviously stupid by benching your best CB, but it's a total jerk move by costing a man money over spite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dedfin said:

So why was Butler benched?  He cleaned out his locker early, because he knew the Pats would play hardball with him during free agency.  He knew this was his last game as a Patriot.  Belichick decided to do what he could to ruin his career by not giving him playing time during the biggest stage.  Not only was it obviously stupid by benching your best CB, but it's a total jerk move by costing a man money over spite.

Glad you got the inside scoop. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill Simmons floated a theory in his podcast today that they told him he wouldn't be starting, he reacted badly to the news, so they just benched him for the whole game. Simmons was just speculating, but I have to admit it's more plausible than any other explanations I've heard.

By the way, there's a good chance we may never hear the full story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dedfin said:

So why was Butler benched?  He cleaned out his locker early, because he knew the Pats would play hardball with him during free agency.  He knew this was his last game as a Patriot.  Belichick decided to do what he could to ruin his career by not giving him playing time during the biggest stage.  Not only was it obviously stupid by benching your best CB, but it's a total jerk move by costing a man money over spite.

 

But the reverse happened. BB cost himself a win, and Butler's price now goes up... the centerpiece of a defense that made the Super Bowl, then gave up a record number of yards, got one sack, and only held the other team to a punt attempt once all game once he was absent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont care if he was caught with hookers and cocaine

 Its the superbowl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bicycle_seat_sniffer said:

Dont care if he was caught with hookers and cocaine

 Its the superbowl

To be fair, Eugene Robinson was caught with hookers and allowed to play. That didn't work out too well for the Falcons either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bicycle_seat_sniffer said:

Dont care if he was caught with hookers and cocaine

 Its the superbowl

Hey, it worked a couple times for the Cowboys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, zftcg said:

Why is he pegging it on commentators? It's the majority of coaches that choose the conservative approach rather than the analytically correct one too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, FreeBaGeL said:

Why is he pegging it on commentators? It's the majority of coaches that choose the conservative approach rather than the analytically correct one too. 

Because Commentators set the narrative. Kind of like Collingsworth being so flummoxed by the Eagles going for the Touchdown before halftime. It's like he had not done any research into how the Eagles had done things during the entire season. And being aggressive in those situations during the season had a lot to do with why the Eagles were even in the Super Bowl.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, FreeBaGeL said:

Why is he pegging it on commentators? It's the majority of coaches that choose the conservative approach rather than the analytically correct one too. 

Not letting coaches off the hook at all, but I swear to God, every single time when a team does the "safe" thing and punts/kicks a FG/kicks the XP, the announcer praises them for "taking the points" or "living to fight another day" or some other tired cliche. Collinsworth owns a big chunk of Pro Football Focus, yet he can't seem to understand basic concepts like win probability (and he's one of the better ones!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, dhockster said:

Because Commentators set the narrative. Kind of like Collingsworth being so flummoxed by the Eagles going for the Touchdown before halftime. It's like he had not done any research into how the Eagles had done things during the entire season. And being aggressive in those situations during the season had a lot to do with why the Eagles were even in the Super Bowl.

That's an excellent point. It's not just that he blew the call on that one situation. He was supposed to be spending the entire week before the game boning up on each team so that he could better explain to viewers what they were doing. And yet he somehow missed the fact that their success all season was tied to their aggressiveness.

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.