Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Post here when coaches do something you disagree with (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter GreenNGold
- Start date
RUSF18
Footballguy
lod01
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
RUSF18
Footballguy
Our own Chase Stuart weighs in:
http://www.footballperspective.com/arians-attempts-to-make-history-kicks-chip-shot-field-goal-down-18/
http://www.footballperspective.com/arians-attempts-to-make-history-kicks-chip-shot-field-goal-down-18/
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
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.
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
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.
GreenNGold
Footballguy
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.Sinn Fein said:
Last edited by a moderator:
duaneok66
Footballguy
DangerMonkey
Footballguy
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.
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.
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?
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Great article:
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.'
fatness
Footballguy
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.
DangerMonkey
Footballguy
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.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.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
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..
Last edited by a moderator:
duaneok66
Footballguy
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
TwinTurbo
Footballguy
ghostguy123
Footballguy
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.
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.
Dragon1952
Footballguy
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.
"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.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
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.
GreenNGold
Footballguy
4th and 4 from the PHI36, Garrett just chose to punt.
Mario Kart
Footballguy
GreenNGold
Footballguy
If he isn't comfortable with the FG he should have went for it. Punting was terrible.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mario Kart
Footballguy
36 yard line vs. inside the 10 (hopefully)
You don't know much about football, huh?
GreenNGold
Footballguy
Re-read what you just wrote until you understand why you are wrong. There are at minimum two logical errors in your thought process.
Last edited by a moderator:
NYRAGE
Footballguy
Mario Kart
Footballguy
Yeah, do you want to give them the ball at the 43 (missed FG), give them the ball at the 36-33 yard line (failed 4th down), possibly gain enough to get the first down or punt and pin them deeper than the 36 yard line. What are the odds of each happening? In a defensive game with possible weather issues (I'm not sure since I'm not watching that game), pinning the team deep is not that bad of a decision.
Failed logic is on your side.
Last edited by a moderator:
Little more to it than that. Here's an analysis:
http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/09/4th-down-study-part-4.html
It would strongly suggest that they should go for it. Now it is just using NFL averages, so you could argue that something about the Cowboys matchup against the Eagles makes it the right choice now, but it's much more complicated that your response.
GreenNGold
Footballguy
weather says it is 60 degrees, sunny, and 12 mph winds could you please explain what is so bad about the weather? You are also forgetting that a successful conversion will most likely lead to points, punts are likely to end up in a touchback, in this case they ended up at the 15 for a net punt of 21 yards. That little bit of field position is not worth giving up the opportunity to score points.
Mario Kart
Footballguy
Missing the weather variable as well as the FG kicker variable. What is the leg strength of Bailey? His long is 53 and he is, currently, 7-12 from 50+ (with 53 being his longest made). Any kind of wind add distance. Seems Garrett made the right call.
GreenNGold
Footballguy
My main argument is they should have went for it, i never said they should have kicked the FG, you seem to be focused on the FG argument. And now you are just making up extreme weather when it doesn't exist.
Part two of that study that led to those graphs goes through the average FG make % by field position. It assumes around a 56-58% make percentage from the 36. Which is around what Bailey's stats show. It doesn't go into wind as it's averaging all the wind conditions across all kicks since 1969. And the question here is really should they go for it or should they punt.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr. Retukes
Footballguy
Mario Kart
Footballguy
You know what was meant.Any kind of wind adds distance? Even when the wind is at your back?
Mario Kart
Footballguy
Mr. Irrelevant
IBL Representative
That was one of the funniest things I've seen in the NFL in years. I was 100% sure it was either a fake or an attempt to draw an offsides. Because what head coach would be stupid enough to kick a FG with 5:00 left when it'll still leave you down two scores?
Apparently, we now have our answer.
Instead of going for it on 4th and goal from the 23. Turned out to be a reasonable call.That was one of the funniest things I've seen in the NFL in years. I was 100% sure it was either a fake or an attempt to draw an offsides. Because what head coach would be stupid enough to kick a FG with 5:00 left when it'll still leave you down two scores?
Apparently, we now have our answer.
jvdesigns2002
Footballguy
I hate to do this--because I have mad respect for BB from New England--but basically not using your teams best runner for the first 1.5 quarters of a game against the Jets is just outright stupid. He's an amazing coach--but sometimes it feels like he just does stuff because he can--not because it's in the best interest of the team.
Agreed. Ridley comes off his best game of the season and doesn't see the ball until 5 minutes left in Q2 and on what his 2nd touch he takes it in for a TD from like 10-15 yards out against a team defending very well against the run? Give the guy the ball.
shadyridr
Footballguy
sorry, that was one of the worst moves all seasonInstead of going for it on 4th and goal from the 23. Turned out to be a reasonable call.That was one of the funniest things I've seen in the NFL in years. I was 100% sure it was either a fake or an attempt to draw an offsides. Because what head coach would be stupid enough to kick a FG with 5:00 left when it'll still leave you down two scores?
Apparently, we now have our answer.
JustinHawkins
Footballguy
Shanny letting Helu take 3 of Morris' TDs 
RBM
Footballguy
Similar threads
