Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
GreenNGold

Post here when coaches do something obviously stupid

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, grateful zed said:

yeah smart for the fins to be in the shade in florida.

so, you have a multimillion dollars staduim built for your franchise and cant even choose what sideline to stand on?

who does make these  decisions?

Reported to mod for off-topic posting. Please move this to the "Post here when stadium engineers do something obviously stupid" thread. :P

Seriously, I wondered that as well. It seems pretty obvious that in the Northeast you're going to want the home team to be in the sunshine. Is Baltimore unusual in that respect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/7/2019 at 11:20 AM, zftcg said:

Reported to mod for off-topic posting. Please move this to the "Post here when stadium engineers do something obviously stupid" thread. :P

Seriously, I wondered that as well. It seems pretty obvious that in the Northeast you're going to want the home team to be in the sunshine. Is Baltimore unusual in that respect?

Along this same thought - how about Cowboys stadium where every afternoon game has the sun shining directly through the huge windows on one end of the stadium resulting in players looking directly into the sun for portions of the game.  I thought stadiums (where sun comes in play) were supposed to be north/south to avoid this issue.

Share this post


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

Along this same thought - how about Cowboys stadium where every afternoon game has the sun shining directly through the huge windows on one end of the stadium resulting in players looking directly into the sun for portions of the game.  I thought stadiums (where sun comes in play) were supposed to be north/south to avoid this issue.

I think the Colts' stadium is the same way.  So stupid.

I also can't imagine that the home team can't choose which side of the field they want, whenever they want.

Edited by zed2283
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Joe Summer said:

Not a big fan of punting on 4th-and-1 when you're down by 17 in a playoff game on the road.

Anywhere on the field and  regardless of time left?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

smbkrypt24 said:


Anywhere on the field and regardless of time left?


From a statistical point of view, you are better off going for it on 4th-and-1 almost every time. (Obviously there are exceptions, such as when you're down by 1 at the end of the game and you're in chip-shot FG range.)

The Colts aren't playing to win. They are playing to not-get-blown-out. That's a fine strategy when you just want to keep your job for another week, but it's not a good plan when there is no game next week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Joe Summer said:

 


From a statistical point of view, you are better off going for it on 4th-and-1 almost every time. (Obviously there are exceptions, such as when you're down by 1 at the end of the game and you're in chip-shot FG range.)

The Colts aren't playing to win. They are playing to not-get-blown-out. That's a fine strategy when you just want to keep your job for another week, but it's not a good plan when there is no game next week.

It's obvious, and you just admitted, that different scenarios call for you to punt it even down 17.  They were on their own 30 down 17 in the 2nd quarter.  I don't see this as a coach doing something obviously stupid.  

Your argument about statistically you should go for it in most situations is a different conversation, unless the Colts were the only team that don't implement that.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

smbkrypt24 said:


It's obvious, and you just admitted, that different scenarios call for you to punt it even down 17. They were on their own 30 down 17


They were on their own 34.

And they shouldn't have punted.

The fact that they were bailed out by KC's special teams breakdown is irrelevant.

Every available statistic or study or gambling website will tell you that their chances of winning would be higher if they went for it in that specific scenario. Maybe the chances only increase from 5% to 7%, but it's an increase nonetheless.

If you want to disagree, that's fine. Not everyone wants to take the risk, I get it.

But describing that play as "stupid" is comparable to saying "It's stupid to hit on 16 when the dealer is showing a 7".

Share this post


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

 


1. They were on their own 34.

2. And they shouldn't have punted.

3. The fact that they were bailed out by KC's special teams breakdown is irrelevant.

4. Every available statistic or study or gambling website will tell you that their chances of winning would be higher if they went for it in that specific scenario. Maybe the chances only increase from 5% to 7%, but it's an increase nonetheless.

5. If you want to disagree, that's fine. Not everyone wants to take the risk, I get it.

6. But describing that play as "stupid" is comparable to saying "It's stupid to hit on 16 when the dealer is showing a 7".

Il respond line by line.

1. I knew the area not the exact so not disagreeing with where they were on the field.

2. They absolutely should have punted.  This is the point I am arguing.

3. I said nothing about KC's special team breakdown so I am not sure the relevance of this sentence.

4. This is where I think you are having a hard time understanding me.  If the whole league was implementing gambling odds to make decisions beside the Colts then yes this would qualify as an obviously stupid decision by the Colts coaching staff, but they aren't.

5. I am taking no risks as I am not part of the Colts coaching staff nor in charge of Colts decisions, so I disagree for other reasons.

6. The analogy of blackjack is good to paint a picture to someone that is having trouble understanding the concept, but that isn't the case.

Overall, I would agreed that there should be some more statistical analysis on when teams should go for it verse punt.  The Colts deciding to punt  down 17 in teh 2nd quarter on their own 34 was not an obviously stupid coaching decision tonight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll nominate the entire Colts gameplan for this game they were flat, bad, poorly coached, uninspired, etc.

Chiefs let them hang around forever and they still couldnt score

Bill O-brien-esque from last week's beatdown by the Colts. I dont get how you have a whole week for a playoff gameplan and you get  stifled like this. intolerable loss. you just can't be that bad with a quasi 'mvp' in Luck. 

one thing is clear luck is not ready for primetime, talk of his 'mvp' has officially subisided, and he is still an also-ran QB nobody who has won nothing in what 7 years in the NFL now?  at what point do you just see that he's an average joe , JAG of a QB?

certainly doesn't look like a #1 pick to me. that was a pathetic a showing as I've ever seen. and the Chiefs cannot play like that next week they'll get trounced. Reid had his typical conservative game, he tried to run and it worked.won't work vs. NE or L.A. , however..

 

Edited by Tanner9919
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

smbkrypt24 said:


2. They absolutely should have punted. This is the point I am arguing.

6. The analogy of blackjack is good to paint a picture to someone that is having trouble understanding the concept, but that isn't the case.

Overall, I would agreed that there should be some more statistical analysis on when teams should go for it verse punt. The Colts deciding to punt down 17 in teh 2nd quarter on their own 34 was not an obviously stupid coaching decision tonight.


Buddy, you are arguing against math, and you are losing.

The statistical analysis has already been done. And as this handy chart shows, a team facing 4th-and-1 should ALWAYS go for it.

This study is based on actual NFL data, not theoretical simulations. So it doesn't matter if "the whole league was implementing gambling odds" or not.

Share this post


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

 


Buddy, you are arguing against math, and you are losing.

The statistical analysis has already been done. And as this handy chart shows, a team facing 4th-and-1 should ALWAYS go for it.

This study is based on actual NFL data, not theoretical simulations. So it doesn't matter if "the whole league was implementing gambling odds" or not.

Alright I am going to go slower.

This thread is for coaches who do something obviously stupid.  That is not the case here.  You don't understand the thread.  

You have a point that more teams should go for it on 4th down instead of punting.  I am not arguing against the math.  I am telling you that it is not obviously stupid what the Colts did.  Your post doesn't belong in this thread for that reason.  Maybe start a new thread about this math to make a point, but doesn't make sense in here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, smbkrypt24 said:

Alright I am going to go slower.

This thread is for coaches who do something obviously stupid.  That is not the case here.  You don't understand the thread.  

You have a point that more teams should go for it on 4th down instead of punting.  I am not arguing against the math.  I am telling you that it is not obviously stupid what the Colts did.  Your post doesn't belong in this thread for that reason.  Maybe start a new thread about this math to make a point, but doesn't make sense in here.

You seem caught up on the phrase "obviously stupid". But if you read through the whole thread most of the discussions have been around decisions that were sub-optimal, ie that mathematically lowered a team's win probability. That is very different that saying most coaches or the average fan would recognize it as "obviously stupid". 

The classic example is when you're down 14 in the fourth quarter and score a TD. Not only would the majority of coaches/fans not consider it obviously stupid to kick the XP there, it would literally never occur to them to do anything else. Before Pederson and Shurmur went for two in that situation earlier this year, it had basically never happened since the advent of the 2PC. Yet the math couldn't be clearer that it is sub-optimal decision making, shaving 10 points off your win probability. By the criteria most of its have been using throughout the thread, kicking the XP there is "obviously stupid". You can disagree, but at that point it's really a semantic discussion.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I go for two there.  You have to get a two-point conversion, the sooner I know what we're up against, the better.  The XP part is obvious.

Garrett is so conservative.

Every once in a while he shows flashes (including going for it on 4th down on the opening drive), but overall, I agree.

But while he definitely should have gone for two there, I'm not sure it's a function of conservatism. I think most coaches (and most people) genuinely don't understand the value of information in that scenario. In their minds it's axiomatic that you kick the XP.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Every once in a while he shows flashes (including going for it on 4th down on the opening drive), but overall, I agree.

But while he definitely should have gone for two there, I'm not sure it's a function of conservatism. I think most coaches (and most people) genuinely don't understand the value of information in that scenario. In their minds it's axiomatic that you kick the XP.

Um, his job as Head Coach is to know better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, smbkrypt24 said:

Alright I am going to go slower.

This thread is for coaches who do something obviously stupid.  That is not the case here.  You don't understand the thread.  

You have a point that more teams should go for it on 4th down instead of punting.  I am not arguing against the math.  I am telling you that it is not obviously stupid what the Colts did.  Your post doesn't belong in this thread for that reason.  Maybe start a new thread about this math to make a point, but doesn't make sense in here.

Hard to get more obvious than 100%.  Especially when you haven't been able to get a stop and need to be hoarding as much EV as you can get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Rodrigo Duterte said:

Um, his job as Head Coach is to know better.

Not defending him, just saying I don't think it was conservatism that led him to make the wrong decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Rodrigo Duterte said:

I go for two there.  You have to get a two-point conversion, the sooner I know what we're up against, the better.  The XP part is obvious.

Garrett is so conservative.

Nope. Wrong. Not a coach in the league that goes for it the first time because if you don't get it, the game is over right there. May as well start packing up the equipment. You are not scoring another 9 points in 2 minutes. You save that for IF you get the ball back and score a 2nd time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, lod001 said:

Nope. Wrong. Not a coach in the league that goes for it the first time because if you don't get it, the game is over right there. May as well start packing up the equipment. You are not scoring another 9 points in 2 minutes. You save that for IF you get the ball back and score a 2nd time.

More information is better.  If you miss the first one you know you need two more scores and can adjust your playcalling accordingly.  This has been discussed ad nauseum.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lod001 said:

Nope. Wrong. Not a coach in the league that goes for it the first time because if you don't get it, the game is over right there. May as well start packing up the equipment. You are not scoring another 9 points in 2 minutes. You save that for IF you get the ball back and score a 2nd time.

:fishy:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Rodrigo Duterte said:

I go for two there.  You have to get a two-point conversion, the sooner I know what we're up against, the better.  The XP part is obvious.

Garrett is so conservative.

I agree to go for two first but I can concede that it wasn't obviously stupid with 2mins left. Not much time left so a coach would be scared they wouldn't have time for another score. If there was 4mins or more left then it is obviously stupid not to go.

Share this post


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

More information is better.  If you miss the first one you know you need two more scores and can adjust your playcalling accordingly.  This has been discussed ad nauseum.

No, you are done. There's 2 minutes left, you now need 9 points instead of 8, and you think you are gonna kick a FG and score ANOTHER TD? :lmao:

Lets count the # of times a team has scored 9 points in the last 2 minutes of an NFL game AND then the number of times they have not. I guarantee its like 0.001%

YOU ARE DONE if you miss the 2 point conversion.

5+ minutes, sure, ok. Go ahead but this doesn't even come close to qualifying as a coaching blunder. 

 

1 hour ago, Rodrigo Duterte said:

:fishy:

No, I'm discussing this situation last night. 2 minutes left no one is scoring 9 points in todays NFL. Swim away fishy.

Edited by lod001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, lod001 said:

No, you are done. There's 2 minutes left, you now need 9 points instead of 8, and you think you are gonna kick a FG and score ANOTHER TD? :lmao:

 

You're done if you miss the second one too 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Short Corner said:

You're done if you miss the second one too 

Yep but you give your team a chance all the way to the end. Miss the first one, pack your equipment up and let the other team run down the final 2 minutes.

The only reason to do it would be to save wear & tear on your players during the last 2 minutes. Certainly not because you think you can score another 9 points.

Edited by lod001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, lod001 said:

Yep but you give your team a chance all the way to the end. Miss the first one, pack you equipment up and let the other team run down the final 2 minutes.

So you just want the extra drama?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I guess I thought this would be about Garrett on 4th and a long 1 running straight up the middle at Aaron Donald.

I think that one was so obviously stupid that it's not even worthy of going over.  There's not much to say.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, lod001 said:

Yep but you give your team a chance all the way to the end. Miss the first one, pack your equipment up and let the other team run down the final 2 minutes.

Little known fact: NFL teams can improve their weighted DVOA by keeping themselves alive as late in the game as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw other reason to go for two in that situation is if you make it, you retain the option to go for two again and win it in regulation.

  • Like 5

Share this post


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

You seem caught up on the phrase "obviously stupid". But if you read through the whole thread most of the discussions have been around decisions that were sub-optimal, ie that mathematically lowered a team's win probability. That is very different that saying most coaches or the average fan would recognize it as "obviously stupid". 

The classic example is when you're down 14 in the fourth quarter and score a TD. Not only would the majority of coaches/fans not consider it obviously stupid to kick the XP there, it would literally never occur to them to do anything else. Before Pederson and Shurmur went for two in that situation earlier this year, it had basically never happened since the advent of the 2PC. Yet the math couldn't be clearer that it is sub-optimal decision making, shaving 10 points off your win probability. By the criteria most of its have been using throughout the thread, kicking the XP there is "obviously stupid". You can disagree, but at that point it's really a semantic discussion.

You are exactly correct.  I didn't read through the thread about what other discussions took place about general decisions instead of individual coaches.  I tend to get caught in the semantics of things. 

My only point is that the Colts coach didn't do anything obviously stupid as the whole league is doing it.  If it was obviously stupid from that point of view every coach would be doing it in the NFL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, lod001 said:

Yep but you give your team a chance all the way to the end. Miss the first one, pack your equipment up and let the other team run down the final 2 minutes.

The only reason to do it would be to save wear & tear on your players during the last 2 minutes. Certainly not because you think you can score another 9 points.

This makes zero sense.  You miss the two you're probably done either way.  What does it matter "when the game is over"?  At least attempting it earlier gives you the smallest advantage of letting you know you need to score twice.  It's teeny tiny, but at least it's something, compared to the latter.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I will say that these coaches being too stupid to understand simple EV did help in one way.  Both helped the favorites cover the spread.  $$$$$ 🤑

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, smbkrypt24 said:

You are exactly correct.  I didn't read through the thread about what other discussions took place about general decisions instead of individual coaches.  I tend to get caught in the semantics of things. 

My only point is that the Colts coach didn't do anything obviously stupid as the whole league is doing it.  If it was obviously stupid from that point of view every coach would be doing it in the NFL.

You'd think. And yet ...

But yes, in the context of this thread "obviously" generally refers to smart people like us who understand math, not dumb NFL coaches (kidding ... mostly). There are decisions that are not obvious in the sense of being counterintuitive, but are obvious in the sense of maximizing win probability.

Share this post


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

You'd think. And yet ...

But yes, in the context of this thread "obviously" generally refers to smart people like us who understand math, not dumb NFL coaches (kidding ... mostly). There are decisions that are not obvious in the sense of being counterintuitive, but are obvious in the sense of maximizing win probability.

You must have missed the whole discussion about going for two down 14 with 5 minutes left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doctor: “I’m afraid you’ll need risky brain surgery to survive. You also should get that earwax removed at some point. Both procedures cost 100k.”

People in this thread: “Well in case I don’t survive the brain surgery, let’s do the earwax first.”

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that it mattered -- NE's win expectancy was 99.9% even after they converted -- but I wonder what the logic was behind LA going for two after scoring to make it 41-20. If you get two more TDs + 2PCs then you can tie it with a FG? Probably more "We're behind by a lot so let's get points any chance we can."

ETA: Given recent semantic debates, I should clarify that I didn't mean to imply it was "obviously stupid". I'm genuinely not sure what the right decision is there (especially since it doesn't matter)

Edited by zftcg

Share this post


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

Not that it mattered -- NE's win expectancy was 99.9% even after they converted -- but I wonder what the logic was behind LA going for two after scoring to make it 41-20. If you get two more TDs + 2PCs then you can tie it with a FG? Probably more "We're behind by a lot so let's get points any chance we can."

ETA: Given recent semantic debates, I should clarify that I didn't mean to imply it was "obviously stupid". I'm genuinely not sure what the right decision is there (especially since it doesn't matter)

This one is pretty obvious.

Share this post


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

Doctor: “I’m afraid you’ll need risky brain surgery to survive. You also should get that earwax removed at some point. Both procedures cost 100k.”

People in this thread: “Well in case I don’t survive the brain surgery, let’s do the earwax first.”

Let's get that brain surgery done because if I die, which odds say I will, there's no reason wasting your time cleaning out my dead ears. Pack me up in a box just like the equipment on the sidelines of an NFL team that went for 2 the first time, missed it and had no time to score another 9 points.

Plus I save $, not having to pay for that procedure. I think your are onto something here. :lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Rodrigo Duterte said:

I go for two there.  You have to get a two-point conversion, the sooner I know what we're up against, the better.  The XP part is obvious.

Garrett is so conservative.

I probably do, as well, but with the amount of time on the clock, it really doesn’t matter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lod001 said:

Let's get that brain surgery done because if I die, which odds say I will, there's no reason wasting your time cleaning out my dead ears. Pack me up in a box just like the equipment on the sidelines of an NFL team that went for 2 the first time, missed it and had no time to score another 9 points.

Plus I save $, not having to pay for that procedure. I think your are onto something here. :lmao:

Ok first of all, don't make @CalBear go to Pro Football Reference and pull up all the scenarios where teams scored twice in the final two minutes of a game.

Second, you have yet to explain the value to a team "staying alive" until the final seconds of a game as opposed to with two minutes left. If they can't convert a 2PC, they're going to lose no matter what.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Ok first of all, don't make @CalBear go to Pro Football Reference and pull up all the scenarios where teams scored twice in the final two minutes of a game.

Second, you have yet to explain the value to a team "staying alive" until the final seconds of a game as opposed to with two minutes left. If they can't convert a 2PC, they're going to lose no matter what.

They can explain themselves to other idiots on Monday.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Rodrigo Duterte said:

Really?  How so?

The logic is that scoring twice with 2:11 left is unrealistic, so once you miss a 2PC, you're screwed no matter what. That probably is true, but a) while highly unlikely, it's not impossible to score a TD+FG in two minutes, and b) it ignores the fact that if you convert the 2PC, you retain the option to go for two again after the second score and win in regulation.

So it is true that whatever you do will have at best a small impact on your win probability. But there is still no reason not to go for two unless you believe in meaningless cliches like "staying in the game" or "living to fight another day".

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

The logic is that scoring twice with 2:11 left is unrealistic, so once you miss a 2PC, you're screwed no matter what. That probably is true, but a) while highly unlikely, it's not impossible to score a TD+FG in two minutes, and b) it ignores the fact that if you convert the 2PC, you retain the option to go for two again after the second score and win in regulation.

So it is true that whatever you do will have at best a small impact on your win probability. But there is still no reason not to go for two unless you believe in meaningless cliches like "staying in the game" or "living to fight another day".

Um, this was my point.  Yet you stated you "genuinely weren't sure" what the right decision was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rodrigo Duterte said:

Um, this was my point.  Yet you stated you "genuinely weren't sure" what the right decision was.

That was a separate conversation about a completely different situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what the numbers say, so I can't say it was obviously stupid, but I think Rams should have gone for it on 4th and goal from the 1. Being tied in the 4th quarter in New Orleans means you're behind.

Other reason is if you convert, you're up 4 and Saints can't bleed the clock on their drive. If refs had correctly called DPI, Saints would have run the clock down and won  in regulation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.