What's new
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 (2 Viewers)

Long Ball Larry said:
zftcg said:
Steeler said:
The Tomlin thing at the end of the game is even more puzzling when you consider how aggressive he has been throughout the season. Going for two so frequently, multiple attempts on 4th down, etc. I like him being aggressive but I always assumed it was because the numbers backed up his decisions. Now it looks like he is just shooting from the hip.
Click to expand...
Well, part of being aggressive on two-pointers has been a lack of faith in his various kickers. But yeah, if you assume that coaches with job security are more likely to make those unconventional* calls, it would make sense that Tomlin, who has more job security that any coach this side of Bill Belichick, would be more aggressive.

* Was about to say "risky" calls, but of course in many cases going against the CW actually reduces your risk. It's like when Rivera rejected the "Riverboat Ron" nickname and said he should be called "Analytical Ron", which was more accurate if far less aesthetically pleasing. :-)
Click to expand...
It's true, but I also heard a mention on a RotoViz podcast a few weeks ago that the way that Tomlin had been going about the 2-pt conversions all year was fairly haphazard, so not necessarily taking advantage of the probabilities. So it wouldn't surprise me if Tomlin does not have an overarching strategy.

Though they also mentioned in the game yesterday that Tomlin was not going for 2 much when Roethlisberger wasn't playing. So if that is true, then it probably makes some sense, since with Ben in, that offense probably has a high chance of conversions over time.
Click to expand...
Yes, Tomlin shows a lot of flux on being aggressive & non-aggressive. If you really think your team can make even 50% of 2 pointers given current personnel, you should go for it every time.

 
Leroy Hoard said:
Long Ball Larry said:
zftcg said:
Steeler said:
The Tomlin thing at the end of the game is even more puzzling when you consider how aggressive he has been throughout the season. Going for two so frequently, multiple attempts on 4th down, etc. I like him being aggressive but I always assumed it was because the numbers backed up his decisions. Now it looks like he is just shooting from the hip.
Click to expand...
Well, part of being aggressive on two-pointers has been a lack of faith in his various kickers. But yeah, if you assume that coaches with job security are more likely to make those unconventional* calls, it would make sense that Tomlin, who has more job security that any coach this side of Bill Belichick, would be more aggressive.

* Was about to say "risky" calls, but of course in many cases going against the CW actually reduces your risk. It's like when Rivera rejected the "Riverboat Ron" nickname and said he should be called "Analytical Ron", which was more accurate if far less aesthetically pleasing. :-)
Click to expand...
It's true, but I also heard a mention on a RotoViz podcast a few weeks ago that the way that Tomlin had been going about the 2-pt conversions all year was fairly haphazard, so not necessarily taking advantage of the probabilities. So it wouldn't surprise me if Tomlin does not have an overarching strategy.

Though they also mentioned in the game yesterday that Tomlin was not going for 2 much when Roethlisberger wasn't playing. So if that is true, then it probably makes some sense, since with Ben in, that offense probably has a high chance of conversions over time.
Click to expand...
Yes, Tomlin shows a lot of flux on being aggressive & non-aggressive. If you really think your team can make even 50% of 2 pointers given current personnel, you should go for it every time.
Click to expand...
This may make mathematical sense over a large sample, but you're not necessarily going to make half of your attempts every game. In a close game where you only score 2 TDs, you could easily fail on both and lose 13-12, where by kicking both times there's a 95% (ish) chance you'd win 14-13.

 
heckmanm said:
Leroy Hoard said:
Long Ball Larry said:
zftcg said:
Steeler said:
The Tomlin thing at the end of the game is even more puzzling when you consider how aggressive he has been throughout the season. Going for two so frequently, multiple attempts on 4th down, etc. I like him being aggressive but I always assumed it was because the numbers backed up his decisions. Now it looks like he is just shooting from the hip.
Click to expand...
Well, part of being aggressive on two-pointers has been a lack of faith in his various kickers. But yeah, if you assume that coaches with job security are more likely to make those unconventional* calls, it would make sense that Tomlin, who has more job security that any coach this side of Bill Belichick, would be more aggressive.

* Was about to say "risky" calls, but of course in many cases going against the CW actually reduces your risk. It's like when Rivera rejected the "Riverboat Ron" nickname and said he should be called "Analytical Ron", which was more accurate if far less aesthetically pleasing. :-)
Click to expand...
It's true, but I also heard a mention on a RotoViz podcast a few weeks ago that the way that Tomlin had been going about the 2-pt conversions all year was fairly haphazard, so not necessarily taking advantage of the probabilities. So it wouldn't surprise me if Tomlin does not have an overarching strategy.

Though they also mentioned in the game yesterday that Tomlin was not going for 2 much when Roethlisberger wasn't playing. So if that is true, then it probably makes some sense, since with Ben in, that offense probably has a high chance of conversions over time.
Click to expand...
Yes, Tomlin shows a lot of flux on being aggressive & non-aggressive. If you really think your team can make even 50% of 2 pointers given current personnel, you should go for it every time.
Click to expand...
This may make mathematical sense over a large sample, but you're not necessarily going to make half of your attempts every game. In a close game where you only score 2 TDs, you could easily fail on both and lose 13-12, where by kicking both times there's a 95% (ish) chance you'd win 14-13.
Click to expand...
Yes, but that is still "small sample size". There are games where you might make both EPs and still lose by 1 point. I guess there would be some spots better than others though to make anything a hard and fast rule.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
JaxBill said:
Jags win probability went from .76 before that last FG to .58 when the Titans took over.
Click to expand...
Where is this calculator? I am a huge proponent of being more aggressive and the math you state is in line with what I said he should have done, but I just can't see how you can calculate a probability like this.

You can't sit there holding a chart and look at it. If the game is 6-3 compared to 45-42 does it spit out the same number? What if it is crazy windy and icy?

 
parasaurolophus said:
JaxBill said:
Jags win probability went from .76 before that last FG to .58 when the Titans took over.
Click to expand...
Where is this calculator? I am a huge proponent of being more aggressive and the math you state is in line with what I said he should have done, but I just can't see how you can calculate a probability like this.

You can't sit there holding a chart and look at it. If the game is 6-3 compared to 45-42 does it spit out the same number? What if it is crazy windy and icy?
Click to expand...
http://wp.advancedfootballanalytics.com/winprobcalc1.php

No, it doesn't take high score/low score or weather into account.

You plug in the relative score of the offense, i.e 3 or -3.

 
JaxBill said:
parasaurolophus said:
JaxBill said:
Jags win probability went from .76 before that last FG to .58 when the Titans took over.
Click to expand...
Where is this calculator? I am a huge proponent of being more aggressive and the math you state is in line with what I said he should have done, but I just can't see how you can calculate a probability like this.

You can't sit there holding a chart and look at it. If the game is 6-3 compared to 45-42 does it spit out the same number? What if it is crazy windy and icy?
Click to expand...
http://wp.advancedfootballanalytics.com/winprobcalc1.php

No, it doesn't take high score/low score or weather into account.

You plug in the relative score of the offense, i.e 3 or -3.
Click to expand...
Is it same formula as others where it uses vegas spread?

 
Wasn't watching the game live, but when did Roethlisberger have his head injury? If Tomlin thought he was at less than 100%, that might factor into the decision? Remember, in last year's playoffs Ben had a potential concussion on the final drive. He stayed on the field and threw an INT.

 
zftcg said:
Wasn't watching the game live, but when did Roethlisberger have his head injury? If Tomlin thought he was at less than 100%, that might factor into the decision? Remember, in last year's playoffs Ben had a potential concussion on the final drive. He stayed on the field and threw an INT.
Click to expand...
7 minutes to go. Ben walked up to a team doctor a bit later.

 
BigSteelThrill said:
zftcg said:
Wasn't watching the game live, but when did Roethlisberger have his head injury? If Tomlin thought he was at less than 100%, that might factor into the decision? Remember, in last year's playoffs Ben had a potential concussion on the final drive. He stayed on the field and threw an INT.
Click to expand...
7 minutes to go. Ben walked up to a team doctor a bit later.
Click to expand...
And when did he get pulled? Is it possible Tomlin knew something was up when he made the call?

 
parasaurolophus said:
JaxBill said:
parasaurolophus said:
JaxBill said:
Jags win probability went from .76 before that last FG to .58 when the Titans took over.
Click to expand...
Where is this calculator? I am a huge proponent of being more aggressive and the math you state is in line with what I said he should have done, but I just can't see how you can calculate a probability like this.

You can't sit there holding a chart and look at it. If the game is 6-3 compared to 45-42 does it spit out the same number? What if it is crazy windy and icy?
Click to expand...
http://wp.advancedfootballanalytics.com/winprobcalc1.php

No, it doesn't take high score/low score or weather into account.

You plug in the relative score of the offense, i.e 3 or -3.
Click to expand...
Is it same formula as others where it uses vegas spread?
Click to expand...
1) Every Team should establish a general philosophy regarding their situational aggressiveness. Their philosophy would ideally be based on some data. I know the Redskins are an example of a team that seems unsure of what they want to do on 4th down way too often.

2) Every team really should have someone up in a booth with a computer who can quickly tell the head coach the best decision mathematically in certain scenarios that may not be covered by their general philosophy.

3) Every team should be working hard to improve these formulas to account for more scenarios.

4) Until these formulas take more into account, we should stop saying things like "Team X just lowered their probability of winning from 0.40 to 0.30" as if it's super obvious and a number that applies to all situations.

 
dgreen said:
parasaurolophus said:
JaxBill said:
parasaurolophus said:
JaxBill said:
Jags win probability went from .76 before that last FG to .58 when the Titans took over.
Click to expand...
Where is this calculator? I am a huge proponent of being more aggressive and the math you state is in line with what I said he should have done, but I just can't see how you can calculate a probability like this.

You can't sit there holding a chart and look at it. If the game is 6-3 compared to 45-42 does it spit out the same number? What if it is crazy windy and icy?
Click to expand...
http://wp.advancedfootballanalytics.com/winprobcalc1.php

No, it doesn't take high score/low score or weather into account.

You plug in the relative score of the offense, i.e 3 or -3.
Click to expand...
Is it same formula as others where it uses vegas spread?
Click to expand...
1) Every Team should establish a general philosophy regarding their situational aggressiveness. Their philosophy would ideally be based on some data. I know the Redskins are an example of a team that seems unsure of what they want to do on 4th down way too often.

2) Every team really should have someone up in a booth with a computer who can quickly tell the head coach the best decision mathematically in certain scenarios that may not be covered by their general philosophy.

3) Every team should be working hard to improve these formulas to account for more scenarios.

4) Until these formulas take more into account, we should stop saying things like "Team X just lowered their probability of winning from 0.40 to 0.30" as if it's super obvious and a number that applies to all situations.
Click to expand...
I happen to work in direct marketing, so I have some experience applying quantitative data in my job.

The saying is that marketing is both an art and a science. You need to look at the numbers, but you can't just follow them blindly.

However, any direct marketer will tell you that, while they may not always go with what the data says, they would much rather have it than not. Football feels like it's still in the stage where "old-school" types have no idea this stuff even exists. My guess is if you started talking to the average NFL coach about win probabilities, they wouldn't argue about mitigating circumstances or the like. They'd just go on a Barkley-style rant about how analytics are the province of nerds who never played the game.

So yes, NFL teams need to build some nuance into their quantitative analysis. But it would be nice if they thought quantitatively in the first place.

 
dgreen said:
parasaurolophus said:
JaxBill said:
parasaurolophus said:
JaxBill said:
Jags win probability went from .76 before that last FG to .58 when the Titans took over.
Click to expand...
Where is this calculator? I am a huge proponent of being more aggressive and the math you state is in line with what I said he should have done, but I just can't see how you can calculate a probability like this.

You can't sit there holding a chart and look at it. If the game is 6-3 compared to 45-42 does it spit out the same number? What if it is crazy windy and icy?
Click to expand...
http://wp.advancedfootballanalytics.com/winprobcalc1.php

No, it doesn't take high score/low score or weather into account.

You plug in the relative score of the offense, i.e 3 or -3.
Click to expand...
Is it same formula as others where it uses vegas spread?
Click to expand...
1) Every Team should establish a general philosophy regarding their situational aggressiveness. Their philosophy would ideally be based on some data. I know the Redskins are an example of a team that seems unsure of what they want to do on 4th down way too often.

2) Every team really should have someone up in a booth with a computer who can quickly tell the head coach the best decision mathematically in certain scenarios that may not be covered by their general philosophy.

3) Every team should be working hard to improve these formulas to account for more scenarios.

4) Until these formulas take more into account, we should stop saying things like "Team X just lowered their probability of winning from 0.40 to 0.30" as if it's super obvious and a number that applies to all situations.
Click to expand...
This is a very good post.

I would go so far as to say that every owner should have somebody in the booth that they give full authority to make decisions regarding certain things. When to call timeout? Booth. Go for it/punt/FG? Booth.

Honestly why wouldn't a coach love it? Would take most controversial decisions off of his shoulders and he would just have to focus on what play was decided.

Q:Coach, why did you go for it on 4th down there?

A: Got buzzed from the booth.

 
parasaurolophus said:
dgreen said:
1) Every Team should establish a general philosophy regarding their situational aggressiveness. Their philosophy would ideally be based on some data. I know the Redskins are an example of a team that seems unsure of what they want to do on 4th down way too often.

2) Every team really should have someone up in a booth with a computer who can quickly tell the head coach the best decision mathematically in certain scenarios that may not be covered by their general philosophy.

3) Every team should be working hard to improve these formulas to account for more scenarios.

4) Until these formulas take more into account, we should stop saying things like "Team X just lowered their probability of winning from 0.40 to 0.30" as if it's super obvious and a number that applies to all situations.
Click to expand...
This is a very good post. I would go so far as to say that every owner should have somebody in the booth that they give full authority to make decisions regarding certain things. When to call timeout? Booth. Go for it/punt/FG? Booth.

Honestly why wouldn't a coach love it? Would take most controversial decisions off of his shoulders and he would just have to focus on what play was decided.
Click to expand...
Why? Because most coaches - just like most CEOs and most military officers - are control freaks. They'd rather make their own decision and live by the consequences, even if it's the wrong one.

Rare is the executive in any walk of life who has the stones to do what the most successful ones do: hire the right experts, let them make the decisions in their area of expertise, and trust their judgement.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
zftcg said:
BigSteelThrill said:
zftcg said:
Wasn't watching the game live, but when did Roethlisberger have his head injury? If Tomlin thought he was at less than 100%, that might factor into the decision? Remember, in last year's playoffs Ben had a potential concussion on the final drive. He stayed on the field and threw an INT.
Click to expand...
7 minutes to go. Ben walked up to a team doctor a bit later.
Click to expand...
And when did he get pulled? Is it possible Tomlin knew something was up when he made the call?
Click to expand...
There is an endless amount of possibilities.

 
parasaurolophus said:
dgreen said:
parasaurolophus said:
JaxBill said:
parasaurolophus said:
JaxBill said:
Jags win probability went from .76 before that last FG to .58 when the Titans took over.
Click to expand...
Where is this calculator? I am a huge proponent of being more aggressive and the math you state is in line with what I said he should have done, but I just can't see how you can calculate a probability like this.

You can't sit there holding a chart and look at it. If the game is 6-3 compared to 45-42 does it spit out the same number? What if it is crazy windy and icy?
Click to expand...
http://wp.advancedfootballanalytics.com/winprobcalc1.php

No, it doesn't take high score/low score or weather into account.

You plug in the relative score of the offense, i.e 3 or -3.
Click to expand...
Is it same formula as others where it uses vegas spread?
Click to expand...
1) Every Team should establish a general philosophy regarding their situational aggressiveness. Their philosophy would ideally be based on some data. I know the Redskins are an example of a team that seems unsure of what they want to do on 4th down way too often.

2) Every team really should have someone up in a booth with a computer who can quickly tell the head coach the best decision mathematically in certain scenarios that may not be covered by their general philosophy.

3) Every team should be working hard to improve these formulas to account for more scenarios.

4) Until these formulas take more into account, we should stop saying things like "Team X just lowered their probability of winning from 0.40 to 0.30" as if it's super obvious and a number that applies to all situations.
Click to expand...
This is a very good post.

I would go so far as to say that every owner should have somebody in the booth that they give full authority to make decisions regarding certain things. When to call timeout? Booth. Go for it/punt/FG? Booth.

Honestly why wouldn't a coach love it? Would take most controversial decisions off of his shoulders and he would just have to focus on what play was decided.

Q:Coach, why did you go for it on 4th down there?

A: Got buzzed from the booth.
Click to expand...
The Broncos have an Analytics guy who is part of the gameday staff. I have not read for sure what decisions he has made.

He at least seems like he must give recommendations: http://www.denverpost.com/knowthis/ci_28962428/gary-kubiak-broncos-coach-finds-comfort-football-analytics

 
Last edited by a moderator:
dgreen said:
parasaurolophus said:
JaxBill said:
parasaurolophus said:
JaxBill said:
Jags win probability went from .76 before that last FG to .58 when the Titans took over.
Click to expand...
Where is this calculator? I am a huge proponent of being more aggressive and the math you state is in line with what I said he should have done, but I just can't see how you can calculate a probability like this.

You can't sit there holding a chart and look at it. If the game is 6-3 compared to 45-42 does it spit out the same number? What if it is crazy windy and icy?
Click to expand...
http://wp.advancedfootballanalytics.com/winprobcalc1.php

No, it doesn't take high score/low score or weather into account.

You plug in the relative score of the offense, i.e 3 or -3.
Click to expand...
Is it same formula as others where it uses vegas spread?
Click to expand...
1) Every Team should establish a general philosophy regarding their situational aggressiveness. Their philosophy would ideally be based on some data. I know the Redskins are an example of a team that seems unsure of what they want to do on 4th down way too often.

2) Every team really should have someone up in a booth with a computer who can quickly tell the head coach the best decision mathematically in certain scenarios that may not be covered by their general philosophy.

3) Every team should be working hard to improve these formulas to account for more scenarios.

4) Until these formulas take more into account, we should stop saying things like "Team X just lowered their probability of winning from 0.40 to 0.30" as if it's super obvious and a number that applies to all situations.
Click to expand...
These are certainly legitimate points. As far as I understand, the calculator aggregates historical plays and determines how different choices led to different results. So it is certainly not specific to the team and situation in question, but also contains data from a wide range of situations, so it likely comes to some average point that can be applied in a lot of situations.

It would probably be ideal if a team had the calculator and underlying data and could filter the relevant data to teams and situations most similar to their own.

 
Mr. Irrelevant said:
parasaurolophus said:
dgreen said:
1) Every Team should establish a general philosophy regarding their situational aggressiveness. Their philosophy would ideally be based on some data. I know the Redskins are an example of a team that seems unsure of what they want to do on 4th down way too often.

2) Every team really should have someone up in a booth with a computer who can quickly tell the head coach the best decision mathematically in certain scenarios that may not be covered by their general philosophy.

3) Every team should be working hard to improve these formulas to account for more scenarios.

4) Until these formulas take more into account, we should stop saying things like "Team X just lowered their probability of winning from 0.40 to 0.30" as if it's super obvious and a number that applies to all situations.
Click to expand...
This is a very good post. I would go so far as to say that every owner should have somebody in the booth that they give full authority to make decisions regarding certain things. When to call timeout? Booth. Go for it/punt/FG? Booth.

Honestly why wouldn't a coach love it? Would take most controversial decisions off of his shoulders and he would just have to focus on what play was decided.
Click to expand...
Why? Because most coaches - just like most CEOs and most military officers - are control freaks. They'd rather make their own decision and live by the consequences, even if it's the wrong one.

Rare is the executive in any walk of life who has the stones to do what the most successful ones do: hire the right experts, let them make the decisions in their area of expertise, and trust their judgement.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. But it's really kind of silly. Coaches hand off responsibilities all the time. Think of the offensive-minded coach who nonetheless allows his OC to call plays. But somehow clock management and the like are seen as sacrosanct.

Andy Reid is a great coach in so many respects. But as any Philly/KC fan will tell you (and tell you, and tell you) he's a terrible game manager. If he had enough self-awareness to recognize his own weakness and bring in a game-management expert to handle stuff like 4th down calls, challenges, time outs, etc. his teams would be noticeably better. But it will probably never happen.

 
Long Ball Larry said:
dgreen said:
parasaurolophus said:
JaxBill said:
parasaurolophus said:
JaxBill said:
Jags win probability went from .76 before that last FG to .58 when the Titans took over.
Click to expand...
Where is this calculator? I am a huge proponent of being more aggressive and the math you state is in line with what I said he should have done, but I just can't see how you can calculate a probability like this.

You can't sit there holding a chart and look at it. If the game is 6-3 compared to 45-42 does it spit out the same number? What if it is crazy windy and icy?
Click to expand...
http://wp.advancedfootballanalytics.com/winprobcalc1.php

No, it doesn't take high score/low score or weather into account.

You plug in the relative score of the offense, i.e 3 or -3.
Click to expand...
Is it same formula as others where it uses vegas spread?
Click to expand...
1) Every Team should establish a general philosophy regarding their situational aggressiveness. Their philosophy would ideally be based on some data. I know the Redskins are an example of a team that seems unsure of what they want to do on 4th down way too often.

2) Every team really should have someone up in a booth with a computer who can quickly tell the head coach the best decision mathematically in certain scenarios that may not be covered by their general philosophy.

3) Every team should be working hard to improve these formulas to account for more scenarios.

4) Until these formulas take more into account, we should stop saying things like "Team X just lowered their probability of winning from 0.40 to 0.30" as if it's super obvious and a number that applies to all situations.
Click to expand...
These are certainly legitimate points. As far as I understand, the calculator aggregates historical plays and determines how different choices led to different results. So it is certainly not specific to the team and situation in question, but also contains data from a wide range of situations, so it likely comes to some average point that can be applied in a lot of situations.

It would probably be ideal if a team had the calculator and underlying data and could filter the relevant data to teams and situations most similar to their own.
Click to expand...
As I understand it, this is already commonplace in MLB/NBA. Why the NFL, where teams are notorious for working around the clock looking for every possible advantage, hasn't been out front on this is a mystery.

 
How about Bill B's schooling of Kubiak last night? Kubiak wants to try and block the punt before the end of the first half. Good idea, in the snow no less. But it didn't dawn on him until it was too late; which is just stupid. A HC not thinking ahead one play? And when he did realize what he wanted to do, he made the mistake of calling the TO so late that it gave the Patriots an opportunity to instead run the clock out with a long pass (instead of a punt).

So Kubiak blows his chance at a block or runback. Simply outsmarted.

 
BigSteelThrill said:
zftcg said:
BigSteelThrill said:
zftcg said:
Wasn't watching the game live, but when did Roethlisberger have his head injury? If Tomlin thought he was at less than 100%, that might factor into the decision? Remember, in last year's playoffs Ben had a potential concussion on the final drive. He stayed on the field and threw an INT.
Click to expand...
7 minutes to go. Ben walked up to a team doctor a bit later.
Click to expand...
And when did he get pulled? Is it possible Tomlin knew something was up when he made the call?
Click to expand...
There is an endless amount of possibilities.
Click to expand...
Local sports media were speculating it occurred on the play before the FG attempt. I'm not sure if that is true or if it played into the decision but Tomlin may tell us tomorrow in his presser

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Would anyone have posted it if the Ravens didnt get that 1st down?

Going for it on 4th and less than 1 on your own 25-ish, up 4, with 14 minutes left.

Gutsy if you get it. Stupid if you don't.

Either way, once the decision is made, the outcome is irrelevant for the purposes of this thread. Was the decision obviously stupid? I say no. If I was a Baltimore fan I would prefer my team would punt, but wouldn't hate on the decision.

 
ghostguy123 said:
Would anyone have posted it if the Ravens didnt get that 1st down?

Going for it on 4th and less than 1 on your own 25-ish, up 4, with 14 minutes left.

Gutsy if you get it. Stupid if you don't.

Either way, once the decision is made, the outcome is irrelevant for the purposes of this thread. Was the decision obviously stupid? I say no. If I was a Baltimore fan I would prefer my team would punt, but wouldn't hate on the decision.
Click to expand...
Given their record and injuries... Harbaugh's bar for "what's the worst thing that can happen" is probably pretty low these days.

As you said though, they made it... so it's a gutsy call. :)

 
ghostguy123 said:
Would anyone have posted it if the Ravens didnt get that 1st down?

Going for it on 4th and less than 1 on your own 25-ish, up 4, with 14 minutes left.

Gutsy if you get it. Stupid if you don't.

Either way, once the decision is made, the outcome is irrelevant for the purposes of this thread. Was the decision obviously stupid? I say no. If I was a Baltimore fan I would prefer my team would punt, but wouldn't hate on the decision.
Click to expand...
I only have a problem with the call if he waffles. Something to be said about coming out and saying screw you. We want the ball and we want to control our own destiny because that is who we are, and that is what we do.

 
Dizzy said:
ghostguy123 said:
Would anyone have posted it if the Ravens didnt get that 1st down?

Going for it on 4th and less than 1 on your own 25-ish, up 4, with 14 minutes left.

Gutsy if you get it. Stupid if you don't.

Either way, once the decision is made, the outcome is irrelevant for the purposes of this thread. Was the decision obviously stupid? I say no. If I was a Baltimore fan I would prefer my team would punt, but wouldn't hate on the decision.
Click to expand...
Given their record and injuries... Harbaugh's bar for "what's the worst thing that can happen" is probably pretty low these days.

As you said though, they made it... so it's a gutsy call. :)
Click to expand...
Agreed. When you have a lost season, your win probability within a specific game isn't all that important. If Harbaugh wants to send his team a message, who are we to question him?

 
How bout Harbaugh faking like they were going for it with like 1:30 left and taking a 5 yard delay of game penalty when they had 2 time outs.

I say that definitely qualifies as doing something obviously stupid.

 
ghostguy123 said:
How bout Harbaugh faking like they were going for it with like 1:30 left and taking a 5 yard delay of game penalty when they had 2 time outs.

I say that definitely qualifies as doing something obviously stupid.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I noticed that, too. In that situation, 5 yards of field position is worth way more than a TO.

As it happened, Baltimore did get the ball back with a minute left, so that timeout would have come in handy had Schaub not immediately thrown a pick. But at the time Harbaugh made the decision, it was definitely dumb.

(Let's take this even further. Obviously, it wouldn't have played out the exact same way, but if Cleveland is 5 yards further back on that last play, maybe they decide the FG is out of their kicker's range and don't even attempt it, taking away the Ravens' opportunity to win the game on a kick-six. Had 'em all along, right Coach Harbaugh?)

 
I was watching Redzone with my 7 year old and when we saw the Giants were lining up to go for it he said "That's dumb"

"I went for it on fourth-and-2 thinking that was the play at the time, and I still do," Coughlin insisted after the fifth game this season in which his team held a fourth-quarter lead of at least six points and lost. "You can argue all you want."

And it's sure to be argued inside the Giants' building and outside. Coughlin's decision to try for a touchdown (or at least a first down) on fourth-and-2 from the Jets' 4-yard line with 8:50 left in the game and his team already up by 10 was a game-changer. Eli Manning threw an interception, the Jets marched down for a field goal, the Giants went three-and-out and the Jets marched again, this time for a game-tying touchdown with 27 seconds to go. And the Giants lost in overtime when Josh Brown missed a field goal for the first time this season.
Click to expand...
 
Probably the 1st time in his coaching career that he made a call like that...and the last. The guy takes the 3 points everytime except for that one and man, it blew up in his face.

 
lod01 said:
Probably the 1st time in his coaching career that he made a call like that...and the last. The guy takes the 3 points everytime except for that one and man, it blew up in his face.
Click to expand...
Yeah - so ironic that he didn't take the FG attempt there when it was pretty clearly the right call. Especially when you consider that he passed up a 4th and goal from the 1 earlier in the game to kick a short FG - I think this was in the first half. So he was conservative earlier in the game when the bolder play was probably correct and then more bold near the end of the game when the conservative approach was better :crazy:

 
Didn't watch the game, but curious as to why it was "obviously" stupid. Just hearing about the situation, I honestly wasn't sure whether it would have been smarter to go for it or kick. So I checked the NYT's 4th down bot, and it said either decision would have been fine.

What probably hurt the Giants more than anything was Eli getting picked on the play. Usually the silver lining of not getting it on 4th down when you're in close is at least the other team is pinned deep. But after the INT return Jets had it at the 15.

 
Yeah I was fine with that call. Like was mentioned above, it was the INT and return that hurt. Otherwise you figure the field position advantage of them getting it on the 4 yard line instead of wherever they'd return a kickoff to at least somewhat mitigates them having to get further downfield (only need a FG instead of a TD). And of course, the upside is that the game is basically over if you pick it up.

Lots of upside, relatively small downside (Jets can settle for a FG on one of their drives, but they have worse starting field position on that drive).

 
Lehigh98 said:
I was watching Redzone with my 7 year old and when we saw the Giants were lining up to go for it he said "That's dumb"

"I went for it on fourth-and-2 thinking that was the play at the time, and I still do," Coughlin insisted after the fifth game this season in which his team held a fourth-quarter lead of at least six points and lost. "You can argue all you want."

And it's sure to be argued inside the Giants' building and outside. Coughlin's decision to try for a touchdown (or at least a first down) on fourth-and-2 from the Jets' 4-yard line with 8:50 left in the game and his team already up by 10 was a game-changer. Eli Manning threw an interception, the Jets marched down for a field goal, the Giants went three-and-out and the Jets marched again, this time for a game-tying touchdown with 27 seconds to go. And the Giants lost in overtime when Josh Brown missed a field goal for the first time this season.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
With a few less minutes remaining I could see going for it, but with almost 9 minutes left you have to take the FG there.

5 minutes left? I can see going for it.

Too many potential possessions left in regulation with 9 minutes left.

But I don't think it was OBVIOUSLY "stupid".

 
I can't remember who specifically did this last, but it is always hilarious when a team is losing, the other team runs a play, and the coach calls a time out with like 2:42 left in the 4th quarter. Complete waste of a time out because it will only take one more play and then spot of the ball to hit the 2 minute warning.

I have seen this many times (many times just from my idiot Browns coaches in the past). All ya gotta do is make them snap it at like 2:06 and you get the same result on the clock with one extra time out. So silly how often clock management is messed up in this league.

 
FreeBaGeL said:
Yeah I was fine with that call. Like was mentioned above, it was the INT and return that hurt. Otherwise you figure the field position advantage of them getting it on the 4 yard line instead of wherever they'd return a kickoff to at least somewhat mitigates them having to get further downfield (only need a FG instead of a TD). And of course, the upside is that the game is basically over if you pick it up.

Lots of upside, relatively small downside (Jets can settle for a FG on one of their drives, but they have worse starting field position on that drive).
Click to expand...
Sounds like the bigger problem was the Giants' predictable play calling.

 
ghostguy123 said:
Lehigh98 said:
I was watching Redzone with my 7 year old and when we saw the Giants were lining up to go for it he said "That's dumb"

"I went for it on fourth-and-2 thinking that was the play at the time, and I still do," Coughlin insisted after the fifth game this season in which his team held a fourth-quarter lead of at least six points and lost. "You can argue all you want."

And it's sure to be argued inside the Giants' building and outside. Coughlin's decision to try for a touchdown (or at least a first down) on fourth-and-2 from the Jets' 4-yard line with 8:50 left in the game and his team already up by 10 was a game-changer. Eli Manning threw an interception, the Jets marched down for a field goal, the Giants went three-and-out and the Jets marched again, this time for a game-tying touchdown with 27 seconds to go. And the Giants lost in overtime when Josh Brown missed a field goal for the first time this season.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
With a few less minutes remaining I could see going for it, but with almost 9 minutes left you have to take the FG there.

5 minutes left? I can see going for it.

Too many potential possessions left in regulation with 9 minutes left.

But I don't think it was OBVIOUSLY "stupid".
Click to expand...
Why does the time left dictate one play call over another? Shouldn't you choose whichever play will optimize your expected points? In this case, it sounds like EPs were basically equal, but I'm not sure how time remaining factors into the decision.

ETA: Yeah, I know technically speaking you should choose the option that increases your win probability the most, but until you get very close to the end of the game, that's basically the same thing (you increase your chances of winning by scoring the most points).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
zftcg said:
ghostguy123 said:
Lehigh98 said:
I was watching Redzone with my 7 year old and when we saw the Giants were lining up to go for it he said "That's dumb"

"I went for it on fourth-and-2 thinking that was the play at the time, and I still do," Coughlin insisted after the fifth game this season in which his team held a fourth-quarter lead of at least six points and lost. "You can argue all you want."

And it's sure to be argued inside the Giants' building and outside. Coughlin's decision to try for a touchdown (or at least a first down) on fourth-and-2 from the Jets' 4-yard line with 8:50 left in the game and his team already up by 10 was a game-changer. Eli Manning threw an interception, the Jets marched down for a field goal, the Giants went three-and-out and the Jets marched again, this time for a game-tying touchdown with 27 seconds to go. And the Giants lost in overtime when Josh Brown missed a field goal for the first time this season.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
With a few less minutes remaining I could see going for it, but with almost 9 minutes left you have to take the FG there.

5 minutes left? I can see going for it.

Too many potential possessions left in regulation with 9 minutes left.

But I don't think it was OBVIOUSLY "stupid".
Click to expand...
Why does the time left dictate one play call over another? Shouldn't you choose whichever play will optimize your expected points? In this case, it sounds like EPs were basically equal, but I'm not sure how time remaining factors into the decision.

ETA: Yeah, I know technically speaking you should choose the option that increases your win probability the most, but until you get very close to the end of the game, that's basically the same thing (you increase your chances of winning by scoring the most points).
Click to expand...
Because with 5 minutes left is greatly decreases the chance the other team would have two scoring drives. As opposed to 9 minutes that is. That it at LEAST one full extra possession.

With only like 5 minutes left if you dont get it, you are up 10, and they have a very long field to go for that first score, and there is an excellent chance they don't even get the ball back.

And frankly, the time left SHOULD dictate what you do. I have no idea why you would even ask that. A minute left with the defense out of time outs, pretty sure the time will dictate your play call. Extreme example, but you get the idea.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ghostguy123 said:
I can't remember who specifically did this last, but it is always hilarious when a team is losing, the other team runs a play, and the coach calls a time out with like 2:42 left in the 4th quarter. Complete waste of a time out because it will only take one more play and then spot of the ball to hit the 2 minute warning.

I have seen this many times (many times just from my idiot Browns coaches in the past). All ya gotta do is make them snap it at like 2:06 and you get the same result on the clock with one extra time out. So silly how often clock management is messed up in this league.
Click to expand...
What's wrong with that? If you call the TO at 2:42, it might make them less likely to throw a pass. There might be a penalty. There's all kinds of reasons why you'd rather have zero timeouts with the clock stopped and 2:42 left than one timeout with the clock running and 2:06 left.

 
CalBear said:
ghostguy123 said:
I can't remember who specifically did this last, but it is always hilarious when a team is losing, the other team runs a play, and the coach calls a time out with like 2:42 left in the 4th quarter. Complete waste of a time out because it will only take one more play and then spot of the ball to hit the 2 minute warning.

I have seen this many times (many times just from my idiot Browns coaches in the past). All ya gotta do is make them snap it at like 2:06 and you get the same result on the clock with one extra time out. So silly how often clock management is messed up in this league.
Click to expand...
What's wrong with that? If you call the TO at 2:42, it might make them less likely to throw a pass. There might be a penalty. There's all kinds of reasons why you'd rather have zero timeouts with the clock stopped and 2:42 left than one timeout with the clock running and 2:06 left.
Click to expand...
I don't think you understood what I meant.

Say a team has the ball 1st and 10, up a score, with 2:50 left. If they run the ball, I see coaches call a time out with like 2:42 on the clock. This is TERRIBLE, because on the next play it takes more than 7 seconds to run a play and spot the ball.

The correct play is to NOT call a time out because then the other team will run a play with about 2:05 or so on the clock.

I would rather be at the 2 minute warning, have them in 3rd down, and have TWO timeouts rather than be at the 2 minute warning, have them at 3rd down, and have ONE time out.

If the other team just ran a play and the clock is running, do NOT call a time out with 2:42 on the clock. It is a complete waste of a time out because the next play will take it to the 2 minute warning whether you called that time out or not

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ghostguy123 said:
zftcg said:
ghostguy123 said:
Lehigh98 said:
I was watching Redzone with my 7 year old and when we saw the Giants were lining up to go for it he said "That's dumb"

"I went for it on fourth-and-2 thinking that was the play at the time, and I still do," Coughlin insisted after the fifth game this season in which his team held a fourth-quarter lead of at least six points and lost. "You can argue all you want."

And it's sure to be argued inside the Giants' building and outside. Coughlin's decision to try for a touchdown (or at least a first down) on fourth-and-2 from the Jets' 4-yard line with 8:50 left in the game and his team already up by 10 was a game-changer. Eli Manning threw an interception, the Jets marched down for a field goal, the Giants went three-and-out and the Jets marched again, this time for a game-tying touchdown with 27 seconds to go. And the Giants lost in overtime when Josh Brown missed a field goal for the first time this season.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
With a few less minutes remaining I could see going for it, but with almost 9 minutes left you have to take the FG there.

5 minutes left? I can see going for it.

Too many potential possessions left in regulation with 9 minutes left.

But I don't think it was OBVIOUSLY "stupid".
Click to expand...
Why does the time left dictate one play call over another? Shouldn't you choose whichever play will optimize your expected points? In this case, it sounds like EPs were basically equal, but I'm not sure how time remaining factors into the decision.

ETA: Yeah, I know technically speaking you should choose the option that increases your win probability the most, but until you get very close to the end of the game, that's basically the same thing (you increase your chances of winning by scoring the most points).
Click to expand...
Because with 5 minutes left is greatly decreases the chance the other team would have two scoring drives. As opposed to 9 minutes that is. That it at LEAST one full extra possession.

With only like 5 minutes left if you dont get it, you are up 10, and they have a very long field to go for that first score, and there is an excellent chance they don't even get the ball back.

And frankly, the time left SHOULD dictate what you do. I have no idea why you would even ask that. A minute left with the defense out of time outs, pretty sure the time will dictate your play call. Extreme example, but you get the idea.
Click to expand...
But my whole point was that the extreme examples are the only time where it really matters. As I said, when you get near the end the game Expected Points starts to differ from Win Probability. But for the vast majority of the game they're the same thing. Which means you should try to score the most points.

And I was specifically asking about the difference between 9 minutes and 5 minutes. You could just as easily use the clock to argue the opposite: try to score the TD with 9 minutes left, since then the Jets have to put together three scoring drives, but kick the FG with 5 minutes and force them to complete two TD drives.

Anyway, this particular game is a bad example, since as discussed above, the Giants' WP was essentially the same regardless of what they did. In general, though, I think both 9 and 5 minutes is too much time to be trying to guess game flow. Just maximize your points.

In fact, let's look at a different "extreme example" to illustrate my point: Instead of 4th and 2 from the 4, imagine the Giants had 4th and goal from the 1 foot line. Is that decision different depending on whether there are 9 or 5 minutes left? No, because in that situation your EPs are probably close to twice as much if you go for it than if you kick, and there are very few game scenarios where you're going to want to voluntarily give up 2-3 EPs. The only difference in the Giants game is that the difference in EPs wasn't nearly as clear cut. But that's still generally going to be your determining factor, not the clock.

 
That is a different scenario for me. No matter the time on the clock, if I am up 10 with 4th and goal on the 1 foot line, I am going for the TD.

 
Ivy League Garrett not sitting on the ball and kicking a short field goal is 3rd grade math stuff. Instead, give the Redskins the ball with plenty of time left. The only way the Skins had a chance was to give them the ball back. So let's make sure we do that.

The only thing more stupid than this was the fact Gruden didn't instruct his team to let them go in. Stupid vs. Stupider.

The Green Bay Packers knew better in the Super Bowl.

 
ghostguy123 said:
I would rather be at the 2 minute warning, have them in 3rd down, and have TWO timeouts rather than be at the 2 minute warning, have them at 3rd down, and have ONE time out.

If the other team just ran a play and the clock is running, do NOT call a time out with 2:42 on the clock. It is a complete waste of a time out because the next play will take it to the 2 minute warning whether you called that time out or not
Click to expand...
Unless the play finishes out of bounds (as it did tonight). Or there's an incomplete pass. Or there's a penalty or injury. Or you call another timeout.

 
CalBear said:
ghostguy123 said:
I would rather be at the 2 minute warning, have them in 3rd down, and have TWO timeouts rather than be at the 2 minute warning, have them at 3rd down, and have ONE time out.

If the other team just ran a play and the clock is running, do NOT call a time out with 2:42 on the clock. It is a complete waste of a time out because the next play will take it to the 2 minute warning whether you called that time out or not
Click to expand...
Unless the play finishes out of bounds (as it did tonight). Or there's an incomplete pass. Or there's a penalty or injury. Or you call another timeout.
Click to expand...
So yeah, I guess you could try and count on the other team doing something really stupid......................

This doesnt so much apply if you have THREE time outs. If you have one, it is as dumb as it gets.

 
kOOk said:
Ivy League Garrett not sitting on the ball and kicking a short field goal is 3rd grade math stuff. Instead, give the Redskins the ball with plenty of time left. The only way the Skins had a chance was to give them the ball back. So let's make sure we do that.

The only thing more stupid than this was the fact Gruden didn't instruct his team to let them go in. Stupid vs. Stupider.

The Green Bay Packers knew better in the Super Bowl.
Click to expand...
At first I thought this, but no. It was 2nd down, the Skins has 2 timeouts left. You can't sit on the ball cause then you give them the ball back down 3 with a minute left.

Ideally Mcfadden would have just not scored and they milk the clock for a last second FG.

I cant call Garret stupid for Mcfadden scoring there.

Garrett clearly did NOT do something "obviously stupid", at all.

 
ghostguy123 said:
kOOk said:
Ivy League Garrett not sitting on the ball and kicking a short field goal is 3rd grade math stuff. Instead, give the Redskins the ball with plenty of time left. The only way the Skins had a chance was to give them the ball back. So let's make sure we do that.

The only thing more stupid than this was the fact Gruden didn't instruct his team to let them go in. Stupid vs. Stupider.

The Green Bay Packers knew better in the Super Bowl.
Click to expand...
At first I thought this, but no. It was 2nd down, the Skins has 2 timeouts left. You can't sit on the ball cause then you give them the ball back down 3 with a minute left.

Ideally Mcfadden would have just not scored and they milk the clock for a last second FG.

I cant call Garret stupid for Mcfadden scoring there.

Garrett clearly did NOT do something "obviously stupid", at all.
Click to expand...
Disagree. From that time on, you take away a LOT of options Washington had with their offense and play-calling. Very limited. That's a big edge to have on D. And Kirk Cousins isn't Aaron Rodgers.

You give me Cousins having to drive a team down the field with no timeouts - while taking away half the field (anything in the middle) in the process - and I will take the other side of that equation every single time. And twice on Monday.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Spin
Down 14 with under 5 minutes and you score, do you go for 2?
2
Replies
73
Views
2K
Brunell4MVP
B
Hot Sauce Guy
Post Here When FF Coaches (AKA, You) Do Something You Disagree with
Replies
15
Views
596
Chaka
Chaka
P
Fantasy football owners: When do you stop blaming the coaching staff and start blaming the player?
Replies
21
Views
651
Instinctive
Instinctive

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top