Good ole Hermie Edwards says (1 Viewer)

[Sweetness_34]

Outright hilarious.....Hermie defending himself with "I have done nothing to change this offense but maybe I should since we lost"



=================

Q: Why was there miscommunication last game? Why did Mike Solari not know what down it was and where the ball was marked? Does that bother you?

EDWARDS: "No, it doesn't bother me because a lot of things can happen in a football game. The one thing I do know is that it was the first quarter. You know what I think is crazy about this deal? Let's say it was a pass and not a run and we didn't make the first down. It's not a guarantee that because of the play we ran, if it was a pass, we'd get a first down or score. People say that. You give me a play that I know that I can run right now and score a touchdown"

Q: Well, but you can try?

EDWARDS: "Yeah, but you can also try to run. You block it correctly and we might have scored a touchdown on that play. It's no big deal.

"I'm an optimist when we play football, believe it or not. When we drove that ball down there (down to the goal line in the first quarter) I didn't think this is the last time we were ever going to get down there. I don't think like that. If I had thought that I would have gone for it on fourth down. I would have kept going for it if this is the last time I was going to get down there. It's the first quarter. Are you kidding me?

Q: But it's because you're a conservative coach; that's why you're going to run the ball.

EDWARDS: "Conservative! I was conservative in this game? When people came to see the Kansas City Chiefs play (vs. Cincinnati) they saw the same offense they've watched for the last five years. Shifts, motions, we threw the ball more than we ran which I hate. Generally when you do that you're going to lose the game.

"We get sacked seven times because we had to go back and throw. You know what? We did everything we did before.

"People think that I'm conservative. We ran a fake punt. That's conservative? That's perception, not reality. Go watch the game. People watch the game and the first play of the game was a reverse. That's conservative. I didn't give the ball to Larry Johnson on the first play. We ran a reverse on the first play. Are you kidding me? We were trying to score points. But we got into a game where we got behind, we turned the ball over, bad field position and when you do that against a good football team - and these guys are a good football team - they're going to beat you. That's what happened.

"But you're right. I fell for the trap. I fell in love with this great offense. We scored 10 points. We scored 10 points at home! Maybe I should use three backs this week. You can take a lot of time off the clock so maybe I should do that this week."

==================

"(Cincinnati) had one long drive. They had one long drive on our defense. We had one long drive on their defense. Other than that the game was played on a short field by them and a long field by us. We turned the ball over - this great offense we've got.

"We scored 10 points. I'm going to say it again: we scored 10 points. So, people who say I've changed this offense?. I didn't change this offense. We didn't play well. We didn't play good enough, OK. But I might change this offense because if we're going to score 10 points and going to run out of quarterbacks by the end of the year I might have to change the offense. But at this point this offense has not been changed and for people who say that, well, they didn't go to the game; they didn't watch the game. This is the same offense. I didn't call one play, not one play. So people who say I'm conservative that's?

"I saw a guy last night (Marty Schottenheimer) who's real conservative. He ran the ball 48 times and threw 11 passes and won 27 to nothing. He won the game. I coached with that guy. I know how to do that too."

http://www.fflivewire.com/Article.asp?ID=oib5734agn1634m

 

[Bankerguy]

"YOU TRY TO WIN THE GAME"

 

[Sweetness_34]

For those that spent that No. 1 on Larry Johnson, pray that LJ does not land on IR in the next few weeks when Hermie runs it 50 times a game with no real Qb behind center

 

[mhrutkowski]

Gotta love Sermon Edwards. Sound bites over strategy.

 

[Koya]

"YOU TRY PLAY TO WIN THE GAME"

(corrected)

 

[mhrutkowski]

"YOU PLAY NOT TO LOSE THE GAME"

(corrected)

(re-corrected)

 

[Chase Stuart]

"YOU PLAY NOT TO LOSE THE GAME"

(corrected)

(re-corrected)

In the NFL, there's virtually zero difference between winning a game and not losing a game. An extremely small percentage of games end in ties.

 

[Koya]

"YOU PLAY NOT TO LOSE THE GAME"

(corrected)

(re-corrected)

In the NFL, there's virtually zero difference between winning a game and not losing a game. An extremely small percentage of games end in ties.

 

[Footballhead]

"YOU PLAY TRY NOT TO LOSE THE GAME"

(corrected)

(re-corrected)

 

[Chase Stuart]

"YOU PLAY NOT TO LOSE THE GAME"

(corrected)

(re-corrected)

In the NFL, there's virtually zero difference between winning a game and not losing a game. An extremely small percentage of games end in ties.

It's not really a debatable point. Every single play call increases your chance of winning (and simultaneously decreases your chance of losing by the same amount) or chance of losing (and simultaneously decreasing your chance of winning by the same amount). The amount of games that end up in ties is neglible, especially when factoring in regulation play-calling.

 

[redman]

Gotta love Sermon Edwards. Sound bites over strategy.

He's at his best in a press conference. Unfortunately, he's paid to be at his best in meeting rooms and on the sidelines of football fields.

 

[Chase Stuart]

"YOU PLAY TRY NOT TO LOSE THE GAME"

(corrected)

(re-corrected)

Put it this way. How happy would you be if I told you that you're favorite team would only lose three games this year?

 

[Koya]

"YOU PLAY NOT TO LOSE THE GAME"

(corrected)

(re-corrected)

In the NFL, there's virtually zero difference between winning a game and not losing a game. An extremely small percentage of games end in ties.

It's not really a debatable point. Every single play call increases your chance of winning (and simultaneously decreases your chance of losing by the same amount) or chance of losing (and simultaneously decreasing your chance of winning by the same amount). The amount of games that end up in ties is neglible, especially when factoring in regulation play-calling.

You are jk, yes chase? I dont think he was talking about ties. Ya know, the term "playing not to lose" vs. "playing to win" - the psychology of becoming defensive, not offensive minded (or just overly or exclusively defensive). That's why the popcorn.Or am I the one not getting a joke here?

 

[Chase Stuart]

"YOU PLAY NOT TO LOSE THE GAME"

(corrected)

(re-corrected)

In the NFL, there's virtually zero difference between winning a game and not losing a game. An extremely small percentage of games end in ties.

It's not really a debatable point. Every single play call increases your chance of winning (and simultaneously decreases your chance of losing by the same amount) or chance of losing (and simultaneously decreasing your chance of winning by the same amount). The amount of games that end up in ties is neglible, especially when factoring in regulation play-calling.

You are jk, yes chase? I dont think he was talking about ties. Ya know, the term "playing not to lose" vs. "playing to win" - the psychology of becoming defensive, not offensive minded (or just overly or exclusively defensive). That's why the popcorn.Or am I the one not getting a joke here?

There's no difference between playing not to lose vs. playing to win. If in a certain situation, the playcalling is not designed to win, then by definition it's designed to lose. The two terms are mirror images of each other. It's not (generally) possible to call a play that's playing not to lose that's not simultaneous playing to win.(This is, once again, excluding ties.)

 

[trader jake]

Clearly Chase had to put up with Sermon coaching the Jets for too long. He's getting loopy too.

 

[SteveUK]

Clearly Chase had to put up with Sermon coaching the Jets for too long. He's getting loopy too.

And this is news how?

 

[Sweetness_34]

Just saw Hermie making these quotes in action on NFL Network.....absolutely hilarious

 

[Koya]

Clearly Chase had to put up with Sermon coaching the Jets for too long. He's getting loopy too.

No, has to be HAS to be.

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

This is an example of Chase trying to be like Maurile but not doing well in the process.

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

"YOU PLAY NOT TO LOSE THE GAME"

(corrected)

(re-corrected)

In the NFL, there's virtually zero difference between winning a game and not losing a game. An extremely small percentage of games end in ties.

It's not really a debatable point. Every single play call increases your chance of winning (and simultaneously decreases your chance of losing by the same amount) or chance of losing (and simultaneously decreasing your chance of winning by the same amount). The amount of games that end up in ties is neglible, especially when factoring in regulation play-calling.

You are jk, yes chase? I dont think he was talking about ties. Ya know, the term "playing not to lose" vs. "playing to win" - the psychology of becoming defensive, not offensive minded (or just overly or exclusively defensive). That's why the popcorn.Or am I the one not getting a joke here?

There's no difference between playing not to lose vs. playing to win. If in a certain situation, the playcalling is not designed to win, then by definition it's designed to lose. The two terms are mirror images of each other. It's not (generally) possible to call a play that's playing not to lose that's not simultaneous playing to win.(This is, once again, excluding ties.)

I guess he's not just kidding...

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

Anyway, I just saw that presser, too, and I liked Herm back in his very early days, but I would absolutely not want him as a coach now.

How in the world can he say this is the same offense? His rationale was still using motion, and simple things like that like that.

Anyway, I feel bad for the Chiefs this year. Luckily they have the Raiders to beat up on. That might be about it for them if the wheels really fall off, which they might.

 

[bigliebdogg]

Chiefs fans get their first taste of Herm!! HaHaHaHaHaHa

I've looked forward to this for a long time...and to think, the Jets were actually criticized in the media for letting him go.

One question...does Herm get a free pass on this season if Trent Green is out significantly longer than 2 or 3 weeks?? I will admit, Herm is very good at that, finding ways to get free passes and still be considered a good head coach season after season after season.

Greatest moment of Jets vs Titans last Sunday. Late 2nd quarter, and I noticed the Jets still actually had all three of their timeouts available to actually use on their final drive.

Chiefs 4 - 12 in '06. Bye Bye High Powered Offense!!!! Bye Bye Clock Management!!! Bye Bye knowing the correct down and distance at all times!!!

 

[Chase Stuart]

Clearly Chase had to put up with Sermon coaching the Jets for too long. He's getting loopy too.

No, has to be HAS to be.

Maybe you can help me out here with an example. Can you explain what would be a coaching decision that's playing not to lose but is also not playing to win?

 

[barndog]

How in the world can he say this is the same offense?

Same uniforms?!

 

[Gatorman]

Clearly Chase had to put up with Sermon coaching the Jets for too long. He's getting loopy too.

No, has to be HAS to be.

Maybe you can help me out here with an example. Can you explain what would be a coaching decision that's playing not to lose but is also not playing to win?

Punting instead of trying a 54 yard FG to win the game in the 4th quarter. That decision is playing not to lose and also not playing to win.Got that?

 

[jurb26]

Sad truth is I like Herm. This was really a no win situation he entered into at KC IMO. That team was getting old and decrepid and Vermil got out just in time.

 

[mhrutkowski]

"YOU PLAY NOT TO LOSE THE GAME"

(corrected)

(re-corrected)

In the NFL, there's virtually zero difference between winning a game and not losing a game. An extremely small percentage of games end in ties.

If you're joking: good gameIf you're not: lighten up, you know what I meant

 

[mhrutkowski]

Clearly Chase had to put up with Sermon coaching the Jets for too long. He's getting loopy too.

No, has to be HAS to be.

Maybe you can help me out here with an example. Can you explain what would be a coaching decision that's playing not to lose but is also not playing to win?

Did you see the end of the 2004 AFC Championship game?

 

[Chase Stuart]

Clearly Chase had to put up with Sermon coaching the Jets for too long. He's getting loopy too.

No, has to be HAS to be.

Maybe you can help me out here with an example. Can you explain what would be a coaching decision that's playing not to lose but is also not playing to win?

Punting instead of trying a 54 yard FG to win the game in the 4th quarter. That decision is playing not to lose and also not playing to win.Got that?

I thought Marinelli made the right call there. Hanson had missed a 52 yarder short, earlier in the game. If the Lions miss that field goal, the chances of winning that game become very low -- Seattle needs just 25 yards to get into good field goal range. Punting there increases his team's chances of winning, especially if they pin Seattle deep, relative to Detroit's chances of winning if they attempt the field goal.I can certainly see the other side (although like I said, I disagree). But if you think Detroit's chances of hitting a 54 yard field goal are pretty good, then it's not really playing not to lose -- Detroit's increasing their chances of losing by not kicking there.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Clearly Chase had to put up with Sermon coaching the Jets for too long. He's getting loopy too.

No, has to be HAS to be.

Maybe you can help me out here with an example. Can you explain what would be a coaching decision that's playing not to lose but is also not playing to win?

Did you see the end of the 2004 AFC Championship game?

I turned it off by the end, since it wasn't very close. Burress' missing that TD catch on 4th down pretty much sealed that one, I think.

 

[Chase Stuart]

"YOU PLAY NOT TO LOSE THE GAME"

(corrected)

(re-corrected)

In the NFL, there's virtually zero difference between winning a game and not losing a game. An extremely small percentage of games end in ties.

If you're joking: good gameIf you're not: lighten up, you know what I meant

Sure I know what you meant, but I don't think it makes any sense. Just because the media or an NFL player spouts off something doesn't make it true or coherent.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

Another example would be going into clock killing mode early in the 4th quarter, when leading by less than three scores.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Another example would be going into clock killing mode early in the 4th quarter, when leading by less than three scores.

Going into clock killing mode early in the 4th quarter doesn't increase your chances of winning over throwing passes? I'm not so sure about that.

 

[shadow2k]

Did any of you who are raggin on Herm (I'm not a huge fan myself...) actually watch the Chiefs game. I mean, quite a few things went wrong, but none of them can really be pinned on Herm.

The offesnive play calling with Green in there really wasn't any different than it ever was. It was mistakes that led to what you saw, along with Jordan Black starting to really suck at pass blocking in the 2nd Q...he was starting for an injured K.Sampson...Black is a Guard, not a Tackle. There were also 2 offensive PI's on Samie Parker, one away from the play, both on passes that would have been first downs. A false start right after one of those led to a bad passing down, which Green got to Parker...but Parker tipped it up in the air, and Cincy intercepted and then scored a TD on their drive.

They were running for chunks of yardage with LJ, I think he was 10/44 before things got ugly. Green was completing passes to Gonzo, Kennison, Parker, Hall... They ran a reverse to start the game, even ran a fake punt for a first down.

The only real questionable play call before Green got hurt was the 3rd and 5 in the RZ. But Solari screwed it up because he thought it was 2nd down...not Herm.

If you want to rag on Herm, that's fine. But the offense was running the same plays as always until Green went down. And if it weren't for numerous mistakes by players, they'd have been fine. The problem was execution, and that doesn't even all lie with the O-line. And Herm certainly didn't have anything to do with it.

The offense made mistakes, that's why they didn't score more. It wasn't all Black, wasn't Turley, wasn't Herm... It was fumbles, penalties, and turnovers. Hell, even Huard led a scoring drive when he was able to hold onto the ball, and he did make some pretty decent passes once he got a bit more comfortable back there.

I think that's what I dislike about this board more than anything else. Everyone overreacts, and half of you probably have no clue what exactly really went on.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Did any of you who are raggin on Herm (I'm not a huge fan myself...) actually watch the Chiefs game. I mean, quite a few things went wrong, but none of them can really be pinned on Herm.The offesnive play calling with Green in there really wasn't any different than it ever was. It was mistakes that led to what you saw, along with Jordan Black starting to really suck at pass blocking in the 2nd Q...he was starting for an injured K.Sampson...Black is a Guard, not a Tackle. There were also 2 offensive PI's on Samie Parker, one away from the play, both on passes that would have been first downs. A false start right after one of those led to a bad passing down, which Green got to Parker...but Parker tipped it up in the air, and Cincy intercepted and then scored a TD on their drive.They were running for chunks of yardage with LJ, I think he was 10/44 before things got ugly. Green was completing passes to Gonzo, Kennison, Parker, Hall... They ran a reverse to start the game, even ran a fake punt for a first down. The only real questionable play call before Green got hurt was the 3rd and 5 in the RZ. But Solari screwed it up because he thought it was 2nd down...not Herm. If you want to rag on Herm, that's fine. But the offense was running the same plays as always until Green went down. And if it weren't for numerous mistakes by players, they'd have been fine. The problem was execution, and that doesn't even all lie with the O-line. And Herm certainly didn't have anything to do with it. The offense made mistakes, that's why they didn't score more. It wasn't all Black, wasn't Turley, wasn't Herm... It was fumbles, penalties, and turnovers. Hell, even Huard led a scoring drive when he was able to hold onto the ball, and he did make some pretty decent passes once he got a bit more comfortable back there.I think that's what I dislike about this board more than anything else. Everyone overreacts, and half of you probably have no clue what exactly really went on.

I don't think Herm's a bad coach. I'm a bit surprised as how defensive he got, though. Especially after dealing with the New York media for five years, I figured he'd handle the KC media. He always preaches about being accountable and responsible, which made those comments seem out of character for him. He also says the blame always falls on the HC, but then he defects it hereI don't really like Herm after the way he treated the Jets in 2005, but I had previously had a lot of respect for him. Those comments don't really sound like him at all.

 

[tombonneau]

Not to get engaged in this semantic debate, but I think the classic "Playing not to lose vs. playing to win" scenario is when you have a situation where a team is up by 4-7 point (i.e. >FG).

They are presented with the ball is respectable field position, i.e. their own 30-45.

The clock is in their favor and they know that if they get one first down--only one--the other team is at their mercy and they can take a knee to clinch victory.

A coach who is playing not to lose, will run the ball three times in that situation even if he thinks there are plays in his playbook that have greater odds of picking up a first down and winning the game.

A coach playing to win will try a playaction or similar pass play that will increase the likliehood of picking up the first down and winning the game.

 

[shadow2k]

I don't think Herm's a bad coach. I'm a bit surprised as how defensive he got, though. Especially after dealing with the New York media for five years, I figured he'd handle the KC media. He always preaches about being accountable and responsible, which made those comments seem out of character for him. He also says the blame always falls on the HC, but then he defects it hereI don't really like Herm after the way he treated the Jets in 2005, but I had previously had a lot of respect for him. Those comments don't really sound like him at all.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not really happy that he's the new HC in KC. But I think the flak he's catching over that week 1 performance is completely misplaced, and I can understand why he went into defensive mode. I mean, the playcalling wasn't conservative at all. There was one play that was, and it was Solari screwing up the down.Trust me, if Vermeil and Saunders had been here, nobody would be saying that. They'd be talking about the penalties, turnovers, and the RT spot, and if Sampson will be ready next week. I mean, I watched the game again today, as painful as it was, just to make sure I'm not looking at it with Chiefs colored glasses.Herm isn't the one to blame for Sunday's loss. And I'm not so sure that Parker's play (penalties and the tipped up ball that got intercepted) didn't have something to do with Rod Gardner being signed this week. But the media is not bright enough to get past the Herm thing.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Not to get engaged in this semantic debate, but I think the classic "Playing not to lose vs. playing to win" scenario is when you have a situation where a team is up by 4-7 point (i.e. >FG).

They are presented with the ball is respectable field position, i.e. their own 30-45.

The clock is in their favor and they know that if they get one first down--only one--the other team is at their mercy and they can take a win to clinch victory.

A coach who is playing not to lose, will run the ball three times in that situation even if he thinks there are plays in his playbook that have greater odds of picking up a first down and winning the game.

A coach playing to win will try a playaction or similar pass play that will increase the likliehood of picking up the first down and winning the game.

Every situation can be broken down into a percentage of winning the game. If it's 0-0 and the teams are even, and there's 15:00 left in the 1st quarter, each team's chances are 50/50.

If it's 10-0 and there's 5:00 left in the 2nd quarter, the winning team has say a 65% chance (just a rough guess).

If a team is up by 5 with the ball on their own 40 and there's 2:00 to go, the team probably has a 90% chance of winning on 1st and 10. If they run for 0 yards, and now there's 1:55 to go, maybe they have an 87% chance to win. If they pass for 7 yards and there's 1:55 to go, maybe they now have a 95% chance of winning. If they pass and it's intercepted, maybe they have a 55% chance.

But every play and every play call slides each team's chances of winning up or down. A coach who is playing not to lose may run the abll three times, but if that increases his team's odds of winning, he's not playing not to lose --> he's playing to win. If running three times decreases his team's chances of winning, he's not playing not to lose --> he's playing to lose.

The terms conservative and aggressive are much more descriptive of what you want here, I think. But there's no such thing as playing not to lose and not playing to win, unless you're kneeling on the ball with 30 seconds left in overtime.

 

[mhrutkowski]

"YOU PLAY NOT TO LOSE THE GAME"

(corrected)

(re-corrected)

In the NFL, there's virtually zero difference between winning a game and not losing a game. An extremely small percentage of games end in ties.

If you're joking: good gameIf you're not: lighten up, you know what I meant

Sure I know what you meant, but I don't think it makes any sense. Just because the media or an NFL player spouts off something doesn't make it true or coherent.

Not everything has to be taken in the literal sense to be "true." Sure, it's just a catchphrase but it's one that couldn't describe Herm's coaching style more accurately.Herm is deathly afraid of making mistakes (fumbles, INTs, getting burned on a blitz) so his philosophy would be to hide in his shell and hope the other team made more mistakes than his team did. By being afraid to grab the game by the throat, he often hurt the team's chances of winning which is why "playing not to lose" makes sense. Of course if you take it in the literal sense "playing to win = playing not to lose." However, it's a play on words that gives effective context to a coach's conservatism. As I've said before, lighten up. Save your energy for discussions that actually matter.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

Not to get engaged in this semantic debate, but I think the classic "Playing not to lose vs. playing to win" scenario is when you have a situation where a team is up by 4-7 point (i.e. >FG).

They are presented with the ball is respectable field position, i.e. their own 30-45.

The clock is in their favor and they know that if they get one first down--only one--the other team is at their mercy and they can take a win to clinch victory.

A coach who is playing not to lose, will run the ball three times in that situation even if he thinks there are plays in his playbook that have greater odds of picking up a first down and winning the game.

A coach playing to win will try a playaction or similar pass play that will increase the likliehood of picking up the first down and winning the game.

That is a better example than mine.The guy who objects to it is just being obtuse on purpose. Or perhaps he is just a literalist and doesn't understand any metaphores, similes or the like.

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

Not to get engaged in this semantic debate, but I think the classic "Playing not to lose vs. playing to win" scenario is when you have a situation where a team is up by 4-7 point (i.e. >FG).

They are presented with the ball is respectable field position, i.e. their own 30-45.

The clock is in their favor and they know that if they get one first down--only one--the other team is at their mercy and they can take a win to clinch victory.

A coach who is playing not to lose, will run the ball three times in that situation even if he thinks there are plays in his playbook that have greater odds of picking up a first down and winning the game.

A coach playing to win will try a playaction or similar pass play that will increase the likliehood of picking up the first down and winning the game.

That is a better example than mine.The guy who objects to it is just being obtuse on purpose. Or perhaps he is just a literalist and doesn't understand any metaphores, similes or the like.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Not to get engaged in this semantic debate, but I think the classic "Playing not to lose vs. playing to win" scenario is when you have a situation where a team is up by 4-7 point (i.e. >FG).

They are presented with the ball is respectable field position, i.e. their own 30-45.

The clock is in their favor and they know that if they get one first down--only one--the other team is at their mercy and they can take a win to clinch victory.

A coach who is playing not to lose, will run the ball three times in that situation even if he thinks there are plays in his playbook that have greater odds of picking up a first down and winning the game.

A coach playing to win will try a playaction or similar pass play that will increase the likliehood of picking up the first down and winning the game.

That is a better example than mine.The guy who objects to it is just being obtuse on purpose. Or perhaps he is just a literalist and doesn't understand any metaphores, similes or the like.

Gotcha RL. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Have a good one.

 

[Koya]

Clearly Chase had to put up with Sermon coaching the Jets for too long. He's getting loopy too.

No, has to be HAS to be.

Maybe you can help me out here with an example. Can you explain what would be a coaching decision that's playing not to lose but is also not playing to win?

Chase, it is a SAYING. To take the term absolutely literally is to lose all meaning of the phrase itself!Good god man, please say you are fishing, because we arent saying there is TECHNICALLY a difference between not winning and losing. If you want an example, I can try and think and come up with many but am too tired and lazy. The fact is, when a team, mentally, is trying not to lose rather than trying to win - and in terms of a MENTAL STATE and game approach, there is a very REAL and meaningful difference between the two - bad things often happen. When a team becomes tentative, timid, overly defensive, when it is doing what it can to "hold off" the other team as opposed to just "beat them" then sometimes games shift because of the "try not to lose" mentality. Ugh, I cant believe I actually explained that. Please tell me Im hooked.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Clearly Chase had to put up with Sermon coaching the Jets for too long. He's getting loopy too.

No, has to be HAS to be.

Maybe you can help me out here with an example. Can you explain what would be a coaching decision that's playing not to lose but is also not playing to win?

Chase, it is a SAYING. To take the term absolutely literally is to lose all meaning of the phrase itself!Good god man, please say you are fishing, because we arent saying there is TECHNICALLY a difference between not winning and losing. If you want an example, I can try and think and come up with many but am too tired and lazy. The fact is, when a team, mentally, is trying not to lose rather than trying to win - and in terms of a MENTAL STATE and game approach, there is a very REAL and meaningful difference between the two - bad things often happen. When a team becomes tentative, timid, overly defensive, when it is doing what it can to "hold off" the other team as opposed to just "beat them" then sometimes games shift because of the "try not to lose" mentality. Ugh, I cant believe I actually explained that. Please tell me Im hooked.

All I'm saying is that it's a really stupid saying. It makes little sense and is mostly used as a substitute for critical thinking. It's not "playing not to lose" if you're increasing your team's chances of winning by playing conservatively. There's a reason coaches like Cowher and Schottnheimer have so many wins, and it's because they know what they're doing.

 

[OrganizedChaos]

Clearly Chase had to put up with Sermon coaching the Jets for too long. He's getting loopy too.

No, has to be HAS to be.

Maybe you can help me out here with an example. Can you explain what would be a coaching decision that's playing not to lose but is also not playing to win?

Chase, it is a SAYING. To take the term absolutely literally is to lose all meaning of the phrase itself!Good god man, please say you are fishing, because we arent saying there is TECHNICALLY a difference between not winning and losing. If you want an example, I can try and think and come up with many but am too tired and lazy. The fact is, when a team, mentally, is trying not to lose rather than trying to win - and in terms of a MENTAL STATE and game approach, there is a very REAL and meaningful difference between the two - bad things often happen. When a team becomes tentative, timid, overly defensive, when it is doing what it can to "hold off" the other team as opposed to just "beat them" then sometimes games shift because of the "try not to lose" mentality. Ugh, I cant believe I actually explained that. Please tell me Im hooked.

Excellent description Koya. I'll add in my own example. I grew up a Saints fan (thru the good and the bad). Back when Mora was the coach and they had 4 all pro linebackers I would die every time they played those stinking 49ers. Many a game they had won but he went conservative and never put them away. Always left them just a little too close. Then at the end Montana would do his magic and pull it out. The Saints should have won their share of those games. He just never trusted the offense to win it. Chase can call it what he wants but I call it playing not to lose. He did not have the faith in his offense to finish the other team off. he put too much pressure on his defense to hold off a great offensive team.

 

[tombonneau]

Not to get engaged in this semantic debate, but I think the classic "Playing not to lose vs. playing to win" scenario is when you have a situation where a team is up by 4-7 point (i.e. >FG).

They are presented with the ball is respectable field position, i.e. their own 30-45.

The clock is in their favor and they know that if they get one first down--only one--the other team is at their mercy and they can take a win to clinch victory.

A coach who is playing not to lose, will run the ball three times in that situation even if he thinks there are plays in his playbook that have greater odds of picking up a first down and winning the game.

A coach playing to win will try a playaction or similar pass play that will increase the likliehood of picking up the first down and winning the game.

Every situation can be broken down into a percentage of winning the game. If it's 0-0 and the teams are even, and there's 15:00 left in the 1st quarter, each team's chances are 50/50.

If it's 10-0 and there's 5:00 left in the 2nd quarter, the winning team has say a 65% chance (just a rough guess).

If a team is up by 5 with the ball on their own 40 and there's 2:00 to go, the team probably has a 90% chance of winning on 1st and 10. If they run for 0 yards, and now there's 1:55 to go, maybe they have an 87% chance to win. If they pass for 7 yards and there's 1:55 to go, maybe they now have a 95% chance of winning. If they pass and it's intercepted, maybe they have a 55% chance.

But every play and every play call slides each team's chances of winning up or down. A coach who is playing not to lose may run the abll three times, but if that increases his team's odds of winning, he's not playing not to lose --> he's playing to win. If running three times decreases his team's chances of winning, he's not playing not to lose --> he's playing to lose.

The terms conservative and aggressive are much more descriptive of what you want here, I think. But there's no such thing as playing not to lose and not playing to win, unless you're kneeling on the ball with 30 seconds left in overtime.

Well, Chase, it's very clear you are literally interpreting the sports aphorism "Playing not to lose." To which, by the very definition of words, you are correct: playing "not to lose" and playing "to win" cannot be diametrically opposed as by their literal defintion they are one and the same.But in sports, let's just say there are coaches who would rather play risk-averse when ahead and run plays statistically & historically with less chance of making a mistake vs. coaches who weigh the risk vs reward and determine to run a risky play if the reward is a likely victory.

Herm & Schotty are the former. Tuna & Martz the latter. The epitome of the later being the college coach (was it UT??) who ran the epic playfake when trying to run out the clock vs. the #1 team in the country (was it Nebraska) and scored a TD. *That* was playing to win.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Clearly Chase had to put up with Sermon coaching the Jets for too long. He's getting loopy too.

No, has to be HAS to be.

Maybe you can help me out here with an example. Can you explain what would be a coaching decision that's playing not to lose but is also not playing to win?

Chase, it is a SAYING. To take the term absolutely literally is to lose all meaning of the phrase itself!Good god man, please say you are fishing, because we arent saying there is TECHNICALLY a difference between not winning and losing.

If you want an example, I can try and think and come up with many but am too tired and lazy. The fact is, when a team, mentally, is trying not to lose rather than trying to win - and in terms of a MENTAL STATE and game approach, there is a very REAL and meaningful difference between the two - bad things often happen. When a team becomes tentative, timid, overly defensive, when it is doing what it can to "hold off" the other team as opposed to just "beat them" then sometimes games shift because of the "try not to lose" mentality.

Ugh, I cant believe I actually explained that. Please tell me Im hooked.

Excellent description Koya. I'll add in my own example. I grew up a Saints fan (thru the good and the bad). Back when Mora was the coach and they had 4 all pro linebackers I would die every time they played those stinking 49ers. Many a game they had won but he went conservative and never put them away. Always left them just a little too close. Then at the end Montana would do his magic and pull it out. The Saints should have won their share of those games. He just never trusted the offense to win it. Chase can call it what he wants but I call it playing not to lose. He did not have the faith in his offense to finish the other team off. he put too much pressure on his defense to hold off a great offensive team.

It sounds to me like you're describing someone that's playing to lose; quite the opposite of someone that's playing not to lose. Giving that 49ers team the ball with a chance to win sure doesn't sound like a formula for not losing to me.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Not to get engaged in this semantic debate, but I think the classic "Playing not to lose vs. playing to win" scenario is when you have a situation where a team is up by 4-7 point (i.e. >FG).

They are presented with the ball is respectable field position, i.e. their own 30-45.

The clock is in their favor and they know that if they get one first down--only one--the other team is at their mercy and they can take a win to clinch victory.

A coach who is playing not to lose, will run the ball three times in that situation even if he thinks there are plays in his playbook that have greater odds of picking up a first down and winning the game.

A coach playing to win will try a playaction or similar pass play that will increase the likliehood of picking up the first down and winning the game.

Every situation can be broken down into a percentage of winning the game. If it's 0-0 and the teams are even, and there's 15:00 left in the 1st quarter, each team's chances are 50/50.

If it's 10-0 and there's 5:00 left in the 2nd quarter, the winning team has say a 65% chance (just a rough guess).

If a team is up by 5 with the ball on their own 40 and there's 2:00 to go, the team probably has a 90% chance of winning on 1st and 10. If they run for 0 yards, and now there's 1:55 to go, maybe they have an 87% chance to win. If they pass for 7 yards and there's 1:55 to go, maybe they now have a 95% chance of winning. If they pass and it's intercepted, maybe they have a 55% chance.

But every play and every play call slides each team's chances of winning up or down. A coach who is playing not to lose may run the abll three times, but if that increases his team's odds of winning, he's not playing not to lose --> he's playing to win. If running three times decreases his team's chances of winning, he's not playing not to lose --> he's playing to lose.

The terms conservative and aggressive are much more descriptive of what you want here, I think. But there's no such thing as playing not to lose and not playing to win, unless you're kneeling on the ball with 30 seconds left in overtime.

Well, Chase, it's very clear you are literally interpreting the sports aphorism "Playing not to lose." To which, by the very definition of words, you are correct: playing "not to lose" and playing "to win" cannot be diametrically opposed as by their literal defintion they are one and the same.But in sports, let's just say there are coaches who would rather play risk-averse when ahead and run plays statistically & historically with less chance of making a mistake vs. coaches who weigh the risk vs reward and determine to run a risky play if the reward is a likely victory.

Herm & Schotty are the former. Tuna & Martz the latter. The epitome of the later being the college coach (was it UT??) who ran the epic playfake when trying to run out the clock vs. the #1 team in the country (was it Nebraska) and scored a TD. *That* was playing to win.

I'll agree that Herm is risk-averse; I'm not so sure I agree about Parcells, though. I guess describing risk-averse isn't as easy as it might seem. Parcells has made some wacky calls in his career, which is probably considered risky. But his early Giants teams were extremely conservative.

 

[Koya]

Clearly Chase had to put up with Sermon coaching the Jets for too long. He's getting loopy too.

No, has to be HAS to be.

Maybe you can help me out here with an example. Can you explain what would be a coaching decision that's playing not to lose but is also not playing to win?

Chase, it is a SAYING. To take the term absolutely literally is to lose all meaning of the phrase itself!Good god man, please say you are fishing, because we arent saying there is TECHNICALLY a difference between not winning and losing. If you want an example, I can try and think and come up with many but am too tired and lazy. The fact is, when a team, mentally, is trying not to lose rather than trying to win - and in terms of a MENTAL STATE and game approach, there is a very REAL and meaningful difference between the two - bad things often happen. When a team becomes tentative, timid, overly defensive, when it is doing what it can to "hold off" the other team as opposed to just "beat them" then sometimes games shift because of the "try not to lose" mentality. Ugh, I cant believe I actually explained that. Please tell me Im hooked.

All I'm saying is that it's a really stupid saying. It makes little sense and is mostly used as a substitute for critical thinking. It's not "playing not to lose" if you're increasing your team's chances of winning by playing conservatively. There's a reason coaches like Cowher and Schottnheimer have so many wins, and it's because they know what they're doing.

If you dont take the term literally, the saying has an IMMENSE amount of truth. We are talking psychology and even a little philosophic angle. Indeed, the "act" of "trying not to lose" is a different mode of thought (and therefore, different resulting action) than "trying to win" - while tactically or from a strategic point of view there is no difference the fact is, when you have individual and team pyches, the thought/action of trying not to lose a game is, indeed, VERY different than trying to win.I know from my experiences in sports and you don't have to be a pro to know that feeling - when a team tightens up and tries not to lose. And so often, it leads to a loss. You dont try not to lose, you don't lose by winning.Anyhoo, hope that made some sense... in a way, its one of those gut level reactions where you know what it feels like to watch at least, or participate in a team trying not to lose, rather than win.

 

[Koya]

Clearly Chase had to put up with Sermon coaching the Jets for too long. He's getting loopy too.

No, has to be HAS to be.

Maybe you can help me out here with an example. Can you explain what would be a coaching decision that's playing not to lose but is also not playing to win?

Chase, it is a SAYING. To take the term absolutely literally is to lose all meaning of the phrase itself!Good god man, please say you are fishing, because we arent saying there is TECHNICALLY a difference between not winning and losing.

If you want an example, I can try and think and come up with many but am too tired and lazy. The fact is, when a team, mentally, is trying not to lose rather than trying to win - and in terms of a MENTAL STATE and game approach, there is a very REAL and meaningful difference between the two - bad things often happen. When a team becomes tentative, timid, overly defensive, when it is doing what it can to "hold off" the other team as opposed to just "beat them" then sometimes games shift because of the "try not to lose" mentality.

Ugh, I cant believe I actually explained that. Please tell me Im hooked.

Excellent description Koya. I'll add in my own example. I grew up a Saints fan (thru the good and the bad). Back when Mora was the coach and they had 4 all pro linebackers I would die every time they played those stinking 49ers. Many a game they had won but he went conservative and never put them away. Always left them just a little too close. Then at the end Montana would do his magic and pull it out. The Saints should have won their share of those games. He just never trusted the offense to win it. Chase can call it what he wants but I call it playing not to lose. He did not have the faith in his offense to finish the other team off. he put too much pressure on his defense to hold off a great offensive team.

It sounds to me like you're describing someone that's playing to lose; quite the opposite of someone that's playing not to lose. Giving that 49ers team the ball with a chance to win sure doesn't sound like a formula for not losing to me.

The act of "trying not to lose" is not the same (and therefore does not have the same result as) "trying to win"They are, simply put, different.

Very, different.