Bossman
Footballguy
How much of that contract is guaranteed?
I think they're stuck with him until that deal dies ... and they can never win a SB while he's getting paid that stupid amount of money.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Post here when coaches do something you disagree with (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter GreenNGold
- Start date
I think they're stuck with him until that deal dies ... and they can never win a SB while he's getting paid that stupid amount of money.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
I think they take like a 15-20 million hit if they release him after this year. It's a little less if they cut him after the 2019 season. It was one of the worst deals ever.
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
16M cap hit if cut (pre-June 1st). 8M if cap hit if cut (post-June 1st).
https://overthecap.com/player/joe-flacco/1383
TheDirtyWord
Footballguy
It's not the playing him that's so stupid since Jackson doesn't appear ready yet and ...RGIII.
The 45 pass attempts per game tho...
Ilov80s
Footballguy
He has been bad for awhile, they didn't have to wait untill now to get a back-up planIt's not the playing him that's so stupid since Jackson doesn't appear ready yet and ...RGIII.
The 45 pass attempts per game tho...
Post here when coaches do something obviously smart.
What's funny is that Harbaugh seems to be doubting himself a little based on the results. But what I find most heartening was hearing an NFL coach say, in effect, "I don't know if it was the right decision, but the math said so and therefore we did it." They usually say the exact opposite.
Little by little, bit by bit ...
What's funny is that Harbaugh seems to be doubting himself a little based on the results. But what I find most heartening was hearing an NFL coach say, in effect, "I don't know if it was the right decision, but the math said so and therefore we did it." They usually say the exact opposite.
Little by little, bit by bit ...
Well at least they didn't have Flacco throw a 20 yard out along the sidelines on 4th & 4. That's one of Harbug's favs. Low % play to begin with and 50-50 that Flacco throws an uncatchable ball out of bounds. Then Harbug has that goofy stare.
Joe Summer
Footballguy
Sorry but Harbaugh is still an idiot. One of Baltimore's 4th down attempts came with 8 seconds left in the game and was basically a wasted play. His only hope of winning at that point was to either A) throw a quick shot into the endzone (so that they scored in less than 7 seconds) or B) kick a field goal (and hope that the kick takes less than 7 seconds to complete).
But instead he calls a play that allows for a short dumpoff to the middle of the field, whereupon Willie Snead ran around until the clock ran out.
But instead he calls a play that allows for a short dumpoff to the middle of the field, whereupon Willie Snead ran around until the clock ran out.
Short Corner
Footballguy
Did he call the play or did Flacco?Joe Summer said:
sho nuff
Footballguy
OT in GB vs. Minnesota...
Video shows Rodgers probably was going to be open if he doesn't bobbled the bull pulling it from Jamal Williams, but that bootleg play with a QB with one leg on 2nd and 1 where you are basically on the back end of FG range was dumb...loss of a couple yards...sack the next play and then they punt.
Minnesota...final series in OT...get the ball centered with at least 14-15 seconds left on the clock and 2 timeouts. Let the clock rundown to 4 seconds before calling a timeout for the FG try. Its not the end of regulation...you hit the FG at this point and the game is over. Call the timeout at 14 seconds...it was 1st down. That way, if there is a bad snap or a bobble, you can take the loss of yardage and a timeout and try again on the next down.
Didn't matter as they got the kick off and missed anyway...but just seemed very dumb.
Video shows Rodgers probably was going to be open if he doesn't bobbled the bull pulling it from Jamal Williams, but that bootleg play with a QB with one leg on 2nd and 1 where you are basically on the back end of FG range was dumb...loss of a couple yards...sack the next play and then they punt.
Minnesota...final series in OT...get the ball centered with at least 14-15 seconds left on the clock and 2 timeouts. Let the clock rundown to 4 seconds before calling a timeout for the FG try. Its not the end of regulation...you hit the FG at this point and the game is over. Call the timeout at 14 seconds...it was 1st down. That way, if there is a bad snap or a bobble, you can take the loss of yardage and a timeout and try again on the next down.
Didn't matter as they got the kick off and missed anyway...but just seemed very dumb.
Joe Summer
Footballguy
Well, it's certainly possible that the coaching staff intended for Snead to be a decoy on that play, but Flacco panicked and decided to throw a dump-off to Snead despite the obvious fact that it would end the game.
With 8 seconds left, it probably didn't matter.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Gotta say, if the Steelers tried to run a little up 13 in the 3rd quarter, not only might they have successfully salted that game away earlier, but they would have killed alllllll sorts of clock & Tampa wouldn’t have been one Fitzmagic drive from tying it at the end.
i get the gunslinger mentality - and I lose games in Madden all the time that exact way. Take a deep shot on 2nd and 8 from your own 30 - now it’s 3rd and long. Now you’re punting back to an offense loaded with receiving weapons instead of grinding it out agansit a defense that’s been tissue paper on the ground most of the night.
20 carries for Conner was about 10-15 lower than it should have been, and that should not have been a 3 point game.
As an aside: They can talk a good game about not missing Bell, but does anyone really believe they’d still be throwing that much if Bell was in the backfield?
Back to the game, that was some of the dumbest play-calling I’ve ever seen. And it may reflect a lack of confidence in their ability to run the ball. It was fun to watch, but bad situational footballl, and it almost cost them the game. If not for Fitzmagic melting down on that last drive where he almost threw 2 picks in a row, it certainly could have.
That was just dumb coaching in my opinion.
i get the gunslinger mentality - and I lose games in Madden all the time that exact way. Take a deep shot on 2nd and 8 from your own 30 - now it’s 3rd and long. Now you’re punting back to an offense loaded with receiving weapons instead of grinding it out agansit a defense that’s been tissue paper on the ground most of the night.
20 carries for Conner was about 10-15 lower than it should have been, and that should not have been a 3 point game.
As an aside: They can talk a good game about not missing Bell, but does anyone really believe they’d still be throwing that much if Bell was in the backfield?
Back to the game, that was some of the dumbest play-calling I’ve ever seen. And it may reflect a lack of confidence in their ability to run the ball. It was fun to watch, but bad situational footballl, and it almost cost them the game. If not for Fitzmagic melting down on that last drive where he almost threw 2 picks in a row, it certainly could have.
That was just dumb coaching in my opinion.
Last edited by a moderator:
Godsbrother
Footballguy
Lots of reasons for this but the main one is the Steelers defense stinks. You need to score 30+ to win, no lead is safe and they weren't putting up 30 points last night running the ball, especially on that sloppy field.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
That seems to support my point.
If the defense stinks, the best cure for that is to keep them off the field.
Run the ball, kill the clock. 3-and-outs only hurt if your defense stinks.
That’s exactly what the Steelers did - and it got their (already gassed) stinky defense back out there in 4 plays instead of maybe driving the ball down-field with a balanced offense.
At the very least if they’d run it a few more times the defense would get a breather even in a 3 & out.
Godsbrother
Footballguy
The conditions last night were not conducive to running, two of the Steelers starting offensive lineman were out and they were moving the sticks more reliably through the air. They did run the ball some, and Connor averaged 4 yards per carry which is pretty much what Bell's ypc was last year.
Would Bell have done better? Possibly but we'll never know cause he isn't on the team.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Bell aside, it was bad coaching to not try and kill clock.
This isn’t revolutionary - and I get the “aggressive” play calling, as Witten put it, of going DEEP on 2nd and 8 from your own 30 up 13.
I just still think it’s dumb coaching.
Field conditions had nothing to do with throwing that bomb. That wasn’t moving he chains through the air. You’re right - they did that well all night.
But that was an “in-your-face” attempt at a 2nd dagger to run up the score when they were already up 2 scores with 3 mins left in the 3rd.
and IMO, that’s really dumb. And it almost cost them the game.
dhockster
Footballguy
Not obviously stupid, but way too conservative in my book: The Texans are down 20-6 at halftime, and after they force a Giant punt to start the second half, they drive to the Giant 35 yard line where they throw an incompletion on 3rd and 4. On 4th and 4 they attempt and make a 54 yard FG to cut the lead to 20-9. So they are still 2 scores down, but they have to make a 2 pointer on their TD to tie. When they finally do score a TD midway through the 4th quarter, they miss on the 2 point attempt, so they still have to score another TD to have a chance to win.
Being down two TD's, I think the Texans would have been better served trying to get the first down and keeping the drive alive to score a TD. The 54 yard FG was hardly a gimme as their kicker had been short on a 54 yarder the week before. Continually settling for FG's, especially when you are behind, is the mindset of a losing coach.
Being down two TD's, I think the Texans would have been better served trying to get the first down and keeping the drive alive to score a TD. The 54 yard FG was hardly a gimme as their kicker had been short on a 54 yarder the week before. Continually settling for FG's, especially when you are behind, is the mindset of a losing coach.
Last edited by a moderator:
I've never for the life of me understood why any coach facing 4th and short, down 14 at any point in the second half, would ever kick a FG. I don't care if it's 24 yards or 54.
Literally the best-case scenario is that you're still down two scores and kicking the ball away. And my favorite, which I've seen happen a bunch of times, is that the team goes turtle the next time they get into scoring range because they know another FG will "make it a one-score game", when of course an 8-point deficit is only one score half the time.
Basically, the net effect of many coaching staffs kicking that initial FG is a 50/50 chance of turning your two-score deficit into a three-score one. That takes some doing!
Last edited by a moderator:
bryhamm
Footballguy
Even worse: down 15 to the Rams with 12 minutes left, the Chargers kicked a FG on 4th and goal from the 8. So they took a two TD game and made it ... still a two TD game. That would be dumb in any circumstance, but maybe when you're playing the second best offense in the league, you might need TDs rather than FGs, ya know?
As it happened, they only got the ball for one more possession the rest of the way (ended in a fumble, then the Rams ran out the clock).
Steeler
Footballguy
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
I thought 2018 was the year all the NFL coaches were going to start copying Pederson & the Eagles? Guess not.
Bossman
Footballguy
Heard others complaining of this and I too was rooting for the Fitzmagic comeback. Hindsight makes the decision look dumb ...
but the situation dictated a punt was the correct call. 4th and 10 at your own 25 yard line // 2.45 left and two timeouts.
You mis on that 4th down attempt, PIT runs 3 times, burns your timeouts ... even if your D can stop them from getting a 1st down, PIT kicks a FG and now TB needs a TD not just a FG with under 2 mins remaining and no time outs.
Punt it there and have faith that your D can stop PIT and force a punt. Extreme luck would have PIT muff the punt or fumble on a run or strip sack fumble on 3rd down, etc.
I think 32 out of 32 head coaches punt it there.
I was with you until that last sentence. There are plenty of decisions 32/32 coaches would make that are still wrong.
But yes, I agree it made sense to punt there. It was fourth and ten deep in their own territory and they were only down a FG. If it had been a TD it might have been different. And if not for that Ben escape + scramble pass to Juju, it would have worked (granted, Ben has made that play like 50 times in his career).
Here's the detailed explanation, but in a nutshell, your EV from attempting two 2-pointers is the same as kicking two XPs, so if you miss the first one, you can just go for it again next time. But the cheat code is that if you make the first one, you have the chance to win the game in regulation after your second TD rather than just playing for the tie. Net-net, it increases your win probability by more than 10% (note that this article came out before the XP distance was moved back, so the increase is even higher than the number he cites).
And you're absolutely right that no coach ever does it. It's really bizarre; it's not something that's even discussed. That's why I keep bringing it up.
Grahamburn
Footballguy
I've said it about a million times watching NFL games. If you're the team punting inside 3 minutes in the 4th quarter you're usually the team that's going to lose, especially if you're kicking it to a HOF QB. Granted, I bet a lot of Steelers' fans felt that way when the ball was headed back to the Bucs, but Koetter let them off the hook by kicking it back. Gutless.
fred_1_15301
Footballguy
Here is the issue and why I think no coach would ever have the balls to do what you propose. There is a 27% chance that the team will be unsuccessful with both 2 point conversions and the coach will be hammered for a decision that directly resulted in a loss (which mathematically may have been the right decision). I just don't see any coach doing it in that situation (not even Doug Pederson).
fred_1_15301
Footballguy
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
I am not saying punting was the right move, but wasn't it 4th and 10? At the time, my train of thought was that they would have gone for it had not been 4th and long. And the Steelers offense didn't score in the second half, so he probably figured they could get a stop and get the ball back. He was wrong.
fred_1_15301
Footballguy
I wouldn't worry too much about the Steelers defense even in a 4th and 10 situation. They have looked that bad after 3 games into the season.
Grahamburn
Footballguy
It was 4th and 10. Even if you don’t get it you still have 3 timeouts and the two minute warning. Pitt’s kicker had already missed two kicks at that point as well on a sloppy field. In that situation in Tampa’s end I don’t think they attempt a pass, and if they do maybe you get a turnover on a condensed field. Even if he makes the kick you’re only down by 6 with a full two minutes to drive the field.
Easy to second guess. I’m just so sick of Koetter’s gutless game management. The play calling has been more aggressive with Monken, but obviously Koetter is still making those decisions.
I mean, you're not wrong. But think about how ridiculous that is that coaches would give up on a strategy that would improve their expected win percentage by a substantial amount just because there is a slight chance they would get criticized if it goes wrong.Here is the issue and why I think no coach would ever have the balls to do what you propose. There is a 27% chance that the team will be unsuccessful with both 2 point conversions and the coach will be hammered for a decision that directly resulted in a loss (which mathematically may have been the right decision). I just don't see any coach doing it in that situation (not even Doug Pederson).
Actually, though, while I think "I don't want to get criticized" explains a lot of overly conservative strategies coaches employ, I'm not sure that's what's driving this scenario. Like I said, it doesn't appear they even consider going for two. Here's what I think it is: When teams are down by a "round" number (14, 10, 21) there is a natural human inclination to want to get it back to a tie game, even though tying it up only gets your expected win percentage up to 50%.
I'll give you an example (can't remember specifically when this happened, but I definitely remember seeing it within the past couple years): Team is down 10 in the 4th quarter, facing 4th and goal. Leaving aside the question of their likelihood of converting the fourth down, a lot of teams will kick the FG under the logic that "We're going to need a TD and a FG, so might as well get the FG now." The problem with this thinking is that by kicking the FG, you're passing up the opportunity to score a TD, which will keep alive the possibility that you could score another TD on your next drive and win the game in regulation.
Not sure what causes this blind spot, but for some reason, our brains just aren't wired to think that way. Perhaps it's related to loss aversion. Once you're losing, your sole goal is to no longer be in that position. So you focus on getting out of that hole to the exclusion of all else, even if that ultimately impacts your chance of winning.
fred_1_15301
Footballguy
Agree with you but that’s the risk averse part of human nature kicking in.zftcg said:
dhockster
Footballguy
I think all NFL coaches should read the following article. They might change their mind about being so conservative.
https://www.phillyvoice.com/analysis-all-29-doug-pedersons-4th-down-go-it-calls-2017/
https://www.phillyvoice.com/analysis-all-29-doug-pedersons-4th-down-go-it-calls-2017/
Hilts
Footballguy
Let's discuss the Texans/Colts game, and Houston taking the fg to tie the game with less than 2 minutes in OT.
It was 4th and 10. Should they have gone for it? There's some debate in the game thread.
As it was, they ended up stopping Indianapolis and kicking a game winning fg after the Colts made the curious move of going for it on 4th down to put Houston on the edge of fg range.
It was 4th and 10. Should they have gone for it? There's some debate in the game thread.
As it was, they ended up stopping Indianapolis and kicking a game winning fg after the Colts made the curious move of going for it on 4th down to put Houston on the edge of fg range.
Man In The Box
Footballguy
Too many examples to post, but pretty much everything Gase did today sucked.
tombonneau
Footballguy
.@bburkeESPN weighs in with the numbers on the Colts' fourth-down decision late in overtime:
I'm generally a trust-the-numbers guy, but I actually am willing to cut Reich (and O'Brien) some slack here. Late OT games really scramble strategy. What it comes down to is that the Texans were playing for the tie and the Colts were playing for the win (ironic, given that it was the Texans who ended up winning). I can't definitively say which is better. Burke's analytics split the baby by treating a tie as half a win, but particularly in Reich's case, I could see how he might view it differently. He's a first-year coach with an overmatched roster, and he's trying to make an impression on his team and set them up for future success. So maybe he decides that a tie in Week 4 of what is likely to be a lost season anyway isn't as important as demonstrating to his players that it's better to take some chances in pursuit of victory.
Meant to post this on Thursday night: I don't know what the numbers say, so perhaps it wasn't obviously stupid, but the Rams punting late in the game on 4th and inches when they were up 7 was highly questionable.
What it really comes down to is this: Both offenses had been marching up and down the field all night. The Rams have the second best offense in the league, the best RB, and the best play caller. You're telling me that combination couldn't have produced less than a yard to salt the game away? And instead they wanted to give the ball back to a QB who had already thrown for 400 yards and give him a chance to tie the game up? I think in that case I would have taken my chances with Gurley or a QB sneak.
As it happened, the Rams D did finally rise to the occasion and force a fumble, but I still think the process was bad.
What it really comes down to is this: Both offenses had been marching up and down the field all night. The Rams have the second best offense in the league, the best RB, and the best play caller. You're telling me that combination couldn't have produced less than a yard to salt the game away? And instead they wanted to give the ball back to a QB who had already thrown for 400 yards and give him a chance to tie the game up? I think in that case I would have taken my chances with Gurley or a QB sneak.
As it happened, the Rams D did finally rise to the occasion and force a fumble, but I still think the process was bad.
ThaPenguin
Footballguy
Mike Tomlin. His face is stupid.
There's a difference between being aggressive and being reckless. This was an example of the latter.
The problem isn't even that you'll most likely lose if you don't convert (the Texans only needed 5 yards for a coin-flip FG and 15-20 for a high-percentage one). It's that even if you do, you'll most likely be around midfield, with no more than 20 seconds left on the clock and no more than one timeout, needing to go 15-20 yards in two plays just to get yourself in long FG range and then hit the FG. That parlay hits, what, maybe a quarter of the time? So failure means a very likely L, but success turns a 100% chance of a tie into ... a 75% chance of a tie.
Having said that, Reich's biggest blunder wasn't deciding to go for it. It was burning a TO trying to bait the Texans into jumping offside and then deciding to go for it. With 0:27 left, gee, you think having that extra TO might come in handy if you convert? Honestly, if he'd had Luck line up the first time, run the play clock down to 2 and then snap the ball and throw a quick slant, the element of surprise would have been so complete that it could easily have turned into a long TD. Just a bizarre series of decisions at the end there.
heckmanm
Footballguy
Good point with the bolded. Once the clock got < 5 seconds, HOU had to be assuming Indy would call TO and punt, so a late snap there could have caught them off-guard. After the TO when they don't line up to punt, the defense isn't going to assume another attempt to draw them off.
That's the old Brady trick. I hate when teams do the hard-count thing; it's so obvious, and they never actually snap the ball. That's why actually snapping it would be such a shark move.
BTW, in the Michigan-Northwestern game on Saturday, Michigan did it near the end of the game, actually got the Northwestern D-lineman to jump, but the QB/center missed it and didn't snap the ball. Which suggests that maybe teams are just going through the motions at this point.
I get what you're saying, but looking at it the other way, maybe Reich decided he'd rather have 25% chance at a win than 0%.
Similar threads
