-OZ-
Footballguy
Pretty sure Vrabel knows football.
But yeah, that was a mistake - many called it one at the time.
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
But yeah, that was a mistake - many called it one at the time.
DropKick
Footballguy
As I said several times, the decision includes confidence in your kicker. Citing Bullock's efficiency from the get go, is a much better take than simply saying the decision is "obvious", without rationale.
McPherson is 11 for 13 on 50+ yard attempts this year. As for Justin Tucker, he was 35 for 37 on FG attempts this year, and was perfect from 50 plus. His career percentage is 73%, and I'm sure some of the misses were the end of the half equivalent of Hail Marys. The odds of converting 4th and 1 is about 65%.
As for you last point, completely disagree. I've been watching football for almost 50 years and the willingness to forego a FG has certainly changed over time. However, we see teams misapply this... The Chargers opted not to kick 4 FGs against the Chiefs and lost in OT. As acknowledged earlier, maybe Bullock isn't the guy for that long of an attempt. But taking the lead, even if its only by 3 points, late in a play-off game is "playing to win".
Last edited by a moderator:
barackdhouse
Footballguy
I'm not going to scroll through all this and am sure this got mentioned but right before McPherson kicked the game winner yesterday the Bengals used their last time out to run a play... for Burrow to take a 1.5 yard loss before a 50+ yard FG. They correctly took a TO before the previous play to run Mixon a little closer, and then decided it was too smart to do that a second time and took a TO to then go backwards. On purpose.
It didn't matter but it was one of the stupidest things I've ever seen.
It didn't matter but it was one of the stupidest things I've ever seen.
DropKick
Footballguy
I thought, on that particular play, he was trying to position the ball near the right hash mark. Perhaps that is the kicker's preference?
Agreed, I said the same thing in real time. Thought for sure they'd try to pick up another 2-3 yards with a carry.
Could be wrong but I don't think that's what they did, they pretty much just fell in the same spot on the field as they were iirc.
DropKick
Footballguy
He clearly repositions the ball from the center of the field to the right has mark at 6:40
Gotta think that was on purpose.
Thanks, I mis-remembered. The carry from Mixon came from the right hash, and IMO he ended up closer to there than the middle where they spotted him for some reason, but yeah Burrow clearly went right.
Still think it was a dumb call, he's very good but a 52 yarder in those conditions is far from a lock and he nailed the 54 yarder from the left hash earlier.
We’re talking about kicking or not kicking a fg, it’s obvious to me that when evaluating that situation you should have a general understanding of the factors at play, an important one of which in this situation is the kicker. And I suspect the math is closer but still solidly in favor of going for it even with a stud kicker. With Bullock it easily is.
As for your last paragraph, making a decision that gives your team a notably lower percentage chance to win the game is not playing to win. It’s being foolish.
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
The kick also drifted slightly to the left but was plenty long so it seemed to be a good decision .
barackdhouse
Footballguy
well of course but the RB can do that by running a play in that direction as well. and gain yardage.
barackdhouse
Footballguy
DropKick
Footballguy
The RB can also fumble. Or you can get a holding call or some other adverse action.
They must have felt they were within his range.
DropKick
Footballguy
I just showed you the math that a stud kicker makes this a solid option. So, continue to be "foolish" and stick your head in the ground.
Lol no you didn’t. Throwing out numbers without meaning isn’t math. 4thdownbot gave the Titans a 59% chance of making the fg and a 71% chance of making the first. That’s probably generous to the kicker and as one of the best short yardage offenses the Titans in the low 70s sounds about right.
Those numbers put the WP at 66% going for it and 58% kicking it. I’m eye balling it from here but I think you’d have to bump your kicking success rate up into the upper 80s get that gap close enough to considered even. And that’s not happening with anyone from 53.
We’re getting a long way away from the initial point here which was that yes with Bullock as your kicker it’s clearly a higher % play to go for it there.
barackdhouse
Footballguy
Burrow can't fumble eh. Ok. They're not calling a holding in that spot unless the OL does something egregious and stupid enough to deserve it. Those extra couple yards could have negatively counteracted the positive effect of being on the right hash. What they should have done is not be totally inept. Run it to the right and fall forward not backward. Anyway McPherson is money but even he gave Burrow a sideways glance when that 3rd down play was over.
ignatiusjreilly
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Sam Quentin
Footballguy
Why the hell do you blitz and single cover Kupp with a safety?
Given the clock situation, this defensive call is confounding.
Given the clock situation, this defensive call is confounding.
Sam Quentin
Footballguy
having a stud kicker is so underrated in the NFL
Belichick owned the NFL for two decades in part due Vinatieri and Gostkowski. He even got the NFL to move the XP back to press his advantage.
McPherson vs Bullock was the difference between moving on and going home.
“BUT YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE LEAD WHEN YOU CAN IMAGINE HOW DEFLATED THE TEAM WILL BE IF YOU DON’T CONVERT.”
-all the people great at ignoring math/analytics who will, the next time a team fails on an obvious go for it 4th down situation, somehow forget that the Bills correctly went for and converted 2 4th downs to get a huge opening drive td vs the Chiefs.
-all the people great at ignoring math/analytics who will, the next time a team fails on an obvious go for it 4th down situation, somehow forget that the Bills correctly went for and converted 2 4th downs to get a huge opening drive td vs the Chiefs.
It was a huge deal. I’m a Ravens fan, I know. Tucker is worth every Penny. Doesn’t change that going for it there is the right call. Closer if your kicker is a stud. But still the right call. I’m pretty sure the analytic driven Ravens WITH Tucker and from closer went for it on 4th and 1 late in the playoff win vs the Titans.
ignatiusjreilly
Footballguy
Sam Quentin
Footballguy
You kick the XP and bring down the anxiety
on 4th and 1, you probably should go for it, but on 3rd and 1 and 4th and 1, call better plays.
Can’t imagine football players get anxious when it’s 6-6 vs 7-6 in the second quarter. I’m less adamant about this one though. 70-75% chance of scoring 2 compared to 90-95% chance of scoring 1. 1/2 point difference.
I’ve seen the Titans pull off the Tannehill keeper thing many times. Props to the Bengals for executing their assignments. The 4th down play seemed like it took wayyyyy too long for Henry to get going.
ignatiusjreilly
Footballguy
Buffalo not squibbing that kickoff with 13 seconds left was the rarely seen perfect combination of poor process and poor results. It was obvious in the moment that you need to burn a few seconds on the play, and it ended up giving KC exactly the time it needed to kick the FG that sent the game to OT. Utterly indefensiblle
fantasycurse42
Footballguy Jr.
I disagree on the squib kick, but I can be swayed on that; that’s not what cost Buffalo the game. 13 seconds is not a lot of time, giving them the ball on the 25 is fine, it’s 2-3 plays and one of them has to be the kick.
Where he went off the rails and should almost be fired is the defense they ran. You aren’t defending a TD, you’re simply defending a FG opportunity. That safe defense with those huge cushions was idiotic. You want to defend deep, fine, leave 3 guys over the top. You need 5 guys maybe 5-7 yards off the line playing man knowing they’ve got 3 deep. That is what cost them the game, not the squib. That was truly terrible defensive coaching, some of the worst ever.
Where he went off the rails and should almost be fired is the defense they ran. You aren’t defending a TD, you’re simply defending a FG opportunity. That safe defense with those huge cushions was idiotic. You want to defend deep, fine, leave 3 guys over the top. You need 5 guys maybe 5-7 yards off the line playing man knowing they’ve got 3 deep. That is what cost them the game, not the squib. That was truly terrible defensive coaching, some of the worst ever.
ignatiusjreilly
Footballguy
Agree the coverage was bad (although ironically not the worst last-minute coverage of the day) but the touchback was worse by far. They gave the Chiefs 25 yards of field position while taking zero time. If they kick it short, KC likely gets to around the same spot but with less time. Even if they get it 10 or 15 yards closer it's still a good trade. At that point they basically wouldn't have been able to throw anything intermediate, which is what they did (Tyreek for 19, Kelce for 25)
fantasycurse42
Footballguy Jr.
I see your point, but I still think the coverage decision was worse. At the 25 with 13 seconds, rush 2-3, leave 3 (or even 4) over the top, play the rest as tighter man coverage. If they played it like that, they win the game. Prevent defense with 10-15 yards of cushion was a gift to Mahomes.
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
ignatiusjreilly
Footballguy
It caused a miasma of depression that hung over them for the entire game and finally manifested itself in Tannehill's INT with 20 seconds left.Long Ball Larry said:
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
Miasma of depression!
thank you, James Joyce
thank you, James Joyce
The Duff Man
Footballguy
Playing your two two All Pro safeties 30 yards back when there is 13 seconds left and your opponent needs to complete two 15ish yard passes to get into FG range to tie after you scored two TDs to make a massive comeback.
barackdhouse
Footballguy
Bills should have squibbed it. Force them to return it and eat a bunch of clock. Likely Mahomes would have one play only. Unless the Chiefs just fall on it to preserve clock. Which still takes a couple seconds and negates the perceived risk that they might get a big return.
James Daulton
Footballguy
Couldn't the Chiefs have fair caught the squib kick so no time went off?
Sam Quentin
Footballguy
Tampa Bay might have actually been worse, but historically bad end game defensive coaching this weekend.fantasycurse42 said:
dawgtrails
Footballguy
Tau837
Footballguy
I don't know if there is a formal definition anywhere, but a squib kick is one that is generally kicked low so it will hit the ground before it reaches the returner. There would be no possibility of a fair catch.
Tau837
Footballguy
But, say the squib kick reached the returner at the 10-15 yard line. If they just grab it and take a knee, they need 10-15 more yards to reach FG range. And even taking the knee would probably burn 1 of the 13 seconds. It is a win for Buffalo either way (take a knee or return it and burn more clock).
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Yeah, but that's the thing. If you squib the kickoff, there's a pretty good chance that KC starts the drive at their own 40 or something with 12-13 seconds still on the clock and all three TOs. I'd strongly prefer a touchback to that scenario. (Even better is a short kickoff that gets fair caught at the 10 -- just saying that squib is very risky.)
Cobbler1 said:
This is me. I was thinking that during the first drive. Didn't agree with the first attempt and thought they should have definitely kicked the FG on the second. It obviously worked out for them, but I'm still of the same opinion.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the ultimate results in the formula will still be a loss, right?
I think you’d really have to a screw up the execution of a squib for KC to start with the ball their 40 without a lot of time coming off. You’re right though, people (def me) are using the term squib kick as a catch all for a kick that needs to be returned, when in reality someone could fall on a squib kick and the whistle would blow if they don’t try to advance. A high, short kickoff aimed at the 10 or 15 is the way to go. If they fair catch they’ve lost 10-15 yards and if they try to advance it they’ll burn a few seconds.
ignatiusjreilly
Footballguy
The more I think about this, there was no strategy that was guaranteed to maximize their (already sky-high) win probability. What you want in that situation is a KC returner (who is not named Tyreek Hill) fielding the kickoff far enough back that he can't just fair catch it/immediately give himself up, and being forced to waste a few seconds getting even reasonable field position. It's possible that's what they were trying to do, and Bass just put too much leg into it. It's also possible that if the kick had gone to the 5, Hardman or Pringle or whoever would have pulled off a great return. A squib might not have gone far enough.
I still think the touchback was suboptimal, but I'm also coming around to @BassNBrew's view that this was a black-swan sequence of events, in which a bunch of different things had to break KC's way for them to pull out a win, and all of them did. (I remember thinking something similar after the Pats-Falcons SB).
I’m not sure what you are asking to be corrected about if you are wrong. If you’re saying it’s erroneous that they went for it in those situations since they ultimately ended up losing then, yes you are wrong. Going for it increased their chances of winning the game and were the correct calls.
This is me. I was thinking that during the first drive. Didn't agree with the first attempt and thought they should have definitely kicked the FG on the second. It obviously worked out for them, but I'm still of the same opinion.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the ultimate results in the formula will still be a loss, right?
Tau837
Footballguy
I don't agree, but maybe it is semantics on the definition of squib kick. Sometimes, the point of a squib kick is to make someone other than the primary kickoff returner field the kick. If that is the nature of the squib kick, it can result in field better field position than the 25 yard line.
That wasn't the point in the situation we are discussing. I would have kicked it such that it bounced around the 10 yard line, forcing the primary kick returner to field it. If he took a knee immediately to save clock, that results in worse field position. If he didn't take a knee and went for a return, he might have gotten past the 25, but at the cost of burning several seconds.
Either way, the outcome would have been better for Buffalo.
I agree a high kickoff short of the goal line might have been even better than bouncing the kickoff to Hill.
EDIT: Corrected my mistake about fair catches on kickoffs advancing the ball to the 25. (College only.)
Last edited by a moderator:
Tau837
Footballguy
Agree.
EDIT: Corrected my mistake about fair catches on kickoffs advancing the ball to the 25. (College only.)
Last edited by a moderator:
Tau837
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
ignatiusjreilly
Footballguy
If that's the case, I definitely retract my criticism of Buffalo for not kicking short of the end zone.
Can you fair catch a squib kick?
I’m not seeing any confirmation on this with a quick google and I’ve never seen it in the NFL. I don’t think this is true.
Similar threads
