Post here when coaches do something you disagree with (1 Viewer)

[Sabertooth]

It appears Mike McCarthy is going to continue giving paychecks to the bum Dom Capers. That's pretty stupid.

 

[CalBear]

Posted Today, 12:40 AM

It's standard upper management / CEO mentality .... keeping the gravy train flowing is more important than actually making a stand, or [GASP] winning. If you want to keep a ridiculous salary coming in, don't do anything out of the ordinary.

Job security is more important for these sheep. If they truly had the passion they preach (sell) to the flesh that keeps them in these positions, you would see a different, more interesting league/product.

It's too bad there isn't at least one renegade who is willing to bypass the status quo and give it a go.... Instead, go through the motions so you can keep picking up those checks, in lieu of the game you supposedly love.

Agreed. I think another part of it may be pressure from above as well, as almost all the owners are these old school traditionalists. There has to be some explanation beyond just "play it safe to keep your job" when we see these college coaches that were going for it regularly on 4th down and doing fake punts from their own 10 yard line in college, and all the sudden are punting on 4th and inches from midfield in the NFL.

The whole "keep your job" idea is silly. Coaches that win keep their jobs. Coaches that lose don't. Fans of coaches that win will find all kinds of transparent rationalizations to justify the decisions of coaches that win, and I think that's especially true for aggressive decisions, which most fans would prefer to see anyway. Is there a single instance of a good coach getting fired because of aggressive decision-making?

 

[cvnpoka]

Dan Quinn. I guess going for one after scoring to make it 17-12 is defensible on the grounds that it was still the first half. But kicking a FG from the 1 with 3:00 left in the game? Are you freaking kidding me?

Even Jim Caldwell was like WTF. It actually reduced their chances of winning by making the field goal instead of missing it due to the 49ers still having a 1 point lead and getting better field position.

Yep, by 21 percent.

Is there an online win pct analytics tool?

Yesterday, Jaguars had just scored and were down by 5 with 2:14 to play and 1 timeout left. They unsuccessfully onside kicked. I thought they should have kicked away to get better field position and try to go for a GW TD from closer to midfield.

Was trying to see if the numbers supported my position.

I highly doubt it. Think about it, onsiding it gives you 2 ways to win. You can still stop them and get the ball back.

What is the difference in field position? I'd say you will get it at about the 15 or so if you stop them after they recover the onside.

Kick it deep and stuff them and they are kicking from around the 25. Average NFL punt is like 45, but that includes short punts so lets say the punter will boom it 50 on average (which seems conservative.) So you receive at the 25 and return it about 15 yards to the 40.

Is 25 yards of field position with about a minute left worth more than a 10% chance of getting the ball with 2:15 left?

 

[zftcg]

Posted Today, 12:40 AM

It's standard upper management / CEO mentality .... keeping the gravy train flowing is more important than actually making a stand, or [GASP] winning. If you want to keep a ridiculous salary coming in, don't do anything out of the ordinary.

Job security is more important for these sheep. If they truly had the passion they preach (sell) to the flesh that keeps them in these positions, you would see a different, more interesting league/product.

It's too bad there isn't at least one renegade who is willing to bypass the status quo and give it a go.... Instead, go through the motions so you can keep picking up those checks, in lieu of the game you supposedly love.

Agreed. I think another part of it may be pressure from above as well, as almost all the owners are these old school traditionalists. There has to be some explanation beyond just "play it safe to keep your job" when we see these college coaches that were going for it regularly on 4th down and doing fake punts from their own 10 yard line in college, and all the sudden are punting on 4th and inches from midfield in the NFL.

The whole "keep your job" idea is silly. Coaches that win keep their jobs. Coaches that lose don't. Fans of coaches that win will find all kinds of transparent rationalizations to justify the decisions of coaches that win, and I think that's especially true for aggressive decisions, which most fans would prefer to see anyway. Is there a single instance of a good coach getting fired because of aggressive decision-making?

I've always found this topic of coaches' psychology fascinating. A couple thoughts:

1. I think we may be giving them too much credit by assuming they've thought all of this through. The nature of conservatism in general is that you do things not on the basis of rationally weighing alternatives, but simply because "that's how it's always been done". Everything coaches have seen since they've been in football has taught them that you kick on fourth down, so that's what they do.

2. Coaches don't fear getting fired. There are 32 HCs in the NFL right now, and 30 of them will eventually get fired (Belichick is safe, and based on the Steelers' track record, Tomlin probably is as well. Coughlin will be "allowed to retire" in the next year or two, but no one will be fooled). And after they get fired, they'll get hired into a different role with another team. What they really fear is not getting any of those other offers and having to leave football altogether. And the best way to have that happen is to stand out too much, to mark yourself as "different".

Again, don't think of this as a rational thought process. The way you succeed in football is by shutting up and doing what you're told, so the people who rise to HC positions are going to be the ones who are good at doing that. They're unlikely to change once they get there.

The most interesting counterexample in recent years was Rivera, who, faced with his imminent firing, suddenly decided to start going on 4th down more often. (It's notable that when people started calling him "Riverboat Ron", he said he would prefer "Analytical Ron", which suggests he was engaging in that rational decision making so many coaches avoid).

 

[CalBear]

The most interesting counterexample in recent years was Rivera, who, faced with his imminent firing, suddenly decided to start going on 4th down more often. (It's notable that when people started calling him "Riverboat Ron", he said he would prefer "Analytical Ron", which suggests he was engaging in that rational decision making so many coaches avoid).

Go Bears!

 

[Deamon]

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25368817/look-rex-ryan-dons-clemson-helmet-for-bills-press-conference

 

[Ghost Rider]

Fisher going for 2 when the Rams scored their first touchdown today. That essentially cost them the game.

Was it obviously stupid at the time? Or just cause of the outcome 55 minutes later?

Yes. The Rams don't have a high-powered offense and rely on their defense more than anything to win, so points are at a premium. It's not like that had the makings of a 37-35 game where the Rams had to go for 2 every time to keep up.

 

[zftcg]

Fisher going for 2 when the Rams scored their first touchdown today. That essentially cost them the game.

Was it obviously stupid at the time? Or just cause of the outcome 55 minutes later?

Yes. The Rams don't have a high-powered offense and rely on their defense more than anything to win, so points are at a premium. It's not like that had the makings of a 37-35 game where the Rams had to go for 2 every time to keep up.

I've never understood this argument. Aren't points always at a premium? Absent specific game situations, you should do whatever maximizes your expected points.

Not arguing Fisher's decision in particular, just trying to figure out what that phrase means.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Fisher going for 2 when the Rams scored their first touchdown today. That essentially cost them the game.

Was it obviously stupid at the time? Or just cause of the outcome 55 minutes later?

Yes. The Rams don't have a high-powered offense and rely on their defense more than anything to win, so points are at a premium. It's not like that had the makings of a 37-35 game where the Rams had to go for 2 every time to keep up.

I've never understood this argument. Aren't points always at a premium? Absent specific game situations, you should do whatever maximizes your expected points.

Not arguing Fisher's decision in particular, just trying to figure out what that phrase means.

It's an idiom. If you are predominantly left-brained (logical, analytical, methodical), literal interpretation of a figure of speech creates a blockage in your prefrontal cortex. You're probably just not hard wired to discern the figurative meaning of an idiom often means something quite different from the literal meaning.



Good are often sold at a higher bounty when they are scarce. In a defensive struggle, points are at a premium. When the market is saturated with a particular good, you almost can't give it away. When the Saints & Giants hooked up nine days ago, points were definitely not at a premium.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Fisher going for 2 when the Rams scored their first touchdown today. That essentially cost them the game.

Was it obviously stupid at the time? Or just cause of the outcome 55 minutes later?

Yes. The Rams don't have a high-powered offense and rely on their defense more than anything to win, so points are at a premium. It's not like that had the makings of a 37-35 game where the Rams had to go for 2 every time to keep up.

I've never understood this argument. Aren't points always at a premium? Absent specific game situations, you should do whatever maximizes your expected points.

Not arguing Fisher's decision in particular, just trying to figure out what that phrase means.

It's an idiom. If you are predominantly left-brained (logical, analytical, methodical), literal interpretation of a figure of speech creates a blockage in your prefrontal cortex. You're probably just not hard wired to discern the figurative meaning of an idiom often means something quite different from the literal meaning.



Good are often sold at a higher bounty when they are scarce. In a defensive struggle, points are at a premium. When the market is saturated with a particular good, you almost can't give it away. When the Saints & Giants hooked up nine days ago, points were definitely not at a premium.

Didnt you just make an argument for going for two?

If points are at a premium, doesn't it make sense to maximize your expected points?

 

[parasaurolophus]

Posted Today, 12:40 AM

It's standard upper management / CEO mentality .... keeping the gravy train flowing is more important than actually making a stand, or [GASP] winning. If you want to keep a ridiculous salary coming in, don't do anything out of the ordinary.

Job security is more important for these sheep. If they truly had the passion they preach (sell) to the flesh that keeps them in these positions, you would see a different, more interesting league/product.

It's too bad there isn't at least one renegade who is willing to bypass the status quo and give it a go.... Instead, go through the motions so you can keep picking up those checks, in lieu of the game you supposedly love.

Agreed. I think another part of it may be pressure from above as well, as almost all the owners are these old school traditionalists. There has to be some explanation beyond just "play it safe to keep your job" when we see these college coaches that were going for it regularly on 4th down and doing fake punts from their own 10 yard line in college, and all the sudden are punting on 4th and inches from midfield in the NFL.

The whole "keep your job" idea is silly. Coaches that win keep their jobs. Coaches that lose don't. Fans of coaches that win will find all kinds of transparent rationalizations to justify the decisions of coaches that win, and I think that's especially true for aggressive decisions, which most fans would prefer to see anyway. Is there a single instance of a good coach getting fired because of aggressive decision-making?

Sometimes coaches get fired after a single losing season. Sometimes they get fired after a winning season.

When coaches go against the grain and it doesn't work they get crucified by fans, announcers, and former players. When a coach may only face 3-4 of these kinds of decisions in a year there is a decent chance they could make the right call in all of them and have all of them go the wrong way. They would get destroyed publicly.

 

[CalBear]

Posted Today, 12:40 AM

It's standard upper management / CEO mentality .... keeping the gravy train flowing is more important than actually making a stand, or [GASP] winning. If you want to keep a ridiculous salary coming in, don't do anything out of the ordinary.

Job security is more important for these sheep. If they truly had the passion they preach (sell) to the flesh that keeps them in these positions, you would see a different, more interesting league/product.

It's too bad there isn't at least one renegade who is willing to bypass the status quo and give it a go.... Instead, go through the motions so you can keep picking up those checks, in lieu of the game you supposedly love.

Agreed. I think another part of it may be pressure from above as well, as almost all the owners are these old school traditionalists. There has to be some explanation beyond just "play it safe to keep your job" when we see these college coaches that were going for it regularly on 4th down and doing fake punts from their own 10 yard line in college, and all the sudden are punting on 4th and inches from midfield in the NFL.

The whole "keep your job" idea is silly. Coaches that win keep their jobs. Coaches that lose don't. Fans of coaches that win will find all kinds of transparent rationalizations to justify the decisions of coaches that win, and I think that's especially true for aggressive decisions, which most fans would prefer to see anyway. Is there a single instance of a good coach getting fired because of aggressive decision-making?

Sometimes coaches get fired after a single losing season. Sometimes they get fired after a winning season.

When coaches go against the grain and it doesn't work they get crucified by fans, announcers, and former players. When a coach may only face 3-4 of these kinds of decisions in a year there is a decent chance they could make the right call in all of them and have all of them go the wrong way. They would get destroyed publicly.

When coaches do anything and it doesn't work they get crucified by fans, announcers, and former players. Isn't that exactly what we're doing in this thread?

 

[ghostguy123]

When coaches do anything and it doesn't work they get crucified by fans, announcers, and former players. Isn't that exactly what we're doing in this thread?

No, we are (supposed to be anyway) mentioning when coaches do something that is obviously stupid.

Sometimes very stupid decisions get lucky and work. Maybe people will mention some of those. I can't think of any offhand, but there have definitely been some.

 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

Fisher going for 2 when the Rams scored their first touchdown today. That essentially cost them the game.

Was it obviously stupid at the time? Or just cause of the outcome 55 minutes later?

Yes. The Rams don't have a high-powered offense and rely on their defense more than anything to win, so points are at a premium. It's not like that had the makings of a 37-35 game where the Rams had to go for 2 every time to keep up.

I've never understood this argument. Aren't points always at a premium? Absent specific game situations, you should do whatever maximizes your expected points.

Not arguing Fisher's decision in particular, just trying to figure out what that phrase means.

It's an idiom. If you are predominantly left-brained (logical, analytical, methodical), literal interpretation of a figure of speech creates a blockage in your prefrontal cortex. You're probably just not hard wired to discern the figurative meaning of an idiom often means something quite different from the literal meaning.



Good are often sold at a higher bounty when they are scarce. In a defensive struggle, points are at a premium. When the market is saturated with a particular good, you almost can't give it away. When the Saints & Giants hooked up nine days ago, points were definitely not at a premium.

Didnt you just make an argument for going for two?

If points are at a premium, doesn't it make sense to maximize your expected points?

Since the expected points are virtually identical either way (~47% 2PC vs. ~94% XP), there is effectively no situation in the first half where it doesn't make sense to go for two as the underdog (which the Rams were). It's classic David Strategy to maximize variance where doing so doesn't materially reduce your expectation.

The over-under on the game could be 35 or 65 and it wouldn't change that fact one bit.

 

[zftcg]

When coaches do anything and it doesn't work they get crucified by fans, announcers, and former players. Isn't that exactly what we're doing in this thread?

No, we are (supposed to be anyway) mentioning when coaches do something that is obviously stupid.

Sometimes very stupid decisions get lucky and work. Maybe people will mention some of those. I can't think of any offhand, but there have definitely been some.

Can't remember if it was last year or the year before, but Rams ran a fake punt deep in their own territory against Seattle. It worked -- and was clearly based on a weakness they had identified on film -- but was almost definitely a sub-optimal move given their field position.

 

[zftcg]

Fisher going for 2 when the Rams scored their first touchdown today. That essentially cost them the game.

Was it obviously stupid at the time? Or just cause of the outcome 55 minutes later?

Yes. The Rams don't have a high-powered offense and rely on their defense more than anything to win, so points are at a premium. It's not like that had the makings of a 37-35 game where the Rams had to go for 2 every time to keep up.

I've never understood this argument. Aren't points always at a premium? Absent specific game situations, you should do whatever maximizes your expected points.

Not arguing Fisher's decision in particular, just trying to figure out what that phrase means.

It's an idiom. If you are predominantly left-brained (logical, analytical, methodical), literal interpretation of a figure of speech creates a blockage in your prefrontal cortex. You're probably just not hard wired to discern the figurative meaning of an idiom often means something quite different from the literal meaning.



Good are often sold at a higher bounty when they are scarce. In a defensive struggle, points are at a premium. When the market is saturated with a particular good, you almost can't give it away. When the Saints & Giants hooked up nine days ago, points were definitely not at a premium.

Yeah, I know what the expression means, but I don't see why it should affect any team's decision making.

For example, given that the Giants lost that game on a last-second FG, I would say points were very definitely at a premium.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Fisher going for 2 when the Rams scored their first touchdown today. That essentially cost them the game.

Was it obviously stupid at the time? Or just cause of the outcome 55 minutes later?

Yes. The Rams don't have a high-powered offense and rely on their defense more than anything to win, so points are at a premium. It's not like that had the makings of a 37-35 game where the Rams had to go for 2 every time to keep up.

I've never understood this argument. Aren't points always at a premium? Absent specific game situations, you should do whatever maximizes your expected points.

Not arguing Fisher's decision in particular, just trying to figure out what that phrase means.

It's an idiom. If you are predominantly left-brained (logical, analytical, methodical), literal interpretation of a figure of speech creates a blockage in your prefrontal cortex. You're probably just not hard wired to discern the figurative meaning of an idiom often means something quite different from the literal meaning.



Good are often sold at a higher bounty when they are scarce. In a defensive struggle, points are at a premium. When the market is saturated with a particular good, you almost can't give it away. When the Saints & Giants hooked up nine days ago, points were definitely not at a premium.

Yeah, I know what the expression means, but I don't see why it should affect any team's decision making.

For example, given that the Giants lost that game on a last-second FG, I would say points were very definitely at a premium.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

 

[BobbyLayne]

In a game where 101 points are scored, points are cheap.

When neither team reaches 20, points are at a premium.

#NotBuildingRocketsHere

 

[zftcg]

In a game where 101 points are scored, points are cheap.

When neither team reaches 20, points are at a premium.

#NotBuildingRocketsHere

My point is that the analogy of points in a football game to a consumer good doesn't hold. When a CG is plentiful, it becomes worth less. But in a football game, the only thing that matters is points relative to your opponent.

If Tom Coughlin had made the exact same decision as Dan Quinn in a game where he was trailing 52-48 instead of 17-13, it would have been just as stupid.

So yes, literally speaking points were not at a premium. But who cares? My objection is to the logic, "Points are at a premium, so therefore teams should do ____."

I guess the one place where the analogy would hold would be in a game that wasn't close. If Quinn kicks the FG down 52-16, it is just as dumb, but the cost to his team is less, since it probably reduces his win probability from, say, 2% to 1%.

 

[BobbyLayne]

This thread is off the rails. I'm out.

I'll be back when Coach "Dead Man Walking" Caldwell does something stupid.

 

[ghostguy123]

This thread is off the rails. I'm out.

I'll be back when Coach "Dead Man Walking" Caldwell does something stupid.

Post here when posters obviously post something stupid.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

This thread is off the rails. I'm out.

I'll be back when Coach "Dead Man Walking" Caldwell does something stupid.

As has been mentioned, even he would have gone for the TD in that Atlanta game.

 

[kOOk]

Posted Today, 12:40 AM

It's standard upper management / CEO mentality .... keeping the gravy train flowing is more important than actually making a stand, or [GASP] winning. If you want to keep a ridiculous salary coming in, don't do anything out of the ordinary.

Job security is more important for these sheep. If they truly had the passion they preach (sell) to the flesh that keeps them in these positions, you would see a different, more interesting league/product.

It's too bad there isn't at least one renegade who is willing to bypass the status quo and give it a go.... Instead, go through the motions so you can keep picking up those checks, in lieu of the game you supposedly love.

Agreed. I think another part of it may be pressure from above as well, as almost all the owners are these old school traditionalists. There has to be some explanation beyond just "play it safe to keep your job" when we see these college coaches that were going for it regularly on 4th down and doing fake punts from their own 10 yard line in college, and all the sudden are punting on 4th and inches from midfield in the NFL.

The whole "keep your job" idea is silly. Coaches that win keep their jobs. Coaches that lose don't. Fans of coaches that win will find all kinds of transparent rationalizations to justify the decisions of coaches that win, and I think that's especially true for aggressive decisions, which most fans would prefer to see anyway. Is there a single instance of a good coach getting fired because of aggressive decision-making?

What's "silly" is to lean on "Coaches that win keep their jobs. Coaches that lose don't". It's not that simple and not what we're talking about.

Middling coaches - not unlike execs - keep their jobs. Or at least land a similar one. A common denominator with them is to make decisions that won't be controversial. You see it constantly. They are too afraid to rock the boat by going outside the lines / status quo.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Agreed. I think another part of it may be pressure from above as well, as almost all the owners are these old school traditionalists. There has to be some explanation beyond just "play it safe to keep your job" when we see these college coaches that were going for it regularly on 4th down and doing fake punts from their own 10 yard line in college, and all the sudden are punting on 4th and inches from midfield in the NFL.

The whole "keep your job" idea is silly. Coaches that win keep their jobs. Coaches that lose don't. Fans of coaches that win will find all kinds of transparent rationalizations to justify the decisions of coaches that win, and I think that's especially true for aggressive decisions, which most fans would prefer to see anyway. Is there a single instance of a good coach getting fired because of aggressive decision-making?

What's "silly" is to lean on "Coaches that win keep their jobs. Coaches that lose don't". It's not that simple and not what we're talking about.

Middling coaches - not unlike execs - keep their jobs. Or at least land a similar one. A common denominator with them is to make decisions that won't be controversial. You see it constantly. They are too afraid to rock the boat by going outside the lines / status quo.

NFL coaching is the best example of groupthink on the planet.

You see it every week. Teams constantly put off making a decision as long as possible. You see it with two point conversions all the time. Team is down by 15 and scores a TD with two minutes left. They almost always kick the extra point. Why? Because they have always done so.

The arguments you hear are...

"that if you go for two and miss your team will be demoralized". You know what is pretty demoralizing? Not getting the two point conversion when there is no time left on the clock.

"If you keep it a one score game you keep pressure on the other team"- You know what relieves pressure from the other team? Missing the two point conversion at the end of the game.

Either way, you have to make a 2 point conversion. Stupid to postpone the decision.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I tend to attribute a lot of the increased conservatism to decreased confidence in talent differential. When a top-25 program goes up against the "little sisters of the poor" they can afford to risk not converting a 4th down, or missing a two point try...and they are more likely to make them anyway.

Against NFL teams, they don't have as much certainty of success or recovery from failure.

It's not like we're just talking about Alabama vs. Loyola here. These guys do it in big games against other top 5 teams with their season on the line.

I remember Urban Meyer faking a punt on 4th and long from his own 15 yard line in the SEC championship game a few years back against the McFadden/Felix Arkansas team where the winner of that game went to the BCS Championship. Just a couple of weeks ago Les Miles called a fake FG in a tie game in the 4th quarter against another top 10 team. These things happen with regularity in college, but not in the NFL, even when it's the same coaches.

 

[zftcg]

Agreed. I think another part of it may be pressure from above as well, as almost all the owners are these old school traditionalists. There has to be some explanation beyond just "play it safe to keep your job" when we see these college coaches that were going for it regularly on 4th down and doing fake punts from their own 10 yard line in college, and all the sudden are punting on 4th and inches from midfield in the NFL.

The whole "keep your job" idea is silly. Coaches that win keep their jobs. Coaches that lose don't. Fans of coaches that win will find all kinds of transparent rationalizations to justify the decisions of coaches that win, and I think that's especially true for aggressive decisions, which most fans would prefer to see anyway. Is there a single instance of a good coach getting fired because of aggressive decision-making?

What's "silly" is to lean on "Coaches that win keep their jobs. Coaches that lose don't". It's not that simple and not what we're talking about.

Middling coaches - not unlike execs - keep their jobs. Or at least land a similar one. A common denominator with them is to make decisions that won't be controversial. You see it constantly. They are too afraid to rock the boat by going outside the lines / status quo.

NFL coaching is the best example of groupthink on the planet.

You see it every week. Teams constantly put off making a decision as long as possible. You see it with two point conversions all the time. Team is down by 15 and scores a TD with two minutes left. They almost always kick the extra point. Why? Because they have always done so.

The arguments you hear are...

"that if you go for two and miss your team will be demoralized". You know what is pretty demoralizing? Not getting the two point conversion when there is no time left on the clock.

"If you keep it a one score game you keep pressure on the other team"- You know what relieves pressure from the other team? Missing the two point conversion at the end of the game.

Either way, you have to make a 2 point conversion. Stupid to postpone the decision.

I heard an interesting wrinkle on this argument recently, I think from Josh Levin on Slate's "Hang Up and Listen" podcast:

Not only should you go for 2 if you score when down 15, you should also do it when down 14. The logic is that if you don't get it, you can go for two the next time and be in the same position (and as was mentioned upthread, the expected value of two two-point attempts is the same as two kicks). But even better, if you make it the first time, now an additional TD gives you the chance to take the lead (or, if there's enough time, kick 2 FGs).

The default assumption in these cases is usually that your goal should be to tie the game up so you can "stay in the fight". But tying a game up and sending it to OT still only gives you a 50/50 chance to win (plus or minus depending on home field advantage). This way, without taking on any additional risk, you can put yourself in position to win the game in regulation.

I believe Levin said that going for two on the first TD netted out to a 10-percent increase in win probability. Would love to see a coach put this theory to the test.

 

[zftcg]

I tend to attribute a lot of the increased conservatism to decreased confidence in talent differential. When a top-25 program goes up against the "little sisters of the poor" they can afford to risk not converting a 4th down, or missing a two point try...and they are more likely to make them anyway.

Against NFL teams, they don't have as much certainty of success or recovery from failure.

It's not like we're just talking about Alabama vs. Loyola here. These guys do it in big games against other top 5 teams with their season on the line.

I remember Urban Meyer faking a punt on 4th and long from his own 15 yard line in the SEC championship game a few years back against the McFadden/Felix Arkansas team where the winner of that game went to the BCS Championship. Just a couple of weeks ago Les Miles called a fake FG in a tie game in the 4th quarter against another top 10 team. These things happen with regularity in college, but not in the NFL, even when it's the same coaches.

That's because unless he's caught with the proverbial dead girl or live boy, Les Miles has that LSU job as long as he wants it.

I said upthread that Belichick is probably the only coach in the NFL with that kind of job security. Coincidence that he trusted the numbers and went for it in that '09 Colts game? Can you imagine any other coach trying it?

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I tend to attribute a lot of the increased conservatism to decreased confidence in talent differential. When a top-25 program goes up against the "little sisters of the poor" they can afford to risk not converting a 4th down, or missing a two point try...and they are more likely to make them anyway.

Against NFL teams, they don't have as much certainty of success or recovery from failure.

It's not like we're just talking about Alabama vs. Loyola here. These guys do it in big games against other top 5 teams with their season on the line.

I remember Urban Meyer faking a punt on 4th and long from his own 15 yard line in the SEC championship game a few years back against the McFadden/Felix Arkansas team where the winner of that game went to the BCS Championship. Just a couple of weeks ago Les Miles called a fake FG in a tie game in the 4th quarter against another top 10 team. These things happen with regularity in college, but not in the NFL, even when it's the same coaches.

That's because unless he's caught with the proverbial dead girl or live boy, Les Miles has that LSU job as long as he wants it.

I said upthread that Belichick is probably the only coach in the NFL with that kind of job security. Coincidence that he trusted the numbers and went for it in that '09 Colts game? Can you imagine any other coach trying it?

Good points here. Security to make the right call is kind of funny though.

 

[zftcg]

I tend to attribute a lot of the increased conservatism to decreased confidence in talent differential. When a top-25 program goes up against the "little sisters of the poor" they can afford to risk not converting a 4th down, or missing a two point try...and they are more likely to make them anyway.

Against NFL teams, they don't have as much certainty of success or recovery from failure.

It's not like we're just talking about Alabama vs. Loyola here. These guys do it in big games against other top 5 teams with their season on the line.

I remember Urban Meyer faking a punt on 4th and long from his own 15 yard line in the SEC championship game a few years back against the McFadden/Felix Arkansas team where the winner of that game went to the BCS Championship. Just a couple of weeks ago Les Miles called a fake FG in a tie game in the 4th quarter against another top 10 team. These things happen with regularity in college, but not in the NFL, even when it's the same coaches.

That's because unless he's caught with the proverbial dead girl or live boy, Les Miles has that LSU job as long as he wants it.

I said upthread that Belichick is probably the only coach in the NFL with that kind of job security. Coincidence that he trusted the numbers and went for it in that '09 Colts game? Can you imagine any other coach trying it?

Good points here. Security to make the right call is kind of funny though.

That's why Rivera is such a fascinating counterexample. He did it precisely because he didn't have job security (which is far more rational, IMO).

 

[Short Corner]

Fisher going for 2 when the Rams scored their first touchdown today. That essentially cost them the game.

Was it obviously stupid at the time? Or just cause of the outcome 55 minutes later?

Yes. The Rams don't have a high-powered offense and rely on their defense more than anything to win, so points are at a premium. It's not like that had the makings of a 37-35 game where the Rams had to go for 2 every time to keep up.

I've never understood this argument. Aren't points always at a premium? Absent specific game situations, you should do whatever maximizes your expected points.

Not arguing Fisher's decision in particular, just trying to figure out what that phrase means.

It's an idiom. If you are predominantly left-brained (logical, analytical, methodical), literal interpretation of a figure of speech creates a blockage in your prefrontal cortex. You're probably just not hard wired to discern the figurative meaning of an idiom often means something quite different from the literal meaning.



Good are often sold at a higher bounty when they are scarce. In a defensive struggle, points are at a premium. When the market is saturated with a particular good, you almost can't give it away. When the Saints & Giants hooked up nine days ago, points were definitely not at a premium.

Didnt you just make an argument for going for two?

If points are at a premium, doesn't it make sense to maximize your expected points?

Since the expected points are virtually identical either way (~47% 2PC vs. ~94% XP), there is effectively no situation in the first half where it doesn't make sense to go for two as the underdog (which the Rams were). It's classic David Strategy to maximize variance where doing so doesn't materially reduce your expectation.

The over-under on the game could be 35 or 65 and it wouldn't change that fact one bit.

The EV for 2XP is actually higher with a succes rate over 48% so far this season.

 

[zftcg]

I read a Grantland post-mortem that critiqued, among others, Bill Barnwell for always having a chip on his shoulder. In essence, "Why are you complaining about analytics when everyone has accepted the Moneyball revolution?"

Here's a pretty good reminder of why that critique in BS:

Bucs’ Dirk Koetter on analytics: I don’t need a bunch of numbers.

This is exactly the kind of stuff Joe Morgan and others were saying after Moneyball came out The NFL is a decade behind, and going for it on 4th down is the equivalent of valuing OBP: a statistical no-brainer that has to overcome years of built-in prejudice.

 

[TwinTurbo]

Dan Quinn. I guess going for one after scoring to make it 17-12 is defensible on the grounds that it was still the first half. But kicking a FG from the 1 with 3:00 left in the game? Are you freaking kidding me?

Even Jim Caldwell was like WTF. It actually reduced their chances of winning by making the field goal instead of missing it due to the 49ers still having a 1 point lead and getting better field position.

We have a winner here. I starting rooting for the Falcons to never get the ball back again once he made that boneheaded decision.

Quinn's FG call was definitely the worst coaching decision so far this year. He essentially forfeited the game at that point by trying to play it safe.

I actually had no problem with that call. There was no reason the 49ers with Gabbert should have got a 1st down. Everyone knew they would try and run the ball. They made their mistake by not thinking Gabbert would run for it on 3rd down. They didn't contain him. All they needed was a FG to win.

It was a cowardly, stupid call. The 49ers already scored 17 points and had 17 first downs by that point. Of course Gabbert could get another 1st down and he did. The Falcons barely pressured him all game. Zero sacks and 2 INT. It was a huge mistake to pass up a winning play for a non-winning play.

 

[zftcg]

Gus Bradley kicking a FG on 4th and inches, up three, when a first down ices the game. Will these coaches ever learn?

 

[Insein]

Gus Bradley kicking a FG on 4th and inches, up three, when a first down ices the game. Will these coaches ever learn?

Titans got down to the 25 too.

 

[kOOk]

Gus Bradley kicking a FG on 4th and inches, up three, when a first down ices the game. Will these coaches ever learn?

Somehow, some way, Gus trumped his earlier decision to run Denard Robinson up the gut from the goal line. Over and over. Brilliant.

 

[JaxBill]

Jags win probability went from .76 before that last FG to .58 when the Titans took over.

 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

Gus Bradley kicking a FG on 4th and inches, up three, when a first down ices the game. Will these coaches ever learn?

I'm sitting there last night watching two teams in which I have literally zero interest engage in a poorly-strategized, poorly-played game, with two coaches who seem for all the world like they got lost on the way to their high-school team's game ... and I find myself yelling at the television when Gus sent the kicker out. YELLING. Loud enough to wake up my daughter. I could feel my blood pressure spiking.

I have got to stop watching bad coaches coach. It's having an adverse effect on my life expectancy.

 

[Insein]

Gus Bradley kicking a FG on 4th and inches, up three, when a first down ices the game. Will these coaches ever learn?

I'm sitting there last night watching two teams in which I have literally zero interest engage in a poorly-strategized, poorly-played game, with two coaches who seem for all the world like they got lost on the way to their high-school team's game ... and I find myself yelling at the television when Gus sent the kicker out. YELLING. Loud enough to wake up my daughter. I could feel my blood pressure spiking.

I have got to stop watching bad coaches coach. It's having an adverse effect on my life expectancy.

Remember when the Eagles almost had Gus instead of Chip. Dodged that bullet at least.

 

[zftcg]

Here's the craziest thing about that Bradley call: A lot of the things people bring up in this thread are scenarios where the numbers clearly argue in favor of one decision, but teams do the opposite because it intuitively feels wrong. The prototypical example is Belichick's infamous 4th-and-2 vs the Colts in '09. All the numbers said it was right, but going for it on 4th down deep in your own territory seems crazy on its face, and a lot of people couldn't get past that.

Last night, though, going for it made perfect sense both quantitatively AND qualitatively. Others have posted the win-probability numbers, but even the proverbial Martian who didn't know anything about football would look at that situation and say, "Of course you gain six inches to ice the game rather than giving the other team the ball back with a chance to win." And I guarantee you every Tennessee fan was thrilled that Mariotta would get one last drive.

BTW, did anyone else catch Tracy Wolfson's post-game interview with Bradley where she praised him because the decision ultimately worked out? smh

 

[zftcg]

This wasn't solely dumb coaching, but there was a sequence in the Arizona-SF game that represented such a monumental display of incompetence from so many people, I didn't want it to be overlooked.

Here's the play-by-play:

1. 3-7-SF 13(12:58) (Shotgun) 3-C.Palmer pass short right to 12-Jo.Brown for 13 yards, TOUCHDOWN NULLIFIED by Penalty [96-C.Lemonier]. PENALTY on ARI-12-Jo.Brown, Illegal Touch Pass, 5 yards, enforced at SF 13 - No Play.
2. 3-12-SF 18(12:53) (Shotgun) PENALTY on ARI-3-C.Palmer, Delay of Game, 5 yards, enforced at SF 18 - No Play.
3. 3-17-SF 23(12:53) (Shotgun) 3-C.Palmer pass incomplete deep right to 14-J.Nelson [96-C.Lemonier].
4. 4-17-SF 23(12:48) 7-C.Catanzaro 41 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-82-M.Leach, Holder-2-D.Butler.

Here's how it went down: First, Palmer throws an apparent TD pass to John Brown, which gets nullified because he went out of bounds before he caught the ball (Screw Up #1). But the replays clearly show that the refs blew the call; Brown was also out of bounds when he caught the ball, which means it shouldn't have been a penalty, since it can't be illegal touching if you don't make a legit catch (Screw Up #2). As the Fox announcers discuss this, and bring in Mike Pereira to confirm that it is a challengeable call, the cameras show Jim Tomsula staring straight ahead and doing nothing. Tomsula fails to throw a challenge flag (Screw Up #3, although this is really on the SF coaching staff up in the booth more than Tomsula), even as the Cardinals get a delay of game penalty (Screw Up #4) to give the Niners extra time to think it over. That means that, instead of being forced to kick the FG, Arizona gets another shot at the end zone.

Given another chance, Palmer promptly throws a wounded duck directly to a Niners DB (Screw Up #5). Faced with what must be the easiest INT of his career, the DB drops it (Screw Up #6) and Catanzaro kicks the FG.

Can't anybody here play this game?

 

[ghostguy123]

This wasn't solely dumb coaching, but there was a sequence in the Arizona-SF game that represented such a monumental display of incompetence from so many people, I didn't want it to be overlooked.

Given another chance, Palmer promptly throws a wounded duck directly to a Niners DB (Screw Up #4). Faced with what must be the easiest INT of his career, the DB drops it (Screw Up #5) and Catanzaro kicks the FG.

Can't anybody here play this game?

I was listening to this on the radio at the time, and wow, it was ridiculous.

It sounded like the coaches had no idea what was even happening the way the radio guys were talking. Nobody knew what was going on.

 

[JaxBill]

No reaction to the Tomlin decision to kick the FG from the 5, when you're down 5?

Using that win probability calculator,

Before the kick they had a .21 win prob. After the kick and ensuing touchback, it dropped slighly to .20.

If they get the TD to go up 1, their win prob rockets to .54. (That's even if the 2-pt conversion is no good).

If they go for the first down and fail? The win prob strangely goes up to .22.

On a more gut instinct level, I don't get how Tomlin can have confidence in that defense to make a stop when they didn't for most of the second half.

 

[BobbyLayne]

No reaction to the Tomlin decision to kick the FG from the 5, when you're down 5?

Using that win probability calculator,

Before the kick they had a .21 win prob. After the kick and ensuing touchback, it dropped slighly to .20.

If they get the TD to go up 1, their win prob rockets to .54. (That's even if the 2-pt conversion is no good).

If they go for the first down and fail? The win prob strangely goes up to .22.

On a more gut instinct level, I don't get how Tomlin can have confidence in that defense to make a stop when they didn't for most of the second half.

The offense is the strength of the team, one of the best in the league. Odd he didn't have faith they could win the game right there.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Not a coaches thing but Blake Bortles throwing two RZ TDs on separate series while being 8-10 feet over the LOS was a head shaker. You gotta figure he's been a QB since he was about 7. You'd think after 15 years he'd have that part down. Could have run for the first in both instances from the looks of it.

 

[Steeler]

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.

 

[zftcg]

No reaction to the Tomlin decision to kick the FG from the 5, when you're down 5?

Using that win probability calculator,

Before the kick they had a .21 win prob. After the kick and ensuing touchback, it dropped slighly to .20.

If they get the TD to go up 1, their win prob rockets to .54. (That's even if the 2-pt conversion is no good).

If they go for the first down and fail? The win prob strangely goes up to .22.

On a more gut instinct level, I don't get how Tomlin can have confidence in that defense to make a stop when they didn't for most of the second half.

Was going to post about that, but it was almost the exact same situation as Quinn a few weeks ago, and it's almost like, if people haven't figured out yet that you should go for it in that scenario, they probably never will.

FYI, the increase in WP even if they don't get it is due to field position. Seattle is pinned inside their 5, so if Pittsburgh gets a three and out they likely get the ball back with great field position.

 

[zftcg]

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.

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.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

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.

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.

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.

 

[heckmanm]

Not a coaches thing but Blake Bortles throwing two RZ TDs on separate series while being 8-10 feet over the LOS was a head shaker. You gotta figure he's been a QB since he was about 7. You'd think after 15 years he'd have that part down. Could have run for the first in both instances from the looks of it.

I was by the second one.

 

[menobrown]

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.

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.

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.

Ben was in they went for the FG. Agree, it was a puzzling inconsistent call and I can't help but wonder if Ben would have take off and scrambled if he had known that Tomlin was not going to go for it.

But none of that as stupid as the failed Landry Jones 4th down attempt. When it's obvious before the snap you fooled no-one you don't run that play. Announcers were blaming Landry Jones, unless it was his sole responsibility to call a timeout and stop the play I'm not sure how it was his fault, not like he had an option to not throw the pass.