What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

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

BlackCrowes said:
Hot Sauce Guy said:
Raiders kicking the FG down 8 with less than 3 mins on the clock was… a choice?

Not one that I, or anyone in the game topic would make, apparently, but Josh called it, so they kicked it.

Weird.
Click to expand...
It seems like once you take the first FG off the board, you’ve committed to going for the next one. Assuming it’s a reasonable yardage to get. I agree that was odd.
Click to expand...

the whole point of going to for two was to get within one score....then they decided to make it a 2 score comeback...OK we could do that but let's try it on hard mode
 
BobbyLayne said:
BlackCrowes said:
Hot Sauce Guy said:
Raiders kicking the FG down 8 with less than 3 mins on the clock was… a choice?

Not one that I, or anyone in the game topic would make, apparently, but Josh called it, so they kicked it.

Weird.
Click to expand...
It seems like once you take the first FG off the board, you’ve committed to going for the next one. Assuming it’s a reasonable yardage to get. I agree that was odd.
Click to expand...

the whole point of going to for two was to get within one score....then they decided to make it a 2 score comeback...OK we could do that but let's try it on hard mode
Click to expand...
Technically speaking, if your goal is to win the game, you need two scores (one to tie, one to win). The problem, as with the Atlanta example I cited above, is that one of them needs to be a TD, and you’re unlikely to get as good of a chance to score that TD as having 4th and 4 on the 8.
 
Snoopy said:
BobbyLayne said:
Down 0-17, the Packers scored (PAT) then scored again. Matt LaFleur MADE A CORRECT CALL. Converted the 2 pointer, kicked a FG, stole the game.

Hooray for competence.
Click to expand...
The 2 point conversion was after the first TD.
Click to expand...

Hey I’m praising his competency not mine

:lol:

Yeah I got the entire sequence wrong:
  1. FG
  2. TD +2
  3. TD + PAT
Actually had that game on (muted) while listening to the Lions home radio broadcast but obvs not really paying close attention
 
BobbyLayne said:
Hey I’m praising his competency not mine

:lol:

Yeah I got the entire sequence wrong:
  1. FG
  2. TD +2
  3. TD + PAT
Actually had that game on (muted) while listening to the Lions home radio broadcast but obvs not really paying close attention
Click to expand...

Ah then you missed the announcers predictably wondering why they were going for 2 there, saying they understand it's "analytics" and "new math" and whatnot but that they don't necessarily agree with the call.
 
Miami up 63-20, 8:50 left in the game. Achane should not be in the game. One carry for 8 yards, the next carry 67 yards to the house. Why risk injury injury to your new star RB ... save it for the BUF game next week.
 
Down 21-13 with 3:03 in the 3rd quarter, Mike McCarthy goes for it on 4th and 3 at the Arizona 4 yard line. Should have kicked the FG there.

Instead he's in a similar situation, down 21-13 with 9:35 in the 4th and kicks it there.
 
Snotbubbles said:
Down 21-13 with 3:03 in the 3rd quarter, Mike McCarthy goes for it on 4th and 3 at the Arizona 4 yard line. Should have kicked the FG there.

Instead he's in a similar situation, down 21-13 with 9:35 in the 4th and kicks it there.
Click to expand...
This is actually a challenge that a lot of people face in different aspects of life. They let past results dictate future decisions. When something fails, it’s hard to go back to it even if it’s the right decision. I’m pretty sure I’ve been guilty of this in my life.
 
Ignoratio Elenchi said:
BobbyLayne said:
Hey I’m praising his competency not mine

:lol:

Yeah I got the entire sequence wrong:
  1. FG
  2. TD +2
  3. TD + PAT
Actually had that game on (muted) while listening to the Lions home radio broadcast but obvs not really paying close attention
Click to expand...

Ah then you missed the announcers predictably wondering why they were going for 2 there, saying they understand it's "analytics" and "new math" and whatnot but that they don't necessarily agree with the call.
Click to expand...
See, but this is progress. A few years ago the Giants did it on MNF and Booger McFarland’s head exploded. The announcers literally could not understand why anyone would do that.

In a few more years, they’ll be explaining why it was the right call, and a few years after that it will barely be worth mentioning
 
I'm sure the old-timers in this thread will remember us litigating the issue to death a few years back, but in case anyone is unsure, here is a detailed explanation of why you should always go for two when you score to make it an eight-point game. But if you don't want to dig into all the numbers, the easiest way to think of it is that it gives you a better chance to win in regulation without lowering your chances of sending the game to OT
 
Just Win Baby said:
Chargers up 28-24, 4th and 1, own 24 yard line, 1:51 remaining, Vikings have no timeouts.
Chargers primary RB Kelley had 10 carries for 12 yards in the game up to that point, with 4 of those 10 carries going for no gain or negative yards.
Chargers have a good punter and good punt coverage team.

Chargers went for it, and Kelley was stopped for no gain.

I thought this was a terrible decision and was shocked before the play that Staley made that decision. Two aspects: (1) deciding to go for it, and (2) deciding to hand off rather than sneak or otherwise put the play in Herbert's hands.

Fortunately, the Vikings let the Chargers off the hook by choking themselves in the end, rushing their final play interception instead of calmly spiking the ball (on first down) to take their time.
Click to expand...
This bolded by itself should be high up on the list. Spike the ball and you have 3 plays to get in the EZ. but no .. let's waste a crap ton of clock and then throw an INT to lose the game. smh.
 
ignatiusjreilly said:
Falcons trailing 20-3 with 4 minutes left in the game, 4th and goal at the Detroit 6. Smith kicks the FG. I know the logic is that you're going to need three scores, so you have to get at least one of them there. But two of those scores need to be TDs, and 4th and goal is a really good opportunity to get one of those TDs.

As it turned out, they only got one more possession the rest of the game
Click to expand...
So then it really didn't matter, did it?
 
The Rams coaching last night was weird. They chose to barely run the ball against one of the worse run defenses in the league. The clock management was awful, and they didn't do anything to help that backup LT that couldn't stop anyone from getting to Stafford. I use the word they cause I don't know if it was McVay or LaFleur or both making bad decisions. It was a winnable game had it been better coached.
 
I get why McDaniel didn't go for the record, but to quote Wooderson from the movie Dazed and Confused, "It'd be a lot cooler if you did."
 
Last edited:
bryhamm said:
ignatiusjreilly said:
Falcons trailing 20-3 with 4 minutes left in the game, 4th and goal at the Detroit 6. Smith kicks the FG. I know the logic is that you're going to need three scores, so you have to get at least one of them there. But two of those scores need to be TDs, and 4th and goal is a really good opportunity to get one of those TDs.

As it turned out, they only got one more possession the rest of the game
Click to expand...
So then it really didn't matter, did it?
Click to expand...
Well, yeah, when you're losing 20-3 in the 4th quarter, you're likely to lose no matter what. But that decision definitely decreased any chance they had of pulling off the comeback
 
Godsbrother said:
Hot Sauce Guy said:
Raiders kicking the FG down 8 with less than 3 mins on the clock was… a choice?

Not one that I, or anyone in the game topic would make, apparently, but Josh called it, so they kicked it.

Weird.
Click to expand...
I thought it was a dumb decision
Click to expand...

I think it was probably mathematically the wrong decision, but, I can almost see the coach's POV here. They really seemed like they weren't going to make the 4th down conversion, they just ran out of gas at that point in the drive. So, if they don't convert, the game was going to come down to a do-or-die play anyway, either there on 4th down or after getting the ball back with nearly no time. So if you're gonna be in a do-or-die... part of me says you might as well be doing so for the win instead of the tie.
 
Runkle said:
Godsbrother said:
Hot Sauce Guy said:
Raiders kicking the FG down 8 with less than 3 mins on the clock was… a choice?

Not one that I, or anyone in the game topic would make, apparently, but Josh called it, so they kicked it.

Weird.
Click to expand...
I thought it was a dumb decision
Click to expand...

I think it was probably mathematically the wrong decision, but, I can almost see the coach's POV here. They really seemed like they weren't going to make the 4th down conversion, they just ran out of gas at that point in the drive. So, if they don't convert, the game was going to come down to a do-or-die play anyway, either there on 4th down or after getting the ball back with nearly no time. So if you're gonna be in a do-or-die... part of me says you might as well be doing so for the win instead of the tie.
Click to expand...
I would agree if it was 4th and 15 from the 25. But if you're inside the 10 yard line, you really have to do everything you can to come away with a TD. Even if they had forced a three-and-out on the subsequent drive, their chances of putting together a long TD drive were definitely less than converting that one play
 
ignatiusjreilly said:
Runkle said:
Godsbrother said:
Hot Sauce Guy said:
Raiders kicking the FG down 8 with less than 3 mins on the clock was… a choice?

Not one that I, or anyone in the game topic would make, apparently, but Josh called it, so they kicked it.

Weird.
Click to expand...
I thought it was a dumb decision
Click to expand...

I think it was probably mathematically the wrong decision, but, I can almost see the coach's POV here. They really seemed like they weren't going to make the 4th down conversion, they just ran out of gas at that point in the drive. So, if they don't convert, the game was going to come down to a do-or-die play anyway, either there on 4th down or after getting the ball back with nearly no time. So if you're gonna be in a do-or-die... part of me says you might as well be doing so for the win instead of the tie.
Click to expand...
I would agree if it was 4th and 15 from the 25. But if you're inside the 10 yard line, you really have to do everything you can to come away with a TD. Even if they had forced a three-and-out on the subsequent drive, their chances of putting together a long TD drive were definitely less than converting that one play
Click to expand...
💯 agree. That was their best shot at a TD. The FGA was coaching malpractice.
 
Hot Sauce Guy said:
ignatiusjreilly said:
Runkle said:
Godsbrother said:
Hot Sauce Guy said:
Raiders kicking the FG down 8 with less than 3 mins on the clock was… a choice?

Not one that I, or anyone in the game topic would make, apparently, but Josh called it, so they kicked it.

Weird.
Click to expand...
I thought it was a dumb decision
Click to expand...

I think it was probably mathematically the wrong decision, but, I can almost see the coach's POV here. They really seemed like they weren't going to make the 4th down conversion, they just ran out of gas at that point in the drive. So, if they don't convert, the game was going to come down to a do-or-die play anyway, either there on 4th down or after getting the ball back with nearly no time. So if you're gonna be in a do-or-die... part of me says you might as well be doing so for the win instead of the tie.
Click to expand...
I would agree if it was 4th and 15 from the 25. But if you're inside the 10 yard line, you really have to do everything you can to come away with a TD. Even if they had forced a three-and-out on the subsequent drive, their chances of putting together a long TD drive were definitely less than converting that one play
Click to expand...
💯 agree. That was their best shot at a TD. The FGA was coaching malpractice.
Click to expand...
Yep. They still needed a TD, and even if they didn't convert they had them pinned deep.
However, since I bet the under, I approved the call.
 
ghostguy123 said:
Green Bay accepting a holding call on Detroit to make it 3rd and goal from the 15 instead of 4th and goal from the 5 was pretty idiotic.
Click to expand...
I think they were worried Campbell would go for it. And maybe he would have. An added benefit of being aggressive on 4th down is that you can get in the other coach’s head
 
ghostguy123 said:
Green Bay accepting a holding call on Detroit to make it 3rd and goal from the 15 instead of 4th and goal from the 5 was pretty idiotic.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Too many things…first D wasnt exactly great tonight…but a penalty on third down and you give them an easy first.

My other disagreement other than not even trying quick passes in the first half…is not getting Jones the ball at all early. Bad bad game for LaFleur.
 
sho nuff said:
ghostguy123 said:
Green Bay accepting a holding call on Detroit to make it 3rd and goal from the 15 instead of 4th and goal from the 5 was pretty idiotic.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Too many things…first D wasnt exactly great tonight…but a penalty on third down and you give them an easy first.

My other disagreement other than not even trying quick passes in the first half…is not getting Jones the ball at all early. Bad bad game for LaFleur.
Click to expand...
I wonder if Jones was still limited. Definitely saw Dillon in on drives where I would have expected Jones
 
ghostguy123 said:
Green Bay accepting a holding call on Detroit to make it 3rd and goal from the 15 instead of 4th and goal from the 5 was pretty idiotic.
Click to expand...
Yep. All this accomplished was giving Detroit a free shot at a TD. The Lions probably couldn't believe their good fortune.

Was GB worried about Detroit going for it on 4th down? Hey, if you want to turn down a chip-shot FG to go for it from the 5, be my guest. I don't care if you brought Marino, Emmitt, and Moss out of retirement -- going for it from the 5 has to be -EV for every offense everywhere.
 
Good point right---> You are losing, you should WANT them to go for it and stop them. Talk about ZERO faith in your defense you invest everything into....
 
Matt LaFleur and the OC up in Green Bay
No left side of the OL, gimpy star RB and gimpy starter at WR
Let's put Love in 5 and 7 step drop backs and then watch him hold the ball too long and take sacks, throw interceptions
They didn't call quick plays, it's inexcusable with a lot of young quick talent at WR
 
ignatiusjreilly said:
I'm sure the old-timers in this thread will remember us litigating the issue to death a few years back, but in case anyone is unsure, here is a detailed explanation of why you should always go for two when you score to make it an eight-point game. But if you don't want to dig into all the numbers, the easiest way to think of it is that it gives you a better chance to win in regulation without lowering your chances of sending the game to OT
Click to expand...
The problem with making decisions based on analytics is that your personnel is not taken into account when you look purely at numbers. If have Mahomes, sure, but what if you have Justin Fields?
 
abrunn1133 said:
ignatiusjreilly said:
I'm sure the old-timers in this thread will remember us litigating the issue to death a few years back, but in case anyone is unsure, here is a detailed explanation of why you should always go for two when you score to make it an eight-point game. But if you don't want to dig into all the numbers, the easiest way to think of it is that it gives you a better chance to win in regulation without lowering your chances of sending the game to OT
Click to expand...
The problem with making decisions based on analytics is that your personnel is not taken into account when you look purely at numbers. If have Mahomes, sure, but what if you have Justin Fields?
Click to expand...
This is mostly addressed in the article, but in short:

A) going for two after the first TD increases your WP by like 12 points, so even if you shave a few points off those percentages, there's a lot of wiggle room for the 2PC still being worth it

B) Yes, a worse QB might make it less likely that you'll convert the 2PC, but it also makes it less likely you'll win in OT. In fact, you could argue a bad QB strengthens the argument for putting it all on one play. Bill Barnwell likes to make the analogy of a FT-shooting contest between you and Steph Curry. Would you rather it be best of 10 or put it all on one shot? Obviously the latter since the longer the contest, the better odds that his superior skill will win out. Underdogs want variance
 
ignatiusjreilly said:
abrunn1133 said:
ignatiusjreilly said:
I'm sure the old-timers in this thread will remember us litigating the issue to death a few years back, but in case anyone is unsure, here is a detailed explanation of why you should always go for two when you score to make it an eight-point game. But if you don't want to dig into all the numbers, the easiest way to think of it is that it gives you a better chance to win in regulation without lowering your chances of sending the game to OT
Click to expand...
The problem with making decisions based on analytics is that your personnel is not taken into account when you look purely at numbers. If have Mahomes, sure, but what if you have Justin Fields?
Click to expand...
This is mostly addressed in the article, but in short:

A) going for two after the first TD increases your WP by like 12 points, so even if you shave a few points off those percentages, there's a lot of wiggle room for the 2PC still being worth it

B) Yes, a worse QB might make it less likely that you'll convert the 2PC, but it also makes it less likely you'll win in OT. In fact, you could argue a bad QB strengthens the argument for putting it all on one play. Bill Barnwell likes to make the analogy of a FT-shooting contest between you and Steph Curry. Would you rather it be best of 10 or put it all on one shot? Obviously the latter since the longer the contest, the better odds that his superior skill will win out. Underdogs want variance
Click to expand...
I certainly hear what you are saying. My point is this; let's say the analytics say that teams have a 50/50 chance of being successful on a 2-point conversion (I know those are not the odds, but bear with me). And the odds of making an extra point in 90%. Analytics would say that should go for two every single time. Now let's say that the true odds of your team converting a 2-point conversion are 40%. Analytics would say that you should not go for 2 unless absolutely necessary. This is the only issue I have with analytics. They certainly serve a purpose, but they should b only a part of the decision making, and not the end-all-be-all.
 
abrunn1133 said:
ignatiusjreilly said:
abrunn1133 said:
ignatiusjreilly said:
I'm sure the old-timers in this thread will remember us litigating the issue to death a few years back, but in case anyone is unsure, here is a detailed explanation of why you should always go for two when you score to make it an eight-point game. But if you don't want to dig into all the numbers, the easiest way to think of it is that it gives you a better chance to win in regulation without lowering your chances of sending the game to OT
Click to expand...
The problem with making decisions based on analytics is that your personnel is not taken into account when you look purely at numbers. If have Mahomes, sure, but what if you have Justin Fields?
Click to expand...
This is mostly addressed in the article, but in short:

A) going for two after the first TD increases your WP by like 12 points, so even if you shave a few points off those percentages, there's a lot of wiggle room for the 2PC still being worth it

B) Yes, a worse QB might make it less likely that you'll convert the 2PC, but it also makes it less likely you'll win in OT. In fact, you could argue a bad QB strengthens the argument for putting it all on one play. Bill Barnwell likes to make the analogy of a FT-shooting contest between you and Steph Curry. Would you rather it be best of 10 or put it all on one shot? Obviously the latter since the longer the contest, the better odds that his superior skill will win out. Underdogs want variance
Click to expand...
I certainly hear what you are saying. My point is this; let's say the analytics say that teams have a 50/50 chance of being successful on a 2-point conversion (I know those are not the odds, but bear with me). And the odds of making an extra point in 90%. Analytics would say that should go for two every single time. Now let's say that the true odds of your team converting a 2-point conversion are 40%. Analytics would say that you should not go for 2 unless absolutely necessary. This is the only issue I have with analytics. They certainly serve a purpose, but they should b only a part of the decision making, and not the end-all-be-all.
Click to expand...
I think that's a bit of a straw man. No one goes around saying analytics should automatically dictate every decision. And yes, I know I originally said "you should always go for two" in that situation, but that's a scenario where the odds -- along with basic logic -- really are in your favor. To take it to an extreme, "the numbers" suggest that if you have 4th and goal from the 1 with 5 seconds left in a tie game, you should kick the FG. But no one's looking at the numbers in that situation, because of course you should kick there. Is there a theoretical scenario where you shouldn't? Yeah, maybe if your kicker tore his ACL mid-game and you don't have anyone else on the roster who can kick FGs.

So maybe there are scenarios where you shouldn't go for two after scoring to make it an 8-point game, but there are no obvious ones that immediately come to mind, and having a sub-par QB is definitely not one of them.
 
Rivera absolutely should have gone for two after Washington scored on the final play of regulation. This is another case where I suspect the numbers support it, but you really don't need to rely on a quantitative argument. Commanders were huge road underdogs and Philly's offense is way better, so win the game on one play when you have the chance rather than hoping to outplay them in OT
 
ignatiusjreilly said:
Rivera absolutely should have gone for two after Washington scored on the final play of regulation. This is another case where I suspect the numbers support it, but you really don't need to rely on a quantitative argument. Commanders were huge road underdogs and Philly's offense is way better, so win the game on one play when you have the chance rather than hoping to outplay them in OT
Click to expand...
He wussed out
 
simsarge said:
ignatiusjreilly said:
Rivera absolutely should have gone for two after Washington scored on the final play of regulation. This is another case where I suspect the numbers support it, but you really don't need to rely on a quantitative argument. Commanders were huge road underdogs and Philly's offense is way better, so win the game on one play when you have the chance rather than hoping to outplay them in OT
Click to expand...
He wussed out
Click to expand...
Apparently he said he didn’t go for two because the offense was “gassed”, which sounds like all the more reason to try to win the game right there
 
ignatiusjreilly said:
Rivera absolutely should have gone for two after Washington scored on the final play of regulation. This is another case where I suspect the numbers support it, but you really don't need to rely on a quantitative argument. Commanders were huge road underdogs and Philly's offense is way better, so win the game on one play when you have the chance rather than hoping to outplay them in OT
Click to expand...

Absolutely, without a doubt, and in all cases I can imagine, you go for 2 on the road there. 100%.
 
Been addressed in the game thread, but Sirianni/Johnson calling the double-move TD pass to AJ brown with a little under 2 minutes was the absolute wrong call. You got a great run game, an opponent with 1 TO left, and maybe the best K in the league: burn the clock and kick the game-winner!
 
Bears went for it on 4th and 1 at the Denver 18 yard line in a tied game with under 3 minutes to play. Didn't get it and lost by a FG.

Bad move not taking the points.
 
Just Win Baby said:
Chargers up 28-24, 4th and 1, own 24 yard line, 1:51 remaining, Vikings have no timeouts.
Chargers primary RB Kelley had 10 carries for 12 yards in the game up to that point, with 4 of those 10 carries going for no gain or negative yards.
Chargers have a good punter and good punt coverage team.

Chargers went for it, and Kelley was stopped for no gain.

I thought this was a terrible decision and was shocked before the play that Staley made that decision. Two aspects: (1) deciding to go for it, and (2) deciding to hand off rather than sneak or otherwise put the play in Herbert's hands.

Fortunately, the Vikings let the Chargers off the hook by choking themselves in the end, rushing their final play interception instead of calmly spiking the ball (on first down) to take their time.
Click to expand...

One week later.

Chargers up 24-17, 4th and 1, own 34 yard line, 3:34 remaining, Raiders have 1 timeout.
Raiders are playing backup QB O'Connell, who took his first NFL snaps in this game.
Chargers QB Herbert suffered an injury to the middle finger of his left (non-throwing) hand earlier in the game, and has a glove on the hand and splint over the glove on the finger. Announcer Trent Green has said a number of times that he would not be able to line up under center and receive the snap.
Chargers #1 center missed the game with a heart ailment, so the Chargers are playing backup center Clapp.

Chargers went for it, attempting a QB sneak which was stopped for no gain.

Just like last week, I thought this was a poor decision before the play, and I also thought the play call was bad, asking Herbert to make the sneak with a splint on his finger. I don't know if the finger injury affected the play, just saying it would have affected my decision.

Fortunately, just like the Vikings last week, the Raiders let the Chargers off the hook by throwing a goal line interception.

Will we have another one of these decisions next week? :popcorn:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Spin
Down 14 with under 5 minutes and you score, do you go for 2?
2
Replies
73
Views
2K
Brunell4MVP
B
Hot Sauce Guy
Post Here When FF Coaches (AKA, You) Do Something You Disagree with
Replies
15
Views
601
Chaka
Chaka
P
Fantasy football owners: When do you stop blaming the coaching staff and start blaming the player?
Replies
21
Views
672
Instinctive
Instinctive

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top