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

[Leroy Hoard]

the Rams once again drove down to the Miami 13 down 8 with 42 seconds left, and then kicked a FG on third down!!!!!!! That makes absolutely no sense. At a minimum, you should take an additional five seconds and take one more shot at the end zone.

Like you said, one more shot at the end zone on 3rd down would only take a few seconds off the clock. Then maybe kick it on 4th.

 

[rockaction]

Rams kicking a FG on 4th and goal from the 4 to make it an 8-point game. Being down 8 isn't truly a "one-score game", and you just passed up a great opportunity to score a TD. I predict that before the end of this game, they end up needing to convert a 4th down that is much longer than 4 yards

You need more game theory in your world. It is a “one-score” game in two aspects. One is that one possession can mean eight points. The other is that the other team, knowing this, plays the game differently and doesn’t try to take the air out of the ball like they would up nine instead of eight. Half of all this is not what you do, but what the other team will do.

 

[rockaction]

The kicking the duck thing on 3rd down is entirely out of the realm of game theory at that point and just a poor decision.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Rams kicking a FG on 4th and goal from the 4 to make it an 8-point game. Being down 8 isn't truly a "one-score game", and you just passed up a great opportunity to score a TD. I predict that before the end of this game, they end up needing to convert a 4th down that is much longer than 4 yards

You need more game theory in your world. It is a “one-score” game in two aspects. One is that one possession can mean eight points. The other is that the other team, knowing this, plays the game differently and doesn’t try to take the air out of the ball like they would up nine instead of eight. Half of all this is not what you do, but what the other team will do.

In general, I agree that we need to think more about game theory, but I'm not sure how much it applies to Monday's situation. The Dolphins' strategy would probably have been similar whether they were up 8, 5 or 3: Try to run down the clock as much as possible and hopefully tack on some points at the end of the drive. Maybe they're a little more aggressive up 3, for the reasons @Instinctive mentioned upthread. But even that is swamped by the benefits to the Rams of only being down 3.

Yes, the Rams would have been screwed if they had failed on 4th and 4, but it was about as good a chance as they were going to get to score a TD, and the benefits of converting there, and ensuring that even with a Miami FG it would have remained a one-score game (more or less), would have been huge

A good default assumption is that the best way to win games is to make decisions that maximize your expected points. There may be edge cases where you consider other factors -- going up 8 vs 9 being a good example -- but right now there are still far too many coaches who fail to maximize points, and it's not because they're factoring in game theory or playing 12-dimensional chess. They just don't seem to know better. McVay is one of the best coaches in the league, but that was a head-scratching decision

 

[rockaction]

A good default assumption is that the best way to win games is to make decisions that maximize your expected points

It is a good assumption. But in certain cases, one might think of it conceptually as not maximizing your point gain but minimizing your point losses at times. In other words, sometimes a sure one to get to eight down is better than a risky two that could leave you at nine or seven down. I mean, that’s the huge difference. Two possessions vs. one possession (no matter how unlikely) changes the entire game.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

A good default assumption is that the best way to win games is to make decisions that maximize your expected points

It is a good assumption. But in certain cases, one might think of it conceptually as not maximizing your point gain but minimizing your point losses at times. In other words, sometimes a sure one to get to eight down is better than a risky two that could leave you at nine or seven down. I mean, that’s the huge difference. Two possessions vs. one possession (no matter how unlikely) changes the entire game.

OK, but in the specific case you're talking about (down 15 late, score a TD to make it a 9-point game), what about the game theory* on your own side? Let's say you kick the XP and are down 8. Then you stop them and are driving down for another TD. Do you rush and try to score the TD as soon as possible? If you do, and then you convert the 2PC, you may leave the opponent with too much time to drive down for a winning FG? But if you don't, and then you fail on the 2PC, you won't have enough time to get the ball back. Meanwhile, if you get the lead down to 7, the clock management is a little easier.

I don't think it's a slam dunk either way, and even though it's usually the analytics types who push for going for two in that situation, it's not technically an analytical decision, in the sense that neither move is dominant in terms of win probability

* OK, maybe that isn't technically game theory, but you get the idea

 

[Yenrub]

Riddle me this Batman. Why wasn't Derrick Henry on the field for the potential game-tying two-point conversion play?

 

[Cowboysfan8]

Riddle me this Batman. Why wasn't Derrick Henry on the field for the potential game-tying two-point conversion play?

Not only that, they had the same play called on the play before when it was blown dead. Everyone saw it. After the time out the only thing they changed was they ran it left instead of right

 

[Grahamburn]

Riddle me this Batman. Why wasn't Derrick Henry on the field for the potential game-tying two-point conversion play?

Give Lamar an extra blocker.

 

[knollywood]

Is just showing up to work a arguable reason? I nominate ZT.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

This is a classic process over results issue, because it ultimately worked out, but I hated John Harbaugh's decision during last night's MNF game to go for it on 4th and inches from his own 16 with two minutes left in the first half. I don't know what the numbers say, but my biggest issue was doing it right before the half. If you fail, your opponent is almost guaranteed to get points before the half. But if you succeed, you still have 80+ yards to go in less than two minites.

As it happened, that's exactly how things worked out for the Ravens after converting. Long screen to Flowers, DPI on a pass to Bateman, then TD pass to Bateman. In fact, there was so much time left on the clock that the Chargers had a chance to get a FG before the half. But the process was bad

 

[Runkle]

This is a classic process over results issue, because it ultimately worked out, but I hated John Harbaugh's decision during last night's MNF game to go for it on 4th and inches from his own 16 with two minutes left in the first half. I don't know what the numbers say, but my biggest issue was doing it right before the half. If you fail, your opponent is almost guaranteed to get points before the half. But if you succeed, you still have 80+ yards to go in less than two minites.

As it happened, that's exactly how things worked out for the Ravens after converting. Long screen to Flowers, DPI on a pass to Bateman, then TD pass to Bateman. In fact, there was so much time left on the clock that the Chargers had a chance to get a FG before the half. But the process was bad

I think I said in the game thread... Even if this was a good decision, it was a mistake to call a timeout before it. Lamar hard counted trying to get them to jump offsides, they didn't bite... and then they called the TO. But then they go back on the field with the offense... So now the defense knows they are really going for it.

It would have been better to try before the timeout, once the defense thought it was a fake, better chance of catching them off guard rather than when they expect it.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

This is a classic process over results issue, because it ultimately worked out, but I hated John Harbaugh's decision during last night's MNF game to go for it on 4th and inches from his own 16 with two minutes left in the first half. I don't know what the numbers say, but my biggest issue was doing it right before the half. If you fail, your opponent is almost guaranteed to get points before the half. But if you succeed, you still have 80+ yards to go in less than two minites.

As it happened, that's exactly how things worked out for the Ravens after converting. Long screen to Flowers, DPI on a pass to Bateman, then TD pass to Bateman. In fact, there was so much time left on the clock that the Chargers had a chance to get a FG before the half. But the process was bad

I think I said in the game thread... Even if this was a good decision, it was a mistake to call a timeout before it. Lamar hard counted trying to get them to jump offsides, they didn't bite... and then they called the TO. But then they go back on the field with the offense... So now the defense knows they are really going for it.

It would have been better to try before the timeout, once the defense thought it was a fake, better chance of catching them off guard rather than when they expect it.

Nitpick: It was the two-minute warning not a timeout, but your point stands.

That said, I found it even more shocking that they went for it out of the 2MW, so maybe the Chargers did, too. And they did quick snap it to Andrews, which seemed to maintain the element of surprise. But I still think the downside risk outweighed the upside in that situation

 

[Runkle]

Bump

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Hey Matt Eberflus, you do realize teams get three TOs per half, not two, right?

ETA: That was mostly on Caleb waiting to snap the ball, but at some point Eberflus has to realize it’s taking too long and call a timeout

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Hey Matt Eberflus, you do realize teams get three TOs per half, not two, right?

ETA: That was mostly on Caleb waiting to snap the ball, but at some point Eberflus has to realize it’s taking too long and call a timeout

Tough to overcome a HC/QB combo that seemingly have no concept of time.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Hey Matt Eberflus, you do realize teams get three TOs per half, not two, right?

ETA: That was mostly on Caleb waiting to snap the ball, but at some point Eberflus has to realize it’s taking too long and call a timeout

Or Williams throwing the previous pass into the dirt to a wide open receiver with a chance to score.

I'm sure it'll be mostly on Eberflus and he bears responsibility as well. But that's a tough way to lose.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Hey Matt Eberflus, you do realize teams get three TOs per half, not two, right?

ETA: That was mostly on Caleb waiting to snap the ball, but at some point Eberflus has to realize it’s taking too long and call a timeout

Or Williams throwing the previous pass into the dirt to a wide open receiver with a chance to score.

I'm sure it'll be mostly on Eberflus and he bears responsibility as well. But that's a tough way to lose.

Williams bears some responsibility here, but he's a rookie. Eberflus has no excuse.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Hey Matt Eberflus, you do realize teams get three TOs per half, not two, right?

ETA: That was mostly on Caleb waiting to snap the ball, but at some point Eberflus has to realize it’s taking too long and call a timeout

Or Williams throwing the previous pass into the dirt to a wide open receiver with a chance to score.

I'm sure it'll be mostly on Eberflus and he bears responsibility as well. But that's a tough way to lose.

They didn’t have time to analyze it in real time, and it got overshadowed by the last play, but it sure looked like Muhammad was completely unblocked off the edge on that sack. How do you leave an edge rusher unblocked in that situation? I’m not sure I’ve ever seen that before

 

[BassNBrew]

Hey Matt Eberflus, you do realize teams get three TOs per half, not two, right?

ETA: That was mostly on Caleb waiting to snap the ball, but at some point Eberflus has to realize it’s taking too long and call a timeout

Or Williams throwing the previous pass into the dirt to a wide open receiver with a chance to score.

I'm sure it'll be mostly on Eberflus and he bears responsibility as well. But that's a tough way to lose.

Wouldn’t have been an issue if Campbell had not been so stupid giving Monty more opportunities on his 4 yards and a could of bust revenge tour instead of using the guy who was averaging a first down per carry.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

x.com

x.com

Matt Eberflus on having the game end by time expiring/not using a timeout before the eventual final play: “I think we handled it the right way. … It didn’t work out the way we wanted to.”

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Giants scored with 2:18 left in the game to make it 27-19 and kicked the XP. I thought coaches have learned by this point that you have to go for two in those situations

 

[MrSoup]

Rename thread to “HC Matt Eberflus, CHI”

 

[rockaction]

Meanwhile, if you get the lead down to 7, the clock management is a little easier.

Just getting around to this, Ignatius.

I’m a little confused. How is clock management after you convert either a two or one-point conversion any different? You’re either down eight or down seven. It’s still a one possession game either way. Theoretically, the game would still be tied if you convert the XP regardless of whether you convert a two-point conversion after a touchdown when you were originally down eight or a one-point conversion after a touchdown when you were originally down seven. The clock management should be the same. The time stops dead after a touchdown. The conversions are not timed. So how is clock management different down eight than down seven?

It isn’t, assuming, of course, that we’re talking about situations where you score with under a few minutes left (where the chances are you’re not seeing the ball back regardless). I’m thinking of teams that score to bring it to within nine with about four minutes left and that have two or three timeouts to burn here.

That’s because what I’m referring to as game theory doesn’t matter so much until time becomes a crunch. In other words, sure, you might very well consider going for two to make a nine-point deficit a seven-point deficit early in the game when there is no time crunch. But the game theory comes into play because you’ve got a clock that isn’t infinite. The closer you get to the end of the game, the more time remaining becomes a factor in how and what plays the opposition calls. Really, the whole 9/8-point XP two/one dilemma matters only when there’s about under six minutes or so to go in the game. That’s when teams start letting the air out of the football if they know they’re up two possessions (what they call two scores).

As for your last question about whether you leave time, I’m not sure how it totally relates to the seven/eight/nine dilemma. I say that it is personal preference and game-dependent. Some people (like me) think you score a touchdown whenever you can (unless you’re really jammed at the one yard-line on first and goal) and that you don’t do all the mumbo-jumbo of diving down at the one when you need a touchdown and an XP to tie a game. I get milking the clock on offense if you only need a field goal to take the lead and the field goal will only produce a margin of a lead that is less than 3. I can see doing that, of course. But if you need a touchdown, those aren’t easy to come by, and you take those (unless there are extreme circumstances like Tom Brady or prime Mahomes or Allen waiting to touch the football). At that point it becomes preference, forethought, and game-dependent.

But the nine-seven XP situation under six minutes left almost invariably holds that I would kick the one-point XP to make it an eight-point game and nothing really alters that.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

They didn’t have time to analyze it in real time, and it got overshadowed by the last play, but it sure looked like Muhammad was completely unblocked off the edge on that sack. How do you leave an edge rusher unblocked in that situation? I’m not sure I’ve ever seen that before

Here’s that sequence. I’m honestly not sure what was going on there. Did the coaches screw up the protection scheme? Did Borom simply have a brain fart? I get sometimes you have a blitzer coming unblocked up the middle, or a DB coming from the side, but an edge rusher? That is literally Job One for an OL. I genuinely don’t understand how you have that kind of a mistake

 

[Instinctive]

Meanwhile, if you get the lead down to 7, the clock management is a little easier.

Just getting around to this, Ignatius.

I’m a little confused. How is clock management after you convert either a two or one-point conversion any different? You’re either down eight or down seven. It’s still a one possession game either way. Theoretically, the game would still be tied if you convert the XP regardless of whether you convert a two-point conversion after a touchdown when you were originally down eight or a one-point conversion after a touchdown when you were originally down seven. The clock management should be the same. The time stops dead after a touchdown. The conversions are not timed. So how is clock management different down eight than down seven?

It isn’t, assuming, of course, that we’re talking about situations where you score with under a few minutes left (where the chances are you’re not seeing the ball back regardless). I’m thinking of teams that score to bring it to within nine with about four minutes left and that have two or three timeouts to burn here.

That’s because what I’m referring to as game theory doesn’t matter so much until time becomes a crunch. In other words, sure, you might very well consider going for two to make a nine-point deficit a seven-point deficit early in the game when there is no time crunch. But the game theory comes into play because you’ve got a clock that isn’t infinite. The closer you get to the end of the game, the more time remaining becomes a factor in how and what plays the opposition calls. Really, the whole 9/8-point XP two/one dilemma matters only when there’s about under six minutes or so to go in the game. That’s when teams start letting the air out of the football if they know they’re up two possessions (what they call two scores).

As for your last question about whether you leave time, I’m not sure how it totally relates to the seven/eight/nine dilemma. I say that it is personal preference and game-dependent. Some people (like me) think you score a touchdown whenever you can (unless you’re really jammed at the one yard-line on first and goal) and that you don’t do all the mumbo-jumbo of diving down at the one when you need a touchdown and an XP to tie a game. I get milking the clock on offense if you only need a field goal to take the lead and the field goal will only produce a margin of a lead that is less than 3. I can see doing that, of course. But if you need a touchdown, those aren’t easy to come by, and you take those (unless there are extreme circumstances like Tom Brady or prime Mahomes or Allen waiting to touch the football). At that point it becomes preference, forethought, and game-dependent.

But the nine-seven XP situation under six minutes left almost invariably holds that I would kick the one-point XP to make it an eight-point game and nothing really alters that.

8 point is not a one possession game. Half the time it is, half the time it isn't. Unless you think you have a higher chance of getting the 8 on a later TD (which changes the math some), you pretty clearly would rather know you need two scores as soon as possible, versus not knowing you needed two scores until it is too late to manage clock differently. If you need two scores still, you may actually need to onside kick early too.

 

[rockaction]

Meanwhile, if you get the lead down to 7, the clock management is a little easier.

Just getting around to this, Ignatius.

I’m a little confused. How is clock management after you convert either a two or one-point conversion any different? You’re either down eight or down seven. It’s still a one possession game either way. Theoretically, the game would still be tied if you convert the XP regardless of whether you convert a two-point conversion after a touchdown when you were originally down eight or a one-point conversion after a touchdown when you were originally down seven. The clock management should be the same. The time stops dead after a touchdown. The conversions are not timed. So how is clock management different down eight than down seven?

It isn’t, assuming, of course, that we’re talking about situations where you score with under a few minutes left (where the chances are you’re not seeing the ball back regardless). I’m thinking of teams that score to bring it to within nine with about four minutes left and that have two or three timeouts to burn here.

That’s because what I’m referring to as game theory doesn’t matter so much until time becomes a crunch. In other words, sure, you might very well consider going for two to make a nine-point deficit a seven-point deficit early in the game when there is no time crunch. But the game theory comes into play because you’ve got a clock that isn’t infinite. The closer you get to the end of the game, the more time remaining becomes a factor in how and what plays the opposition calls. Really, the whole 9/8-point XP two/one dilemma matters only when there’s about under six minutes or so to go in the game. That’s when teams start letting the air out of the football if they know they’re up two possessions (what they call two scores).

As for your last question about whether you leave time, I’m not sure how it totally relates to the seven/eight/nine dilemma. I say that it is personal preference and game-dependent. Some people (like me) think you score a touchdown whenever you can (unless you’re really jammed at the one yard-line on first and goal) and that you don’t do all the mumbo-jumbo of diving down at the one when you need a touchdown and an XP to tie a game. I get milking the clock on offense if you only need a field goal to take the lead and the field goal will only produce a margin of a lead that is less than 3. I can see doing that, of course. But if you need a touchdown, those aren’t easy to come by, and you take those (unless there are extreme circumstances like Tom Brady or prime Mahomes or Allen waiting to touch the football). At that point it becomes preference, forethought, and game-dependent.

But the nine-seven XP situation under six minutes left almost invariably holds that I would kick the one-point XP to make it an eight-point game and nothing really alters that.

8 point is not a one possession game. Half the time it is, half the time it isn't. Unless you think you have a higher chance of getting the 8 on a later TD (which changes the math some), you pretty clearly would rather know you need two scores as soon as possible, versus not knowing you needed two scores until it is too late to manage clock differently. If you need two scores still, you may actually need to onside kick early

An eight point game can potentially technically be a one-possession game because the ball never changes hands. It’s the potentiality that’s implied in saying “one possession,” meaning that it is possible to tie the game without the ball changing hands.

Knowing that you’re down nine and knowing "what you need" vs. being down eight is no small comfort to the coach who then watches the other coach take the air out of the football.

The information of knowing what you need is no advantage to you if there’s six minutes or under. He controls half of your destiny.

 

[Instinctive]

Meanwhile, if you get the lead down to 7, the clock management is a little easier.

Just getting around to this, Ignatius.

I’m a little confused. How is clock management after you convert either a two or one-point conversion any different? You’re either down eight or down seven. It’s still a one possession game either way. Theoretically, the game would still be tied if you convert the XP regardless of whether you convert a two-point conversion after a touchdown when you were originally down eight or a one-point conversion after a touchdown when you were originally down seven. The clock management should be the same. The time stops dead after a touchdown. The conversions are not timed. So how is clock management different down eight than down seven?

It isn’t, assuming, of course, that we’re talking about situations where you score with under a few minutes left (where the chances are you’re not seeing the ball back regardless). I’m thinking of teams that score to bring it to within nine with about four minutes left and that have two or three timeouts to burn here.

That’s because what I’m referring to as game theory doesn’t matter so much until time becomes a crunch. In other words, sure, you might very well consider going for two to make a nine-point deficit a seven-point deficit early in the game when there is no time crunch. But the game theory comes into play because you’ve got a clock that isn’t infinite. The closer you get to the end of the game, the more time remaining becomes a factor in how and what plays the opposition calls. Really, the whole 9/8-point XP two/one dilemma matters only when there’s about under six minutes or so to go in the game. That’s when teams start letting the air out of the football if they know they’re up two possessions (what they call two scores).

As for your last question about whether you leave time, I’m not sure how it totally relates to the seven/eight/nine dilemma. I say that it is personal preference and game-dependent. Some people (like me) think you score a touchdown whenever you can (unless you’re really jammed at the one yard-line on first and goal) and that you don’t do all the mumbo-jumbo of diving down at the one when you need a touchdown and an XP to tie a game. I get milking the clock on offense if you only need a field goal to take the lead and the field goal will only produce a margin of a lead that is less than 3. I can see doing that, of course. But if you need a touchdown, those aren’t easy to come by, and you take those (unless there are extreme circumstances like Tom Brady or prime Mahomes or Allen waiting to touch the football). At that point it becomes preference, forethought, and game-dependent.

But the nine-seven XP situation under six minutes left almost invariably holds that I would kick the one-point XP to make it an eight-point game and nothing really alters that.

8 point is not a one possession game. Half the time it is, half the time it isn't. Unless you think you have a higher chance of getting the 8 on a later TD (which changes the math some), you pretty clearly would rather know you need two scores as soon as possible, versus not knowing you needed two scores until it is too late to manage clock differently. If you need two scores still, you may actually need to onside kick early

An eight point game can potentially technically be a one-possession game because the ball never changes hands. It’s the potentiality that’s implied in saying “one possession,” meaning that it is possible to tie the game without the ball changing hands.

Knowing that you’re down nine vs. being down eight is no small comfort to the coach who then watches the other coach take the air out of the football.

I feel like you read my first sentence, not the second, and posted. Yeah, it CAN be. It IS not. Sounds like you agree.

I didn't realize we were trying to maximize comfort. I thought we were trying to maximize chances of winning.

 

[rockaction]

Meanwhile, if you get the lead down to 7, the clock management is a little easier.

Just getting around to this, Ignatius.

I’m a little confused. How is clock management after you convert either a two or one-point conversion any different? You’re either down eight or down seven. It’s still a one possession game either way. Theoretically, the game would still be tied if you convert the XP regardless of whether you convert a two-point conversion after a touchdown when you were originally down eight or a one-point conversion after a touchdown when you were originally down seven. The clock management should be the same. The time stops dead after a touchdown. The conversions are not timed. So how is clock management different down eight than down seven?

It isn’t, assuming, of course, that we’re talking about situations where you score with under a few minutes left (where the chances are you’re not seeing the ball back regardless). I’m thinking of teams that score to bring it to within nine with about four minutes left and that have two or three timeouts to burn here.

That’s because what I’m referring to as game theory doesn’t matter so much until time becomes a crunch. In other words, sure, you might very well consider going for two to make a nine-point deficit a seven-point deficit early in the game when there is no time crunch. But the game theory comes into play because you’ve got a clock that isn’t infinite. The closer you get to the end of the game, the more time remaining becomes a factor in how and what plays the opposition calls. Really, the whole 9/8-point XP two/one dilemma matters only when there’s about under six minutes or so to go in the game. That’s when teams start letting the air out of the football if they know they’re up two possessions (what they call two scores).

As for your last question about whether you leave time, I’m not sure how it totally relates to the seven/eight/nine dilemma. I say that it is personal preference and game-dependent. Some people (like me) think you score a touchdown whenever you can (unless you’re really jammed at the one yard-line on first and goal) and that you don’t do all the mumbo-jumbo of diving down at the one when you need a touchdown and an XP to tie a game. I get milking the clock on offense if you only need a field goal to take the lead and the field goal will only produce a margin of a lead that is less than 3. I can see doing that, of course. But if you need a touchdown, those aren’t easy to come by, and you take those (unless there are extreme circumstances like Tom Brady or prime Mahomes or Allen waiting to touch the football). At that point it becomes preference, forethought, and game-dependent.

But the nine-seven XP situation under six minutes left almost invariably holds that I would kick the one-point XP to make it an eight-point game and nothing really alters that.

8 point is not a one possession game. Half the time it is, half the time it isn't. Unless you think you have a higher chance of getting the 8 on a later TD (which changes the math some), you pretty clearly would rather know you need two scores as soon as possible, versus not knowing you needed two scores until it is too late to manage clock differently. If you need two scores still, you may actually need to onside kick early

An eight point game can potentially technically be a one-possession game because the ball never changes hands. It’s the potentiality that’s implied in saying “one possession,” meaning that it is possible to tie the game without the ball changing hands.

Knowing that you’re down nine vs. being down eight is no small comfort to the coach who then watches the other coach take the air out of the football.

I feel like you read my first sentence, not the second, and posted. Yeah, it CAN be. It IS not. Sounds like you agree.

I didn't realize we were trying to maximize comfort. I thought we were trying to maximize chances of winning.

No, we’re trying to maximize winning. You haven’t quite read what I’ve written, either.

I’m trying to maximize our score relative to his. If you are only down one potential possession he manages the game differently. Hence the game theory aspect. I get that in most instances you want to know. In this case, it’s best that both you and he are ignorant.

I’ve been saying this for years and the quant folks still do not get it. IF THERE IS UNDER ABOUT FIVE-SIX MINUTES LEFT, you don’t want him knowing that you need two possessions or he’ll just sit on the ball. Like all three downs. Just sitting on it.

If he doesn’t know that you need two possessions, the way he calls his game changes and you might catch a break because now he’s feeling pressure and he calls plays to win a different way than being able to milk clock.

 

[Chaz McNulty]

Hey Matt Eberflus, you do realize teams get three TOs per half, not two, right?

ETA: That was mostly on Caleb waiting to snap the ball, but at some point Eberflus has to realize it’s taking too long and call a timeout

Or Williams throwing the previous pass into the dirt to a wide open receiver with a chance to score.

I'm sure it'll be mostly on Eberflus and he bears responsibility as well. But that's a tough way to lose.

Williams bears some responsibility here, but he's a rookie. Eberflus has no excuse.

William's bears all the responsibility.
It takes around 17 seconds of chaos to get your offense off the field and your kicking team on the field to set up for a field goal. It is not an ideal situation to put yourselves in and a lot of things can break down. With 3rd and 25 you are just looking for around 5-7 yards to get back into field goal range.
If the coach doesn't call an immediate timeout, you need to have some concept of what needs to be done. I would think that someone that has played the game his whole life would understand this.

 

[rockaction]

I didn't realize we were trying to maximize comfort. I thought we were trying to maximize chances of winning.

I never said this anywhere and it’s a straw man of my argument. At no point did I care about the coach’s or team’s comfort. I care about what plays result from the decision to cut it to a potentially one-possession game vs. a certain two-possession game

 

[Instinctive]

Meanwhile, if you get the lead down to 7, the clock management is a little easier.

Just getting around to this, Ignatius.

I’m a little confused. How is clock management after you convert either a two or one-point conversion any different? You’re either down eight or down seven. It’s still a one possession game either way. Theoretically, the game would still be tied if you convert the XP regardless of whether you convert a two-point conversion after a touchdown when you were originally down eight or a one-point conversion after a touchdown when you were originally down seven. The clock management should be the same. The time stops dead after a touchdown. The conversions are not timed. So how is clock management different down eight than down seven?

It isn’t, assuming, of course, that we’re talking about situations where you score with under a few minutes left (where the chances are you’re not seeing the ball back regardless). I’m thinking of teams that score to bring it to within nine with about four minutes left and that have two or three timeouts to burn here.

That’s because what I’m referring to as game theory doesn’t matter so much until time becomes a crunch. In other words, sure, you might very well consider going for two to make a nine-point deficit a seven-point deficit early in the game when there is no time crunch. But the game theory comes into play because you’ve got a clock that isn’t infinite. The closer you get to the end of the game, the more time remaining becomes a factor in how and what plays the opposition calls. Really, the whole 9/8-point XP two/one dilemma matters only when there’s about under six minutes or so to go in the game. That’s when teams start letting the air out of the football if they know they’re up two possessions (what they call two scores).

As for your last question about whether you leave time, I’m not sure how it totally relates to the seven/eight/nine dilemma. I say that it is personal preference and game-dependent. Some people (like me) think you score a touchdown whenever you can (unless you’re really jammed at the one yard-line on first and goal) and that you don’t do all the mumbo-jumbo of diving down at the one when you need a touchdown and an XP to tie a game. I get milking the clock on offense if you only need a field goal to take the lead and the field goal will only produce a margin of a lead that is less than 3. I can see doing that, of course. But if you need a touchdown, those aren’t easy to come by, and you take those (unless there are extreme circumstances like Tom Brady or prime Mahomes or Allen waiting to touch the football). At that point it becomes preference, forethought, and game-dependent.

But the nine-seven XP situation under six minutes left almost invariably holds that I would kick the one-point XP to make it an eight-point game and nothing really alters that.

8 point is not a one possession game. Half the time it is, half the time it isn't. Unless you think you have a higher chance of getting the 8 on a later TD (which changes the math some), you pretty clearly would rather know you need two scores as soon as possible, versus not knowing you needed two scores until it is too late to manage clock differently. If you need two scores still, you may actually need to onside kick early

An eight point game can potentially technically be a one-possession game because the ball never changes hands. It’s the potentiality that’s implied in saying “one possession,” meaning that it is possible to tie the game without the ball changing hands.

Knowing that you’re down nine vs. being down eight is no small comfort to the coach who then watches the other coach take the air out of the football.

I feel like you read my first sentence, not the second, and posted. Yeah, it CAN be. It IS not. Sounds like you agree.

I didn't realize we were trying to maximize comfort. I thought we were trying to maximize chances of winning.

No, we’re trying to maximize winning. You haven’t quite read what I’ve written, either.

I’m trying to maximize our score relative to his. If you are only down one potential possession he manages the game differently. Hence the game theory aspect. I get that in most instances you want to know. In this case, it’s best that both you and he are ignorant.

I’ve been saying this for years and the quant folks still do not get it. IF THERE IS UNDER ABOUT FIVE-SIX MINUTES LEFT, you don’t want him knowing that you need two possessions or he’ll just sit on the ball. Like all three downs. Just sitting on it.

If he doesn’t know that you need two possessions, the way he calls his game changes and you might catch a break because now he’s feeling pressure and he calls plays to win a different way than being able to milk clock.

At that point, it depends on timeouts, doesn't it? Of course I want him taking the air out of the ball if I've got the 2 minute warning and 3 timeouts.

Also...depends on the opposing coach. Most of them are taking the air out of the ball anyway aren't they?

 

[Instinctive]

I didn't realize we were trying to maximize comfort. I thought we were trying to maximize chances of winning.

I never said this anywhere and it’s a straw man of my argument. At no point did I care about the coach’s or team’s comfort. I care about what plays result from the decision to cut it to a potentially one-possession game vs. a certain two-possession game

Sorry - that was (I thought) an obvious joke because of the "no small comfort" line. Didn't realize this was serious business.

 

[rockaction]

I didn't realize we were trying to maximize comfort. I thought we were trying to maximize chances of winning.

I never said this anywhere and it’s a straw man of my argument. At no point did I care about the coach’s or team’s comfort. I care about what plays result from the decision to cut it to a potentially one-possession game vs. a certain two-possession game

Sorry - that was (I thought) an obvious joke because of the "no small comfort" line. Didn't realize this was serious business.

Ah, you just defused any seriousness in the business. Thanks.

 

[rockaction]

At that point, it depends on timeouts, doesn't it? Of course I want him taking the air out of the ball if I've got the 2 minute warning and 3 timeouts.

Do you want him letting the air out of the ball? I’d rather have him throw three times than run it three times. Saves your timeouts because incompletes stop the clock. That’s why at the end of games you see teams run it up the middle rather than throw it or risk going out of bounds on an outside run.

I think you know this, though, and we’re just getting tied up in some misunderstanding.

If you have two minutes left and three timeouts and you’re down eight instead of nine, he’s worried you might tie the game if you get the ball back so he tries to play keep away by getting a first down and then running the clock out. If he’s up nine, he doesn’t care if you get the ball back because you can’t do anything. You need two possessions at that point, so what the heck does it matter if he runs three straight runs that gain no yardage and you get the ball back at your . . . say . . . thirty with a minute forty-five left and no TOs (because you just burned your three on his run plays).

See what I’m saying here? You don’t want that scenario. It’s best to leave him (and yourself) guessing whether you can convert the two at the end vs. both of you knowing that you need nine. I’ve seen so much football in my fifty years on earth that I’ve watched this scenario play out tons of times. So have you, most likely.

 

[Brunell4MVP]

Hey Matt Eberflus, you do realize teams get three TOs per half, not two, right?

ETA: That was mostly on Caleb waiting to snap the ball, but at some point Eberflus has to realize it’s taking too long and call a timeout

Or Williams throwing the previous pass into the dirt to a wide open receiver with a chance to score.

I'm sure it'll be mostly on Eberflus and he bears responsibility as well. But that's a tough way to lose.

Williams bears some responsibility here, but he's a rookie. Eberflus has no excuse.

William's bears all the responsibility.
It takes around 17 seconds of chaos to get your offense off the field and your kicking team on the field to set up for a field goal. It is not an ideal situation to put yourselves in and a lot of things can break down. With 3rd and 25 you are just looking for around 5-7 yards to get back into field goal range.
If the coach doesn't call an immediate timeout, you need to have some concept of what needs to be done. I would think that someone that has played the game his whole life would understand this.

Please, this is ALL on the CHI coaches. Bad plays happen. RTs whiff. QBs miss throws. They are ill prepared for anything.

- On first down w 43 seconds left CHI took a TO after a DET penalty because they couldn't get a play call in fast enough. WTF. There's the worst thing. Wasting a TO.
- Then with 32 seconds left, Williams gets sacked when the RT whiffs. That IMMEDIATELY becomes a TO situation. The WRs are 35 yards downfield. Which is another thing. WTF play call was that. A QB draw? I don't think all the OL was blocking the right scheme whatever it was. Call a TO with 32 secs left then you can do anything. Run play, quick out, anything. The FG team is ready to run on.
- So with no TO called, they don't even have a play called the play before in the huddle. Like, if the clock is running we do X. Heck, it doesn't appear the coaches have a clue about any play call. Total confusion. They are actually switching out players I think. WTF. For what it's worth, Williams said after the game that it took 20 seconds for the play call to come in. And if you doubt him, just look at point #1. They couldn't get a play call in after a dead ball at 43 seconds left. .
- Clock runs down to 6 seconds. Well at least call a TO there. Nope ... I called a down the middle route where the clock will run out 100% of the time even if he catches it because the D is just gonna hold him up until the clock ends.

Eberflus is a dork. Wiliams had better coaches in HS. I'd guess most of the team did

 

[jon_mx]

Meanwhile, if you get the lead down to 7, the clock management is a little easier.

Just getting around to this, Ignatius.

I’m a little confused. How is clock management after you convert either a two or one-point conversion any different? You’re either down eight or down seven. It’s still a one possession game either way. Theoretically, the game would still be tied if you convert the XP regardless of whether you convert a two-point conversion after a touchdown when you were originally down eight or a one-point conversion after a touchdown when you were originally down seven. The clock management should be the same. The time stops dead after a touchdown. The conversions are not timed. So how is clock management different down eight than down seven?

It isn’t, assuming, of course, that we’re talking about situations where you score with under a few minutes left (where the chances are you’re not seeing the ball back regardless). I’m thinking of teams that score to bring it to within nine with about four minutes left and that have two or three timeouts to burn here.

That’s because what I’m referring to as game theory doesn’t matter so much until time becomes a crunch. In other words, sure, you might very well consider going for two to make a nine-point deficit a seven-point deficit early in the game when there is no time crunch. But the game theory comes into play because you’ve got a clock that isn’t infinite. The closer you get to the end of the game, the more time remaining becomes a factor in how and what plays the opposition calls. Really, the whole 9/8-point XP two/one dilemma matters only when there’s about under six minutes or so to go in the game. That’s when teams start letting the air out of the football if they know they’re up two possessions (what they call two scores).

As for your last question about whether you leave time, I’m not sure how it totally relates to the seven/eight/nine dilemma. I say that it is personal preference and game-dependent. Some people (like me) think you score a touchdown whenever you can (unless you’re really jammed at the one yard-line on first and goal) and that you don’t do all the mumbo-jumbo of diving down at the one when you need a touchdown and an XP to tie a game. I get milking the clock on offense if you only need a field goal to take the lead and the field goal will only produce a margin of a lead that is less than 3. I can see doing that, of course. But if you need a touchdown, those aren’t easy to come by, and you take those (unless there are extreme circumstances like Tom Brady or prime Mahomes or Allen waiting to touch the football). At that point it becomes preference, forethought, and game-dependent.

But the nine-seven XP situation under six minutes left almost invariably holds that I would kick the one-point XP to make it an eight-point game and nothing really alters that.

Smart teams start clock management whenever they are down multiple scores like say 28-3 in the Super Bowl. You need to maximize the number of possessions to provide your best chance to come back. Then when you get it down to a one score game, you want to set It up so that you control the final possession.

The reason you go for 2 when down 9 late in the game is so you know ahead of time the number of possessions you require to tie (or win) the game.

 

[rockaction]

The reason you go for 2 when down 9 late in the game is so you know ahead of time the number of possessions you require to tie (or win) the game.

No, I get the theory. They’re wrong to do it.

 

[rockaction]

People are still not understanding that if YOU know the amount of possessions you need to win or tie the game so also does YOUR OPPONENT. If your opponent can use that to his advantage and leverage it (like they do up two possessions at the end of a game) then you are screwed if you’re down nine. You never want to be down nine. It’s like splitting fours into a face card.

 

[Instinctive]

At that point, it depends on timeouts, doesn't it? Of course I want him taking the air out of the ball if I've got the 2 minute warning and 3 timeouts.

Do you want him letting the air out of the ball? I’d rather have him throw three times than run it three times. Saves your timeouts because incompletes stop the clock. That’s why at the end of games you see teams run it up the middle rather than throw it or risk going out of bounds on an outside run.

I think you know this, though, and we’re just getting tied up in some misunderstanding.

If you have two minutes left and three timeouts and you’re down eight instead of nine, he’s worried you might tie the game if you get the ball back so he tries to play keep away by getting a first down and then running the clock out. If he’s up nine, he doesn’t care if you get the ball back because you can’t do anything. You need two possessions at that point, so what the heck does it matter if he runs three straight runs that gain no yardage and you get the ball back at your . . . say . . . thirty with a minute forty-five left and no TOs (because you just burned your three on his run plays).

See what I’m saying here? You don’t want that scenario. It’s best to leave him (and yourself) guessing whether you can convert the two at the end vs. both of you knowing that you need nine. I’ve seen so much football in my fifty years on earth that I’ve watched this scenario play out tons of times. So have you, most likely.

I'm operating that the worst possible thing the other coach can do is get a first down. That kills you. if he gets a first down, you dont get the ball back period. So if he's content to run a minute and a half off and punt, I want to do everything I can to encourage that.

In the end, we're tlking about going from like a 2% chance of winning to like a 4% chance of winning.

There's no way it's better to let him guess. No matter what, I need a three and out. No matter what, I need a great drive with very little time coming off. I REALLY need to know, far more than my opponent, whether I need another drive after that or not.

 

[Tin Cup]

No one mentioned there’d be math, logic, game theory, and vigorous discussion, logic, and debate in this thread. I thought it was just to call out all the stupid stuff guys like Ebeeflus, Sirianni, and Daboll do.

 

[Chaka]

Hey Matt Eberflus, you do realize teams get three TOs per half, not two, right?

ETA: That was mostly on Caleb waiting to snap the ball, but at some point Eberflus has to realize it’s taking too long and call a timeout

Or Williams throwing the previous pass into the dirt to a wide open receiver with a chance to score.

I'm sure it'll be mostly on Eberflus and he bears responsibility as well. But that's a tough way to lose.

Williams bears some responsibility here, but he's a rookie. Eberflus has no excuse.

William's bears all the responsibility.
It takes around 17 seconds of chaos to get your offense off the field and your kicking team on the field to set up for a field goal. It is not an ideal situation to put yourselves in and a lot of things can break down. With 3rd and 25 you are just looking for around 5-7 yards to get back into field goal range.
If the coach doesn't call an immediate timeout, you need to have some concept of what needs to be done. I would think that someone that has played the game his whole life would understand this.

So, what's Eberflus's excuse?

Of course Williams bears responsibility but the coach needs to recognize when things are going sideways and act. Instead he spectated and is no longer a HC in the NFL because of it. He let a signature win fall through his hands.

 

[Tau837]

People are still not understanding that if YOU know the amount of possessions you need to win or tie the game so also does YOUR OPPONENT. If your opponent can use that to his advantage and leverage it (like they do up two possessions at the end of a game) then you are screwed if you’re down nine. You never want to be down nine. It’s like splitting fours into a face card.

You have posted something to this effect more than once. Because other posters have disagree with you, you seem to assume they just don't understand, because if they understood, they would obviously agree with you. We understand, and disagree with your perspective on it. Reasonable people can disagree reasonably, I just felt compelled to point out that we aren't disagreeing due to a lack of understanding your argument.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Hey Matt Eberflus, you do realize teams get three TOs per half, not two, right?

ETA: That was mostly on Caleb waiting to snap the ball, but at some point Eberflus has to realize it’s taking too long and call a timeout

Or Williams throwing the previous pass into the dirt to a wide open receiver with a chance to score.

I'm sure it'll be mostly on Eberflus and he bears responsibility as well. But that's a tough way to lose.

Williams bears some responsibility here, but he's a rookie. Eberflus has no excuse.

William's bears all the responsibility.
It takes around 17 seconds of chaos to get your offense off the field and your kicking team on the field to set up for a field goal. It is not an ideal situation to put yourselves in and a lot of things can break down. With 3rd and 25 you are just looking for around 5-7 yards to get back into field goal range.
If the coach doesn't call an immediate timeout, you need to have some concept of what needs to be done. I would think that someone that has played the game his whole life would understand this.

So, what's Eberflus's excuse?

Of course Williams bears responsibility but the coach needs to recognize when things are going sideways and act. Instead he spectated and is no longer a HC in the NFL because of it. He let a signature win fall through his hands.

Right, I can’t believe that with 15 or so seconds left someone didn’t just call a TO. That would have allowed them to throw a quick sideline route and attempt the FG, or maybe try a 59 yarder if the pass is incomplete. That’s not ideal relative to what they were facing before the sack, but it’s way better than a single play where the ball didn’t even reach the end zone

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Obviously we don’t know the full story of Eberflus’ firing — they have lost six in a row, after all — but it sure does seem like that end-of-game sequence was the precipitating factor for the first in-season firing in franchise history. I’m trying to remember another coach who was canned for his in-game decision making and drawing a blank

 

[rockaction]

You have posted something to this effect more than once.

Yes, because people have chimed in about at least five times in this thread and said that IF ONLY I UNDERSTOOD that it’s better to know than not to know if you’re going to get the two then surely I WOULD AGREE with them. They’re the reason I keep addressing it as if people don’t understand my point—because they don’t. Central to my point is that I understand the merits of knowing, and think it’s best for my squad if both we and my opponent remain ignorant. There continue to be people saying this without having read the thread to see that I’ve addressed that issue about five times now, each time refuting it explicitly.

So no, people don’t understand the argument. See: mx, jon just now and to a lesser degree Instinctive, who also argued that knowing would be better after I’d painstakingly explained why and many times over that I did not agree with that.

I am not saying it is so obvious that people must agree with me once I have enlightened them. They surely will and can disagree. (They’re simply wrong and are splitting fours into the face as we speak—but they don’t have to necessarily agree that is a bad play, nor do I assume that.)

 

[Instinctive]

You have posted something to this effect more than once.

Yes, because people have chimed in about at least five times in this thread and said that IF ONLY I UNDERSTOOD that it’s better to know than not to know if you’re going to get the two then surely I WOULD AGREE with them. They’re the reason I keep addressing it as if people don’t understand my point, because they don’t. Central to my point is that I understand the merits of knowing, and think it’s best for my squad if both we and my opponent remain ignorant. There continue to be people saying this without having read the thread to see that I’ve addressed that issue about five times now, each time refuting it explicitly.

So no, people don’t understand the argument. See: mx, jon just now an to a lesser degree Instinctive, who also argued that knowing would be better after I’d painstakingly explained why and many times over that I did not agree with that.

I am not saying it is obvious that people must agree with me. (They’re simply wrong and are splitting fours into the face as we speak—but they don’t have to necessarily agree that is a bad play, nor do I assume that.)

I would love to see the math and an actual study. I think you are splitting your 4s my friend.

 

[Tau837]

You have posted something to this effect more than once.

Yes, because people have chimed in about at least five times in this thread and said that IF ONLY I UNDERSTOOD that it’s better to know than not to know if you’re going to get the two then surely I WOULD AGREE with them. They’re the reason I keep addressing it as if people don’t understand my point—because they don’t. Central to my point is that I understand the merits of knowing, and think it’s best for my squad if both we and my opponent remain ignorant. There continue to be people saying this without having read the thread to see that I’ve addressed that issue about five times now, each time refuting it explicitly.

So no, people don’t understand the argument. See: mx, jon just now and to a lesser degree Instinctive, who also argued that knowing would be better after I’d painstakingly explained why and many times over that I did not agree with that.

I am not saying it is so obvious that people must agree with me once I have enlightened them. They surely will and can disagree. (They’re simply wrong and are splitting fours into the face as we speak—but they don’t have to necessarily agree that is a bad play, nor do I assume that.)

OK, well I understand your argument and disagree with it.

And I'm not splitting fours.

 

[Chaz McNulty]

Hey Matt Eberflus, you do realize teams get three TOs per half, not two, right?

ETA: That was mostly on Caleb waiting to snap the ball, but at some point Eberflus has to realize it’s taking too long and call a timeout

Or Williams throwing the previous pass into the dirt to a wide open receiver with a chance to score.

I'm sure it'll be mostly on Eberflus and he bears responsibility as well. But that's a tough way to lose.

Williams bears some responsibility here, but he's a rookie. Eberflus has no excuse.

William's bears all the responsibility.
It takes around 17 seconds of chaos to get your offense off the field and your kicking team on the field to set up for a field goal. It is not an ideal situation to put yourselves in and a lot of things can break down. With 3rd and 25 you are just looking for around 5-7 yards to get back into field goal range.
If the coach doesn't call an immediate timeout, you need to have some concept of what needs to be done. I would think that someone that has played the game his whole life would understand this.

Please, this is ALL on the CHI coaches. Bad plays happen. RTs whiff. QBs miss throws. They are ill prepared for anything.

- On first down w 43 seconds left CHI took a TO after a DET penalty because they couldn't get a play call in fast enough. WTF. There's the worst thing. Wasting a TO.
- Then with 32 seconds left, Williams gets sacked when the RT whiffs. That IMMEDIATELY becomes a TO situation. The WRs are 35 yards downfield. Which is another thing. WTF play call was that. A QB draw? I don't think all the OL was blocking the right scheme whatever it was. Call a TO with 32 secs left then you can do anything. Run play, quick out, anything. The FG team is ready to run on.
- So with no TO called, they don't even have a play called the play before in the huddle. Like, if the clock is running we do X. Heck, it doesn't appear the coaches have a clue about any play call. Total confusion. They are actually switching out players I think. WTF. For what it's worth, Williams said after the game that it took 20 seconds for the play call to come in. And if you doubt him, just look at point #1. They couldn't get a play call in after a dead ball at 43 seconds left. .
- Clock runs down to 6 seconds. Well at least call a TO there. Nope ... I called a down the middle route where the clock will run out 100% of the time even if he catches it because the D is just gonna hold him up until the clock ends.

Eberflus is a dork. Wiliams had better coaches in HS. I'd guess most of the team did

I agree that if a T.O. is called right away, it will allow you to throw on any part of the field and still get on )that is on the coaches). But once the clock gets down to 20 seconds you are hoping that the QB has enough sense to run a play. You could even do a run and try and pick up 5 yards. Once the initial time out isn't called, I would hope that my QB would have the sense to know what is going on. At some level he must have practiced 2 minute drills? Would this happen to any other QB in the league? I hope not.

 

[rockaction]

I would love to see the math and an actual study. I think you are splitting your 4s my friend.

I liken knowing to perfect competition in economics. When everybody knows everything, there is no advantage. It just becomes a relentless march of time at that point—time that isn’t on your side. Your opponent will be whistling in the dark happily when you miss your two-point conversion to leave the game at nine, and you’ll be whistling past the graveyard.

Take note of games like this one and think of me when they happen, GB. You’ll see what I’m talking about.