Dont teams have MIT grads on sidelines explaining simple math?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?
Agrred - Kicking the FG to pull within one point with so little time left was just wrong.zftcg said: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.zftcg said: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?
IndeedBevel not letting lynch run it in from the six inch line after he worked so hard to get that close.
Yep, by 21 percent.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.zftcg said: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?
Is there an online win pct analytics tool?Yep, by 21 percent.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.zftcg said: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?
Was it obviously stupid at the time? Or just cause of the outcome 55 minutes later?Fisher going for 2 when the Rams scored their first touchdown today. That essentially cost them the game.
Almost always stupid to go for 2 in the first half.Was it obviously stupid at the time? Or just cause of the outcome 55 minutes later?Fisher going for 2 when the Rams scored their first touchdown today. That essentially cost them the game.
Onside kick is the way to go there IMO. Not sure what the numbers say.Is there an online win pct analytics tool?Yep, by 21 percent.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.zftcg said: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?
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.
It USED to be that way before they moved the kicks back as far as they did. Been a lot of missed XPs this yearAlmost always stupid to go for 2 in the first half.Was it obviously stupid at the time? Or just cause of the outcome 55 minutes later?Fisher going for 2 when the Rams scored their first touchdown today. That essentially cost them the game.
I could have sworn there was some site that published those zig-zag charts showing WP throughout the game, but I tried to Google it and couldn't find anything, just that article I linked to. You could try clicking on some of the links in this article and see if it takes you to an analysis of the Jax game.Is there an online win pct analytics tool?Yep, by 21 percent.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.zftcg said: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?
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 seem to recall the odds of a non-surprise onside kick are like 10%. No idea on No. 2.Onside kick is the way to go there IMO. Not sure what the numbers say.Is there an online win pct analytics tool?Yep, by 21 percent.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.zftcg said: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?
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 would think it's easier to get an onside kick and go 50 yards with 2 minutes left and one time out for a TD than to have to get a 3 and out and go like 60 yards with a minute left and no timeouts.
A couple numbers to help figure this out I think:
1- What are the odds of recovering an onside kick?
2- what are the odds of getting the 3 and out?
XP% has gone from like 99% to 94%, so by that logic you should go for two if you think your chances are better than 47%.It USED to be that way before they moved the kicks back as far as they did. Been a lot of missed XPs this yearAlmost always stupid to go for 2 in the first half.Was it obviously stupid at the time? Or just cause of the outcome 55 minutes later?Fisher going for 2 when the Rams scored their first touchdown today. That essentially cost them the game.
Lol I was watching the game and thought the same thing. Falcons are doomed for 2-3 years of mediocrity with "play it safe" Quinn at the helm.zftcg said: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?
As far as #2, the Jags had held Chris Ivory to like 28 yards rushing on 23 carries or something ridiculous like that.Onside kick is the way to go there IMO. Not sure what the numbers say.Is there an online win pct analytics tool?Yep, by 21 percent.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.zftcg said: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?
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 would think it's easier to get an onside kick and go 50 yards with 2 minutes left and one time out for a TD than to have to get a 3 and out and go like 60 yards with a minute left and no timeouts.
A couple numbers to help figure this out I think:
1- What are the odds of recovering an onside kick?
2- what are the odds of getting the 3 and out?
We have a winner here. I starting rooting for the Falcons to never get the ball back again once he made that boneheaded decision.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.zftcg said: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?
Thinking about this some more, I don't know the numbers, but agree that intuitively, the onside kick sounds like a better bet.As far as #2, the Jags had held Chris Ivory to like 28 yards rushing on 23 carries or something ridiculous like that.Onside kick is the way to go there IMO. Not sure what the numbers say.Is there an online win pct analytics tool?Yep, by 21 percent.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.zftcg said: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?
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 would think it's easier to get an onside kick and go 50 yards with 2 minutes left and one time out for a TD than to have to get a 3 and out and go like 60 yards with a minute left and no timeouts.
A couple numbers to help figure this out I think:
1- What are the odds of recovering an onside kick?
2- what are the odds of getting the 3 and out?
Well, this was all back-of-envelope stuff. I was assuming typical starting field position after a kickoff. Maybe it's the 25. Maybe the Jags K has a higher TB%.So you're assuming a kickoff doesn't get a touchback but a punt from midfield does?
The previous kickoff for the Jags resulted in a touchback. And as it turned out the Jets pinned the Jags inside the 8. I think you're understating the difference in field position. To me it should be the difference between starting at your own 35 and own 10.
It might not be an obvious error, but I wanted to see what the numbers said. If it was on the other side of the 2 minute warning, I think the onside would be the play.
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.We have a winner here. I starting rooting for the Falcons to never get the ball back again once he made that boneheaded decision.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.zftcg said: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?
http://wp.advancedfootballanalytics.com/winprobcalc1.phpIs there an online win pct analytics tool?Yep, by 21 percent.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.zftcg said: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?
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.
Nothing wrong with this decision.Fisher going for 2 when the Rams scored their first touchdown today. That essentially cost them the game.
So using the win probability calculator LBL provided...Well, this was all back-of-envelope stuff. I was assuming typical starting field position after a kickoff. Maybe it's the 25. Maybe the Jags K has a higher TB%.So you're assuming a kickoff doesn't get a touchback but a punt from midfield does?
The previous kickoff for the Jags resulted in a touchback. And as it turned out the Jets pinned the Jags inside the 8. I think you're understating the difference in field position. To me it should be the difference between starting at your own 35 and own 10.
It might not be an obvious error, but I wanted to see what the numbers said. If it was on the other side of the 2 minute warning, I think the onside would be the play.
The broader point is, if you assume a 3-and-out in both scenarios (because if not, the game's over) and if you assume a 3-and-out has the same probability in either situation (seems reasonable), then it comes down to whether value of field position > probability of recovery + TD. My gut says it's not, but I wouldn't be shocked either way.
Doesn't appear that "kicking off" is an available field position option.http://wp.advancedfootballanalytics.com/winprobcalc1.phpIs there an online win pct analytics tool?Yep, by 21 percent.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.zftcg said: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?
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 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.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.We have a winner here. I starting rooting for the Falcons to never get the ball back again once he made that boneheaded decision.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.zftcg said: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?
I thought it was the wrong call, and a mistake on the (1st time head) coach's part. My guess is that he would do it differently after giving it some thought last night... all night... through this morning.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.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.We have a winner here. I starting rooting for the Falcons to never get the ball back again once he made that boneheaded decision.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.zftcg said: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?
If you don't think Gabbert can get a first down, why not take the high-percentage play and go for it, then force him to not just get a first down, but engineer a scoring drive?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.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.We have a winner here. I starting rooting for the Falcons to never get the ball back again once he made that boneheaded decision.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.zftcg said: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?
There is that. I was basing it on the fact that this offense blows an can no longer seem to get the ball in the endzone. They can however march up and down the field and kick FGs. It just wasn't that bad of a call for a stagnant offense with zero creativity. It's drop back, stare at receiver, throw football.I thought it was the wrong call, and a mistake on the (1st time head) coach's part. My guess is that he would do it differently after giving it some thought last night... all night... through this morning.
Even if 4th & G failed, I don't think he weighed in the "pucker effect" of Gabbert snapping the ball from his own 1-yd line knowing that he had to pick up a 1st down to give his punter some space.
Agree. Going for it instead of kicking the FG was defensible. But the clock management beforehand was not. If you want the TO, then you have to throw. Conversely, if you want to run you have to use the TO.On 1st down and goal the Dolphins get tackled on the 3 yard line with about 24 seconds left in the half, and elect not to use their final timeout. Instead they line up and run a play, which ends with only 2 seconds left in the half. They ended up going for the score on 3rd down and not getting it (end of half). Would have gotten at least one more play had they used the timeout after the first down play. Instead it became immediately useless as the next play ended with only 2 seconds left.
I believe the league average is 48.1% (26/54)XP% has gone from like 99% to 94%, so by that logic you should go for two if you think your chances are better than 47%.It USED to be that way before they moved the kicks back as far as they did. Been a lot of missed XPs this yearAlmost always stupid to go for 2 in the first half.Was it obviously stupid at the time? Or just cause of the outcome 55 minutes later?Fisher going for 2 when the Rams scored their first touchdown today. That essentially cost them the game.
I didn't watch the game or hear any of Fisher's commentary, but I don't think you can judge the decision unless you know his thought process. Maybe they thought they saw something in Minny's defense they could exploit. Or maybe he had some reason to doubt Zuerlein (although the guy did later hit a 61 yarder).
But yes, straight by the numbers it was probably a sub-optimal decision. Still not nearly as dumb as Quinn's.
Quite a few assumptions/errors in here.So using the win probability calculator LBL provided...Well, this was all back-of-envelope stuff. I was assuming typical starting field position after a kickoff. Maybe it's the 25. Maybe the Jags K has a higher TB%.So you're assuming a kickoff doesn't get a touchback but a punt from midfield does?
The previous kickoff for the Jags resulted in a touchback. And as it turned out the Jets pinned the Jags inside the 8. I think you're understating the difference in field position. To me it should be the difference between starting at your own 35 and own 10.
It might not be an obvious error, but I wanted to see what the numbers said. If it was on the other side of the 2 minute warning, I think the onside would be the play.
The broader point is, if you assume a 3-and-out in both scenarios (because if not, the game's over) and if you assume a 3-and-out has the same probability in either situation (seems reasonable), then it comes down to whether value of field position > probability of recovery + TD. My gut says it's not, but I wouldn't be shocked either way.
If the Jags go for onside and assuming the chances of converting an EXPECTED onside kick are about 1 in 10
So on the 1 in 10 times the Jags were to convert they would have the ball, down 5, at Jets 45 with 2:15 to go.
The win probability is .37.
The other 90 percent Jets recover near midfield and go run-run-run and punt from say Jags 45 and should eb able to pin inside the 20.
Let’s say 1st and 10 at own 10 with 1:05 to go. Win probability there is only .02. (Actually negative expected points :
[SIZE=12pt]-0.21)[/SIZE]
So it should be (.1 * .37) + (.9 *.02) = .055. So roughly a 1 in 20 chance of winning.
If they kick it deep and get a touchback or even if Jets get it at own 25. Run Run Run punt from say Jets 30 and then 40 yards net is Jags ball at own 30 with same 1:05 to go.
Winning pct there is .17 or roughly 1 in 6 chances of winning.
3/33 this year. Historically I think it's always been around 10%. Knock yourself out:And the only number I could find for non surprise onside kicks was from 2009 before the onside kick rules were changed.
To be fair, JaxBill originally brought it up not as a criticism of the coaching, but to ask if there was a way to calculate the WP% for each decision. It was tangential to the main point of the thread, though I would argue understanding win probabilities is crucial to understanding how so many of these coach's decisions are sub-optimal.If we are here doing math equations to figure out some small percentage difference, is it REALLY an obvious bad move at that time?
And to be fair to coaches, they may do things at times that they know are not the proper "percentage play", and have other reasons for doing them.To be fair, JaxBill originally brought it up not as a criticism of the coaching, but to ask if there was a way to calculate the WP% for each decision. It was tangential to the main point of the thread, though I would argue understanding win probabilities is crucial to understanding how so many of these coach's decisions are sub-optimal.If we are here doing math equations to figure out some small percentage difference, is it REALLY an obvious bad move at that time?
So they are stupid for being smart and keeping their jobs?kOOk said: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 praise (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.
Where did I say they were stupid?So they are stupid for being smart and keeping their jobs?kOOk said: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 praise (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.
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.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.