What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

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

Yep - and as the saying goes, when you throw the ball 3 things can happen & 2 of them are bad.

sure; there’s the occasional GL fumble, but that seems more rare than the GL Int. 

Ask Pete Carroll. 
A couple points:

  • As @Short Corner points out, Woody Hayes' philosophy isn't exactly regarded as being particularly well-suited to the modern NFL (some might argue that it wasn't particularly well-suited to the college game by the end of his career).
  • I remember some discussion after the Butler INT about the fact that GL INTs (GLINTs?) are actually less common than GL fumbles (GLumbles?) but either way, it's fairly close.
  • My layman's opinion, broadly speaking, is that at the goal-line you should rely on power if you think you have an advantage, and misdirection if you don't. The former could be a dive or a QB sneak or even isolating Gronk on the outside against a smaller CB and letting him win the battle. The latter could be a run or a pass, a bootleg or a jet-sweep or a play-action, just something that frees someone up in a crowded area. The empty-backfield shotgun kills me because it's neither of those things.
All that said, posters have popped up throughout this thread taking us to task for being armchair QBs who have no idea how an NFL team works. I mostly reject that criticism when it comes to decisions like whether to go for it on 4th down or attempt a 2PC; the data could not be clearer that NFL coaches are far too conservative in those situations. But I actually kind of buy it when it comes to criticizing play calling.

The fact is, play calling in the modern NFL is so complex, and relies on so many different factors, that it's really hard for us to know what went into any specific call. Also, the problem with a lot of those fourth-down conversions we criticize is that the coaches don't seem to think about them enough; they just automatically do the same "safe" thing they've always done. But I don't think you could accuse any NFL team of not spending enough time thinking about play calls (OK fine, maybe Dallas) ? These guys spend literally all week breaking down tape, looking for weaknesses on the defense, and the designing plays to exploit those weaknesses.

Finally, when a play does fail, those of us watching at home often have no idea whether it was the design or the execution. Maybe someone blew an assignment or whiffed on a block (the infamous Donte Hightower strip-sack in the Atlanta Super Bowl came on a play where Taylor Gabriel was wide open behind the secondary. If Freeman doesn't have a total brain fart on the play, Atlanta ices the game right there). Or maybe, as happened on the Butler INT, the opposing coach sniffed the play out and subbed in the exact defensive alignment designed to stop it.

I'm not saying coaches should always be immune from criticism over their play calls. Lord knows, there are still plenty of dumb ones. But I do try to retain some humility when I do it.

I am, however, still waiting for an explanation of the empty backfield at the goal line.  :shrug:

 
I think generally, if you want to run from the one yard line, go to a spread formation so that you runner has some room to find a hole. If you want to pass from the one generally, line up tight with two TE's and run a play action and hit a TE leaking off the line. The defense always struggles to cover this guy because they are so focused on stopping what looks to be an obvious running play

 
I think generally, if you want to run from the one yard line, go to a spread formation so that you runner has some room to find a hole. If you want to pass from the one generally, line up tight with two TE's and run a play action and hit a TE leaking off the line. The defense always struggles to cover this guy because they are so focused on stopping what looks to be an obvious running play
I think it's harder to do this from the one, but I also love the move from between the 5 and the 10 where teams line up super-wide and then run a QB draw. I suspect that in those cases they've seen something on tape about how that specific D lines up against a spread. Or maybe the QB has the green light to audible to a draw whenever he sees an alignment he likes.

 
Hence the perpetually declining passing numbers.
lol 

just because teams throw more doesn’t invalidate the axiom. 

It’s like when I’m describing how well a sauce pairs with pork chops & the customer tells me they’re a vegan. While that’s true, it also doesn’t mean the sauce isn’t good on pork chops. 

just because teams feel less risk averse doesn’t mean there isn’t risk. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll take dated cliches for $400.
Let me know when someone says one. ;)  
It's a true statement but it's outdated in terms of the Expected Value of running vs. the Expected Value of passing.

Imagine if Woody Hayes had said "There are only two things that can happen when you go for it on 4th down, and one of them is bad." It would be a mostly true statement, and it be very logical philosophy for the 1950s (when conventional wisdom said that you should usually punt on 4th down). But thanks to mathematics and the evolution of the game, we now know which scenarios have a higher EV if you decide to go for it on 4th down.

It's the same deal with passing. In 1950, NFL teams averaged 5.5 yards per pass attempt, and 4.2 yards per rush attempt, and interceptions were thrown on 8% of pass attempts. In 2018, NFL teams average 6.6 yards per pass attempt, and 4.3 yards per rush attempt, and interceptions are thrown on 2.4% of passes. So, not only are you less likely to throw an interception, but you're more likely to get the yards needed for the first down.

 
It's a true statement but it's outdated in terms of the Expected Value of running vs. the Expected Value of passing.

Imagine if Woody Hayes had said "There are only two things that can happen when you go for it on 4th down, and one of them is bad." It would be a mostly true statement, and it be very logical philosophy for the 1950s (when conventional wisdom said that you should usually punt on 4th down). But thanks to mathematics and the evolution of the game, we now know which scenarios have a higher EV if you decide to go for it on 4th down.

It's the same deal with passing. In 1950, NFL teams averaged 5.5 yards per pass attempt, and 4.2 yards per rush attempt, and interceptions were thrown on 8% of pass attempts. In 2018, NFL teams average 6.6 yards per pass attempt, and 4.3 yards per rush attempt, and interceptions are thrown on 2.4% of passes. So, not only are you less likely to throw an interception, but you're more likely to get the yards needed for the first down.
You kids and your new fangled passing games. When I was a boy we had leather helmets and we liked our leather helmets!

we could run the ball 3 yards and we liked getting our 3 yards. 

Bur 3 yards just isn’t enough for you coffee house hipsters, is it! 

No, y’all with your Mahomeses & your Drew Breeses.

The league’s gone butter soft - bunch of spoiled sissy men, the lot of you! 

Now turn down that rap & roll and get the HELL off of my lawn!  :rant:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You kids and your new fangled passing games. When I was a boy we had leather helmets and we liked our leather helmets!

we could run the ball 3 yards and we liked getting our 3 yards. 

Bur 3 yards just isn’t enough for you coffee house hipsters, is it! 

No, y’all with your Mahomeses & your Drew Breeses.

The league’s gone butter soft - bunch of spoiled sissy men, the lot of you! 

Now turn down that rap & roll and get the HELL off of my lawn!  :rant:
https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/weekend-update-segment---dana-carvey-as-grumpy-old-man/n9948  :lol:

 
lol 

just because teams throw more doesn’t invalidate the axiom. 

It’s like when I’m describing how well a sauce pairs with pork chops & the customer tells me they’re a vegan. While that’s true, it also doesn’t mean the sauce isn’t good on pork chops. 

just because teams feel less risk averse doesn’t mean there isn’t risk. 
In the current officiating climate there are FOUR things that happen when you pass, and only two are bad:

Interception or incompletion: bad.

Reception or DPI/bogus roughing call:  good

It’s gone from a 67% to a 50% issue, so the cliche does need some updating...

 
In the current officiating climate there are FOUR things that happen when you pass, and only two are bad:

Interception or incompletion: bad.

Reception or DPI/bogus roughing call:  good

It’s gone from a 67% to a 50% issue, so the cliche does need some updating...
Good point. In Woody's day, defenders could mug receivers and hit defenseless quarterbacks. "Pass interference" was so rare that Woody didn't even consider it as a possibility when he made his "three things" statement.

 
In the current officiating climate there are FOUR things that happen when you pass, and only two are bad:

Interception or incompletion: bad.

Reception or DPI/bogus roughing call:  good

It’s gone from a 67% to a 50% issue, so the cliche does need some updating...
A solid point - though hardly one you can count on - though good to great QBs look for it more now. 

I’m still inclined to believe that 1st and goal at the 1 is a running situation, especially with an inexperienced QB & a good running back.

If a team can’t get 1 yard on the ground, that’s not a very good offense, IMO. 

 
I’m still inclined to believe that 1st and goal at the 1 is a running situation, especially with an inexperienced QB & a good running back.

If a team can’t get 1 yard on the ground, that’s not a very good offense, IMO. 
Just for fun...

Over the past 3 seasons, teams have run the ball 75% of the time when they've had 1st-and-goal from the 1.

On pass attempts, teams have scored TDs 58% of the time and turned the ball over 2.2% of the time. (link).

On rush attempts, teams have scored TDs 51% of the time and fumbled* 3.6% of the time. (link).

(*PFR is incapable of distinguishing between a "fumble" and a "fumble lost")

The axiom is quickly turning into "If a team can't get 1 yard through the air, that's not a very good offense".

 
Just for fun...

Over the past 3 seasons, teams have run the ball 75% of the time when they've had 1st-and-goal from the 1.

On pass attempts, teams have scored TDs 58% of the time and turned the ball over 2.2% of the time. (link).

On rush attempts, teams have scored TDs 51% of the time and fumbled* 3.6% of the time. (link).

(*PFR is incapable of distinguishing between a "fumble" and a "fumble lost")

The axiom is quickly turning into "If a team can't get 1 yard through the air, that's not a very good offense".
Except, as you indicated, we don’t know how many of those fumbles were lost, while we do know that 100% of the interceptions were turnovers. 

Thus it’s apples to oranges - if only 1/2 of those fumbles were lost; then your % of turnovers is higher with passing at 2.2% to 1.8%

also; you didn’t differentiate between RB carries & QB sneaks, the latter of which I am not a big fan of unless the QB is particularly adept. 

 
Just for fun...

Over the past 3 seasons, teams have run the ball 75% of the time when they've had 1st-and-goal from the 1.

On pass attempts, teams have scored TDs 58% of the time and turned the ball over 2.2% of the time. (link).

On rush attempts, teams have scored TDs 51% of the time and fumbled* 3.6% of the time. (link).

(*PFR is incapable of distinguishing between a "fumble" and a "fumble lost")

The axiom is quickly turning into "If a team can't get 1 yard through the air, that's not a very good offense".
Except, as you indicated, we don’t know how many of those fumbles were lost, while we do know that 100% of the interceptions were turnovers. 

Thus it’s apples to oranges - if only 1/2 of those fumbles were lost; then your % of turnovers is higher with passing at 2.2% to 1.8%

also; you didn’t differentiate between RB carries & QB sneaks, the latter of which I am not a big fan of unless the QB is particularly adept. 
PFR is not capable of differentiating between RB/QB/WR/Fridge runs, but this Yale study indicates that quarterbacks are far more successful than other players, especially if they do a QB sneak. BTW, the study also shows that running plays are more successful on 4th down, although I suspect that their numbers are skewed by the inclusion of stats from the '90s (prior to rules changes which have resulted in increased passing).

 
Except, as you indicated, we don’t know how many of those fumbles were lost, while we do know that 100% of the interceptions were turnovers. 

Thus it’s apples to oranges - if only 1/2 of those fumbles were lost; then your % of turnovers is higher with passing at 2.2% to 1.8%

also; you didn’t differentiate between RB carries & QB sneaks, the latter of which I am not a big fan of unless the QB is particularly adept. 
Fumble recoveries are a random event, so over a large enough sample size, the percentage of fumbles lost should approach 50%.

Also, I suspect QB sneaks are more common when it's less than a yard as opposed to a full yard, which the stats can't track. (I also imagine taller QBs are more likely to attempt them.) So if you tell me that sneaks are more effective, that may be a self selecting sample.

 
Every team should have some 7 footer at QB for plays at the goaline.  Take the snap and reach up and over.  That would be so much better than having both a FG kicker AND a punter.  Why are FG kickers not also punting to open up a roster spot???  Crazy

 
Last edited by a moderator:
PFR is not capable of differentiating between RB/QB/WR/Fridge runs, but this Yale study indicates that quarterbacks are far more successful than other players, especially if they do a QB sneak. BTW, the study also shows that running plays are more successful on 4th down, although I suspect that their numbers are skewed by the inclusion of stats from the '90s (prior to rules changes which have resulted in increased passing).
As @zftcg said, sneaks are probably from inside the 1.  So still an imperfect comparison. 

interesting discusson nonetheless. Now get offa my lawn! And cut your hair, ya hippie.  :rant:

 
Every team should have some 7 footer at QB for plays at the goaline.  Take the snap and reach up and over.  That would be so much better than having both a FG kicker AND a punter.  Why are FG kickers not also punting to open up a roster spot???  Crazy
I once read an article (possibly in The Straight Dope) exploring whether a hockey team could sign a morbidly obese person to play goalie. They ran a bunch of numbers and concluded the loss in agility would overwhelm the additional surface area covered.

Not sure that offers any insight into your idea; I just thought it was a cool article.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I once read an article (possibly in The Straight Dope) exploring whether a hockey team could sign a morbidly obese person to play goalie. They ran a bunch of numbers and concluded the loss in agility would overwhelm the additional surface area covered.

Not sure that offers any insight into your idea; I just thought it was a cool article.
Ever watch the NBA?  Quite a few 7 footers with very adequate speed and agility.  

But yes, that was a cool article  :banned:

 
Except, as you indicated, we don’t know how many of those fumbles were lost, while we do know that 100% of the interceptions were turnovers. 

Thus it’s apples to oranges - if only 1/2 of those fumbles were lost; then your % of turnovers is higher with passing at 2.2% to 1.8%

also; you didn’t differentiate between RB carries & QB sneaks, the latter of which I am not a big fan of unless the QB is particularly adept. 
The other factor to consider is that a run on 1st and goal from the one may not get a TD, but might move the ball closer to the goal line so that you have 2nd and inches. An incomplete pass doesn't do that.

 
apalmer said:
The other factor to consider is that a run on 1st and goal from the one may not get a TD, but might move the ball closer to the goal line so that you have 2nd and inches. An incomplete pass doesn't do that.
True, though you are also more likely to lose yards on a run than on a pass. (Yes, it's possible to get sacked on a pass play, but I would imagine those are far more rare down by the goal line, since QBs get the ball out much more quickly.)

 
True, though you are also more likely to lose yards on a run than on a pass. (Yes, it's possible to get sacked on a pass play, but I would imagine those are far more rare down by the goal line, since QBs get the ball out much more quickly.)
I'd rather risk losing 1 yard on a run than 8 yards on a sack.

 
zftcg said:
I once read an article (possibly in The Straight Dope) exploring whether a hockey team could sign a morbidly obese person to play goalie. They ran a bunch of numbers and concluded the loss in agility would overwhelm the additional surface area covered.

Not sure that offers any insight into your idea; I just thought it was a cool article.
That’s one of my favorite Straight Dope articles of all time.  A classic. 

 
Instead NFL teams should hire one of those high jumpers that do those backwards flops over the high bar. Direct snap, run up to the line, then flip 10 feet off the ground and over everyone and land in the end zone. 
And don’t get me started on Olympic karate dudes and how awesome that would be. :o  

 
True, though you are also more likely to lose yards on a run than on a pass. (Yes, it's possible to get sacked on a pass play, but I would imagine those are far more rare down by the goal line, since QBs get the ball out much more quickly.)
I'd rather risk losing 1 yard on a run than 8 yards on a sack.
Actually, the statistics would be closer to a 2-yard loss on a run and a 6-yard loss on a sack.

And negative rushes happen on 9.1% of rushing plays at the 1, while sacks happen on 4.8% of passing plays at the 1.

I don't think that those numbers are compelling enough to say that one option is always better than the other, but I think they're compelling enough to disprove the idea that it's always better to run.

 
Coaching to lose is about the lowest thing anyone can do. JG confirmed that with a slap to the league's face tonight. 

 
Coaching to lose is about the lowest thing anyone can do. JG confirmed that with a slap to the league's face tonight. 
Actually he'd trying as hard as he can. He just sucks. He's probably drawing up a deal of his 3 1st round picks for Mullen. He never saw a QB he didn't love.

 
Actually he'd trying as hard as he can. He just sucks. He's probably drawing up a deal of his 3 1st round picks for Mullen. He never saw a QB he didn't love.
If Gruden was trying hard, then he wouldn't have kicked a field goal when he was down by 28 points, and he wouldn't have punted 3 times in the 2nd half.

 
If Gruden was trying hard, then he wouldn't have kicked a field goal when he was down by 28 points, and he wouldn't have punted 3 times in the 2nd half.
He's coaching by platitude. He thinks he's still an announcer.

"We just wanted to put some points on the board there."

"You can't afford to give them a short field."

"We wanted to pin them deep."

 
If Gruden was trying hard, then he wouldn't have kicked a field goal when he was down by 28 points, and he wouldn't have punted 3 times in the 2nd half.
He's coaching by platitude. He thinks he's still an announcer.

"We just wanted to put some points on the board there."

"You can't afford to give them a short field."

"We wanted to pin them deep."
Yeah but Jon Gruden The Announcer would have ripped into Jon Gruden The Coach.

"I can't be-LIEVE what the Raiders are DOING here. You are DOWN by FOUR touchdowns, and you are KICKING a FIELD GOAL? You gotta wonder what is going through the minds of Raiders fans right now. They don't deserve this. Jon Gruden isn't playing to win. He's playing to save his job. And if he keeps doing that, he won't have a job left to save."

 
Tampa Bay kicker had already missed an XP during the game.  His longest FG of the year was 36 yards.  Tampa Bay coaches had a full minute plus timeouts to improve on a 40 yard attempt to win the game.

Coaches settle for the 40 yard attempt.  Kick is missed.
Denver coaches let time run down rather than try to advance the ball further.  Settled for a 51 yard kick as time expired.  Kick was missed.

 
Denver coaches let time run down rather than try to advance the ball further.  Settled for a 51 yard kick as time expired.  Kick was missed.
I mentioned this upthread. Coaches seem to treat fg range as if it were binary -- ether you're "in range" or you're not. I don't care how good your kicker is; he's going to be more accurate if you get 10yds closer.

 
Patriots fail to call timeout after they stuff the Packers on 3rd down at their own 42 with about a minute left in the half. New England could have gotten the ball back around their own 20 yard line with 50ish seconds and 2 timeouts, but instead they let the clock run and just take a knee to end the half.

 
Patriots M.O. - Just let the other team beat themselves.  Been working for about 15 years straight now.  ETA - wrong thread lol

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top