What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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

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

ignatiusjreilly said:
To his credit(?) he admitted today that he should have taken the penalty (although I wonder what the numbers say between 3rd and 10 vs 4th and 2). 

That said, admitting that he made a bad decision because he got frustrated won't do much to dispel feelings that he's out of his depth as a HC.
Click to expand...
I LOVE this.  Just admit you made a mistake and move on.  Easy to own up to a simple mistake.  

He coached a good game.  His team stayed with and even had a lead on the road in a game where his starting QB went out and he was left with a fourth round rookie who isn't a viable starter.  He has to deal with the Houston FO/Owner who won't allow him to play his troubled QB.

Without a doubt he made a mistake and I can't give him enough credit for owning up to it.  Rare thing in today's world and gets my respect.

 
Miami, snapping from their own six-inch line, throws a WR screen to Fuller where he catches the ball in the end zone. Instantly tackled for a safety

 
SoBeDad said:
It was 4th and 2 in overtime, down by 3. I think analytics would say go for it, instead of trying a 50 yard FG.
Click to expand...


Agree 100%.  

I think you probably have a similar chance of converting the 4th and 2 as you do making a 50 yard pressure FG.

Then your scenarios are either...

Convert 4th and 2 - 1st and 10 with the ball on Oakland 30 yard line, down 3 with under 2 mins to go.

Make FG - Tie game, kicking off with 2 mins left

I think I would much rather have the former scenario.  The FG makes actually winning the game such an extreme longshot (you have to make the FG, then force a 3 and out, then drive the field with ~1 min left) and if you convert the 4th you still have a very good chance of a tie as a worst case scenario, but now you actually have a reasonable chance of winning the game as well.

 
FreeBaGeL said:
Agree 100%.  

I think you probably have a similar chance of converting the 4th and 2 as you do making a 50 yard pressure FG.

Then your scenarios are either...

Convert 4th and 2 - 1st and 10 with the ball on Oakland 30 yard line, down 3 with under 2 mins to go.

Make FG - Tie game, kicking off with 2 mins left

I think I would much rather have the former scenario.  The FG makes actually winning the game such an extreme longshot (you have to make the FG, then force a 3 and out, then drive the field with ~1 min left) and if you convert the 4th you still have a very good chance of a tie as a worst case scenario, but now you actually have a reasonable chance of winning the game as well.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

Late OT strategy can be tricky. I remember a KC-Denver game a few years ago where the Broncos tried a long FG with about a minute left. They missed, and KC drove down for the win. In that case, Kubiak decided to bet on a low-percentage shot for a win rather than a surer shot at a tie. That's ultimately a value judgment, and tough to criticize either way.

But in this case, Miami made a relatively low-percentage move that also had a best-case outcome of a tie. Also, to repeat a point I made in an earlier post, when possible you generally want to avoid giving the ball back to the other team with a chance for them to win the game.

 
Bill Simmons and Cousin Sal were ripping Kingsbury on their podcast today for the decision to attempt the 68-yarder at the end of the half (that resulted in a 109-yard kick-six). Yes, it was Prater, who (at the time) held the record, but it was outside, and in that situation you have to consider the risk of a return relative to your chances of making it.

 
ignatiusjreilly said:
Bill Simmons and Cousin Sal were ripping Kingsbury on their podcast today for the decision to attempt the 68-yarder at the end of the half (that resulted in a 109-yard kick-six). Yes, it was Prater, who (at the time) held the record, but it was outside, and in that situation you have to consider the risk of a return relative to your chances of making it.
Click to expand...
What is the risk of a return td in that situation? I saw it posted somewhere that this was the 6th in 26000 attempts so I like the odds of trying for a long shot fg against my team not defending against a 100+ yd return td with time expired. Either that or a hail mary which also has a return potential.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SoBeDad said:
On twitter, some blame goes to Waddle for immediately turning to facing the QB after the snap, giving the DB a big head start.

https://mobile.twitter.com/PFN365/status/1442229516080877570
Click to expand...
Yeah, but what was that play even supposed to be?  A WR screen?  There are no blockers out there.  Basically they're asking Waddle to make at least one guy miss all by himself just to advance the ball out of his own end zone.  It was a poorly-conceived play, called at the worst possible moment, and executed horribly.  

I was watching this game and literally laughed out loud when it happened.  

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Yeah, but what was that play even supposed to be?  A WR screen?  There are no blockers out there.  Basically they're asking Waddle to make at least one guy miss all by himself just to advance the ball out of his own end zone.  It was a poorly-conceived play, called at the worst possible moment, and executed horribly.  

I was watching this game and literally laughed out loud when it happened.  
Click to expand...
Agreed and a momentum changer. But with better execution, it's not a safety. If Waddle doesn't telegraph it and Brissett doesn't throw it high. Waddle is a separator, in motion, not a tackle-breaker like the SF receivers. He was misused yesterday.  And on replay, the TE was wide open over the middle, but Brissett needed to make a quick decision. With 2 offensive coordinators, who takes the blame?

 
Dizzy said:
Seemed like Detroit offense had it rolling in the 4th QTR but dropped anchor and played for the go-ahead FG too soon. I thought they should have pushed for a TD.
Click to expand...
If I was a Detroit fan I would have hated the time out before the 4th and 19.  Yeah, lets give the Ravens a second to catch their breath during that chaos.  (Thanks!)

I also developed a mini conspiracy theory during the game that Detroit purposely false started on 4th and shorts so they wouldn't be second guessed punting the ball.  I though when they kept the offense on the field after the first one that they caught me saying something stupid out loud, but then they just took a delay of game.

 
Dizzy said:
Seemed like Detroit offense had it rolling in the 4th QTR but dropped anchor and played for the go-ahead FG too soon. I thought they should have pushed for a TD.
Click to expand...
Three drives in a row they drive the length of the field.

75 yards, got to the RZ, scored TD

Bal responds with a drive and a FG

75 yards, got to the RZ, scored TD

Bal has a drive that ends with an INT

After starting the last two drives on their 25 they start the third in their own 23. Drive 63 yards, the last being a 22 yard pass to the 14.

They could not stop the Lions. But Detroit turtled up, two dive plays and off tackle. 3 straight runs, did not even take a shot at the end zone. HATE that mentality. Left them enough time to beat us with a FG, and their K is great at long range.

 
Up 17-16 with a minute left, Detroit’s D-line stepped up big time. Sack, next play Lamar is running fir his life & throws it incomplete, next play is another sack. Baltimore was out of timeouts, it was 4th and 19.

4th and 19, on their own 16, out of timeouts, clock is running.

Dan Campbell called timeout.

After the timeout, they rushed three. Lamar hit Sammy Watkins for a 36 yarder.

The defense did its job. 4 sacks, interception, the Ravens were 1/10 on 3rd down. All they had to do was trust them for one more play.

Time out.

POSTGAME

Jackson said they needed tat timeout.

“Because coach (John Harbaugh) changed the play. He went to another play, and that’s what helped us get that field goal drive going,” Jackson said after the game. “I was happy for that timeout because we needed a little breather. Our linemen needed a little breather. The crowd was rocking. I don’t know where that crowd came from. We weren’t hearing it all game, and they just came out of nowhere. It was tough to play in Detroit today, for sure.”

He saw the defense go three-down, which “gave us a lot of time,” calling for double teams on the outside. The former MVP quarterback credited Watkins for getting open and making the play.

smh

 
Thoughts on Gruden's apparent review strategy where he calls a timeout so his staff can presumably take time to review and then decide to challenge? 

On the one hand, I can see how this may be smart because if the time taken allows you to conclude there isn't a likelihood of it being overturned, you save yourself a challenge and while a timeout is "wasted" you at least didn't also lose a challenge. On the other hand, though, timeouts are obviously quite valuable - especially in the second half - so I'm not sure it's +EV to use up a timeout to then not even challenge (whereas if you just challenge you have the chance of it being overturned and the timeout at least gets you an official review). 

The announcers during the game seemed torn on this and I think i'm torn as well.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
If I was a Detroit fan I would have hated the time out before the 4th and 19.  Yeah, lets give the Ravens a second to catch their breath during that chaos.  (Thanks!)

I also developed a mini conspiracy theory during the game that Detroit purposely false started on 4th and shorts so they wouldn't be second guessed punting the ball.  I though when they kept the offense on the field after the first one that they caught me saying something stupid out loud, but then they just took a delay of game.
Click to expand...
This crossed my mind as well.

 
Zow said:
Thoughts on Gruden's apparent review strategy where he calls a timeout so his staff can presumably take time to review and then decide to challenge? 

On the one hand, I can see how this may be smart because if the time taken allows you to conclude there isn't a likelihood of it being overturned, you save yourself a challenge and while a timeout is "wasted" you at least didn't also lose a challenge. On the other hand, though, timeouts are obviously quite valuable - especially in the second half - so I'm not sure it's +EV to use up a timeout to then not even challenge (whereas if you just challenge you have the chance of it being overturned and the timeout at least gets you an official review). 

The announcers during the game seemed torn on this and I think i'm torn as well.
Click to expand...
Didn't see the play you reference but leads me to my grrrrr from John Harbaugh in that same vein. Harbs has a silly habit of throwing challenge flags on plays that have absolutely no chance of being overturned as if he believes divine intervention will save the Ravens. He did it again yesterday when he threw a challenge flag late in the 4th qtr on a clearly obvious catch by the lions wr. the play was called a catch on the field and was confirmed by replay costing the ravens a huge TO they could have used later in the game. fortunately the ravens did get some divine intervention thanks to some blind refs at the end of the game and the huge leg of St. Tuck of Houston so alls well that ends well but those challenges tick me off to no end.

 
Almost certainly won't affect the outcome, but Dallas absolutely should have gone for two after scoring to make it 33-14. I still remember the playoff game where Atlanta did the same thing and Seattle came back and scored three TDs to take the lead.

 
Thoughts on New England attempting a 56-yard FG on 4th and 3? The 4th down bot didn’t like it. Numbers aside, I didn’t like that it was a tough kick and, even if you hit it, Brady still has plenty of time to drive for another FG. Whereas if you can convert, you’re closer AND you can run the clock down

 
ignatiusjreilly said:
Thoughts on New England attempting a 56-yard FG on 4th and 3? The 4th down bot didn’t like it. Numbers aside, I didn’t like that it was a tough kick and, even if you hit it, Brady still has plenty of time to drive for another FG. Whereas if you can convert, you’re closer AND you can run the clock down
Click to expand...


Turrible.

If there's 5 seconds left, sure.  But with a minute left (and 2 timeouts for the Bucs) I wouldn't attempt a difficult 56 yard FG in the rain that has a pretty good chance it won't win the game even if you make it.

 
ignatiusjreilly said:
Thoughts on New England attempting a 56-yard FG on 4th and 3? The 4th down bot didn’t like it. Numbers aside, I didn’t like that it was a tough kick and, even if you hit it, Brady still has plenty of time to drive for another FG. Whereas if you can convert, you’re closer AND you can run the clock down
Click to expand...
BB said after the game they didn’t consider going for it. 

 
McVay’s series at the 1 foot line was inexplicable. Henderson was running extremely well. Hand him the ball.

—————

NEP kicking a long FG in the rain instead of going for the 3 yards on 4th down was a terrible call by hoodie. 

 
I didn't understand anything about the end of that Tampa-NE game. First Tampa attempting 2 deep passes which stopped the clock when they were moving the ball well, and settling for the 48 yard FG in rain. Lucky to make it, but they left 2 minutes. Then the Pats, getting 3 yards seems a lot more likely than kicking a 56 yard FG in rain. 

 
BigJim® said:
I didn't understand anything about the end of that Tampa-NE game. First Tampa attempting 2 deep passes which stopped the clock when they were moving the ball well, and settling for the 48 yard FG in rain. Lucky to make it, but they left 2 minutes. Then the Pats, getting 3 yards seems a lot more likely than kicking a 56 yard FG in rain. 
Click to expand...
Not disagreeing with you, but I suspect the logic was that Jones was playing hurt, and they wanted to target him and see if they could get the TD to put the game away.

 
Hot Sauce Guy said:
Anarchy99 said:
BB said after the game they didn’t consider going for it. 
Click to expand...
He should have. 
Click to expand...
Trying to give the benefit of the doubt to the greatest coach in NFL history, who knows more about football than everyone in this thread combined ...

The best I can come up with is that he trusted his defense to stop Brady more than he did Mac Jones to convert the 4th down.

[thinks ...]

Yeah, I'm still not buying it. The fact that it was a driving rain and Folk was hurt just makes the argument for going for it even stronger.

 
ignatiusjreilly said:
Trying to give the benefit of the doubt to the greatest coach in NFL history, who knows more about football than everyone in this thread combined ...

The best I can come up with is that he trusted his defense to stop Brady more than he did Mac Jones to convert the 4th down.

[thinks ...]

Yeah, I'm still not buying it. The fact that it was a driving rain and Folk was hurt just makes the argument for going for it even stronger.
Click to expand...
Folk apparently was making kicks in the rain in pregame warmups from 56 or 58 yards. That’s why he get comfortable letting him try from distance at the end of the game. 

 
ignatiusjreilly said:
Not disagreeing with you, but I suspect the logic was that Jones was playing hurt, and they wanted to target him and see if they could get the TD to put the game away.
Click to expand...
Would that have put the game away? I think it just forces NE to score a TD itself with 2 minutes to work with. I'd argue that holding the ball and using those snaps working for a much shorter FG - leaving no time left for NE to do anything at all - is what 'puts the game away.' 

 
Didn't watch the end of Cleveland-LAC, but I understand that the Browns pushed Ekeler into the end zone for the winning TD. My question is, if they didn't want to score, why were the Chargers running the ball in the first place? Why not just take a knee? They had first and goal at the 3, and Cleveland had no time outs. They could have easily run the clock down and kicked the chip-shot FG as time expired.

I think Staley is a great coach, but this is the second time this year he has scored early and given the ball back to the other team with a chance to win the game. It's worked out for him both times, but from a process standpoint, it seems sub-optimal.

 
ignatiusjreilly said:
Didn't watch the end of Cleveland-LAC, but I understand that the Browns pushed Ekeler into the end zone for the winning TD. My question is, if they didn't want to score, why were the Chargers running the ball in the first place? Why not just take a knee?
Click to expand...
Some of us asked that question in the game thread. It made no sense. 

 
Posted this in the game thread, but I loved Buffalo's decision to go for it on 4th down at the end, didn't like the play call. The problem was that the sneak, even if it had been successful, would still have left them a yard or two away with 22 seconds and no timeouts (since they would have had to use the last one after converting). I think they should have treated the play like 4th and goal and tried to end it right there.

 
ignatiusjreilly said:
Posted this in the game thread, but I loved Buffalo's decision to go for it on 4th down at the end, didn't like the play call. The problem was that the sneak, even if it had been successful, would still have left them a yard or two away with 22 seconds and no timeouts (since they would have had to use the last one after converting). I think they should have treated the play like 4th and goal and tried to end it right there.
Click to expand...
I thought they got way too cute trying to leave zero time left on the clock for Tennessee to get the ball back.  They needed to score a TD and get up by 4……but showed zero urgency.

 
Yup, clearly the right call I think but I’m not sneaking it anywhere close to Simmons there. He wrecked my Ravens twice on 4th down in the playoffs on 4th and short.

 
ignatiusjreilly said:
Posted this in the game thread, but I loved Buffalo's decision to go for it on 4th down at the end, didn't like the play call. The problem was that the sneak, even if it had been successful, would still have left them a yard or two away with 22 seconds and no timeouts (since they would have had to use the last one after converting). I think they should have treated the play like 4th and goal and tried to end it right there.
Click to expand...
Thought the same thing. Figure if you kick the FG, you have a 50/50 chance of winning (slightly less because there's time on the clock for TEN). If you play it like a 2-point conversion, you win if you score (~50/50, maybe more with a good offense and beat-up defense). But if you play to get half a yard, first you have to get the half yard, then you still need to score.

 
If you didn't see the TWO challenges by Fangio/Denver in the 2nd half, it's worth a look.  Incomprehensibly bad.  Zero chance of either being overturned.  Not a smidge of evidence to suggest otherwise in replays.  Whoever is calling those shots, I would love to know how they got there.

And also what they get paid.  This is the NFL.  Those decisions were as clear as it gets.  And there they were, burning timeouts.  Comical.

 
CalBear said:
Thought the same thing. Figure if you kick the FG, you have a 50/50 chance of winning (slightly less because there's time on the clock for TEN). If you play it like a 2-point conversion, you win if you score (~50/50, maybe more with a good offense and beat-up defense). But if you play to get half a yard, first you have to get the half yard, then you still need to score.
Click to expand...
Except getting the half yard gives you 3-4 more chances to get the final 2 yards, which greatly increases the odds of being successful. I think the decision to go or kick was a coin flip, but I don't agree with going for the win on 4th down.

 
humpback said:
Except getting the half yard gives you 3-4 more chances to get the final 2 yards, which greatly increases the odds of being successful. I think the decision to go or kick was a coin flip, but I don't agree with going for the win on 4th down.
Click to expand...
Fair point, and I hadn't thought of it that way (although with 22 seconds and no TOs, maybe more like 2-3 plays, and a constrained playbook because every play needs to go to either the sidelines or the end zone).

 
ignatiusjreilly said:
Fair point, and I hadn't thought of it that way (although with 22 seconds and no TOs, maybe more like 2-3 plays, and a constrained playbook because every play needs to go to either the sidelines or the end zone).
Click to expand...
They would have been at the 2 yard line (or closer), so yeah every play would be in the end zone, meaning very quick plays taking 3-4 seconds each. They easily could have run 3 plays then kicked the FG or gone for it on 4th. Of course, slight chance at taking a sack or something, but it also would have reduced the already tiny chance that Tenn scored after they did so that's a wash.

 
humpback said:
They would have been at the 2 yard line (or closer), so yeah every play would be in the end zone, meaning very quick plays taking 3-4 seconds each. They easily could have run 3 plays then kicked the FG or gone for it on 4th. Of course, slight chance at taking a sack or something, but it also would have reduced the already tiny chance that Tenn scored after they did so that's a wash.
Click to expand...
I don't see it.  22 seconds with no time outs.  After the QB sneak there's a big pile of players with a lot of the Tenn players on top of yours.  I think it would be difficult to get all your players lined up without using up most of that time.  I doubt they could get off more than 1 play, maybe 2 max.

 
Marauder said:
I don't see it.  22 seconds with no time outs.  After the QB sneak there's a big pile of players with a lot of the Tenn players on top of yours.  I think it would be difficult to get all your players lined up without using up most of that time.  I doubt they could get off more than 1 play, maybe 2 max.
Click to expand...
They would have clocked the ball first.  That probably leaves 10 seconds. That's enough for two (or three) plays from the 2 yd line.  

 
humpback said:
They would have been at the 2 yard line (or closer), so yeah every play would be in the end zone, meaning very quick plays taking 3-4 seconds each. They easily could have run 3 plays then kicked the FG or gone for it on 4th. Of course, slight chance at taking a sack or something, but it also would have reduced the already tiny chance that Tenn scored after they did so that's a wash.
Click to expand...
The first play would have been to clock the ball to stop the clock.  I would guess that would have left about 10 seconds which would have been enough time for 2 or 3 plays from the 2 yd line.  

 
Marauder said:
I don't see it.  22 seconds with no time outs.  After the QB sneak there's a big pile of players with a lot of the Tenn players on top of yours.  I think it would be difficult to get all your players lined up without using up most of that time.  I doubt they could get off more than 1 play, maybe 2 max.
Click to expand...


Gally said:
The first play would have been to clock the ball to stop the clock.  I would guess that would have left about 10 seconds which would have been enough time for 2 or 3 plays from the 2 yd line.  
Click to expand...
The Bills had 1 TO left. The TO on the play before was taken by Tennessee.

 
Gally said:
The first play would have been to clock the ball to stop the clock.  I would guess that would have left about 10 seconds which would have been enough time for 2 or 3 plays from the 2 yd line.  
Click to expand...
You don't need to run a sneak on 4th down to get those chances. Run a real play, WR screen, QB draw, read-option, whatever. It's clearly better to get the TD on 4th down rather than getting half a yard. And you can still get the half a yard with a real play. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Spin
Down 14 with under 5 minutes and you score, do you go for 2?
2
Replies
73
Views
2K
Brunell4MVP
B
Hot Sauce Guy
Post Here When FF Coaches (AKA, You) Do Something You Disagree with
Replies
15
Views
599
Chaka
Chaka
P
Fantasy football owners: When do you stop blaming the coaching staff and start blaming the player?
Replies
21
Views
669
Instinctive
Instinctive

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top