Can’t fair catch a ball that has hit the ground. But you can not try to advance it and be ruled down almost immediately. I don’t think the ball goes to the 25 in the NFL if a kickoff is fair caught.
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 (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter GreenNGold
- Start date
Zow
Footballguy
I agree here. Ideally, the high kick to the ten or a really good squib that forces some sort of return action are the best plays. But, those aren't that easy to pull off and you put into play possible bad outcomes (e.g. long Hill return, kick off out of bounds, a squib duffed a bit and a catch made ~the 40 anyway, etc.).
Objectively (I didn't have a dog in this case and had financial "investments" on either side of the outcome so I wasn't watching with a rooting interest to bias me), I did not think in the moment that the touchback kick was a bad call at all. If anything, I thought the defense (or lack thereof) on the next two plays were the problem, if anything (still credit to KC for both calling and executing two perfect play calls for the situation).
Zow
Footballguy
Wow, yeah, I'm surprised this one is being debated so heavily here. I thought going for it in the moment was the obvious play. They just didn't execute.
No, I'm pointing out that when the analytics update those decisions will be in favor of losing, right? Going for it increased their chances by 3% but the next time someone looks at it it will only increase their chance of winning by 2.5%. Something like that is what I meant.
Tau837
Footballguy
I tried to Google it and didn't find any evidence to support my claim. I could have sworn I saw this occur in the NFL this season, but I must have been thinking of college games. My mistake.
In that case, I agree that a high kickoff short of the goal line would have been the best approach. Regardless, the point is that there was an option better than just kicking deep for a touchback.
Tau837
Footballguy
rockaction
Footballguy
I know these are pro kickers, but people forget that it's not easy to kick a ball on command like we're asking them to do in this thread. That ball could easily wind up out of bounds, like Tampa did twice yesterday on their attempts to get hang time and place it in between the hash and sidelines.
Now I guess kicking a pooch kick with hang time in between the hashes is in play, but that just leads to the fair catch dilemma or a big return, which I personally think was unlikely. And if it's a fair catch, you're really back to square one but with the risk of it going OOB.
Now I guess kicking a pooch kick with hang time in between the hashes is in play, but that just leads to the fair catch dilemma or a big return, which I personally think was unlikely. And if it's a fair catch, you're really back to square one but with the risk of it going OOB.
Last edited by a moderator:
ignatiusjreilly
Footballguy
Agreed. I'm open to the idea that they could have come up with something better, but I don't think there was any one guaranteed option. Anything they tried could have blown up in their face just like this one did. The nature of "black swan" losses like this one is that a million different things had to all break the same way to get the outcome we got. So it's easy to point to any of them and say it was decisive. It's a little like when Congress passes a bill by one vote and the opposition is free to attack every single rep who voted for it as casting the "decisive vote".
Zow
Footballguy
Exactly as to the bold. Because of the potential risks, I do think that the touchback was the "safest" and most +EV play there.
Steady Mooobin
Footballguy
How do you say this so matter of factly? Just because some numbers on a sheet tell you do something does not make it true.
At gotcha. No that’s not how it works. They made a decision that led to more points and an increased chance of winning. They won’t get dinged because over the course of the other 150-200 plays they ended up losing.
You mean that the 4th down calls were correct? Or that losing the game won’t impact the win% of such choices in the future?
Is this actually how it works? Is it model-based or is it outcome-based? Everyone tries to act like it's based on real data from actual games, but I don't think they know that for sure. I suspect it's actually model-based (like those dumb AWS commercials) which to me means it's worthless and why Hoyle is still correct.
Steady Mooobin
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
ignatiusjreilly
Footballguy
The NFL passed a rule change that made this harder in 2017. Teams that do that can now be penalized with 15 yards and, more importantly, a clock reset.
It sounds like the determining factor is "multiple fouls on the same play". Here's my question: What if the Bills try to accomplish the same goal by sending out 12, or hell, 16 men on defense? It's not necessarily as guaranteed to stop the offense as intentionally holding all the WRs, but could still be pretty effective. Or would that count as "multiple fouls"?
I guess the question is, if you were a little more subtle about the cheating, could you get away with it? Clearly the NFL doesn't want teams to be able to manipulate the clock in those situations, but it sounds like the rule might still have some loopholes.
CalBear
Footballguy
Hmmmm. I was unaware of this rule change. What about then just holding Hill or Kelce (pick one so you don't get the multiple foul situation) and then shift everyone else on the other guys to help prevent the longer plays?
As far as the too many men on the field, I think it is a dead ball foul if the formation is lined up that way rather than a guy being "Rodgers-ed" as he is running off the field. If the refs can see it as the play is imminent I think they blow it dead and assess the yards. I could be wrong about that.
Yeah, that seems to be the way they call it now. I'm guessing it's for "player safety" but it's super dumb.
A large chunk of analytics is based on historical outcomes from real games. I’m sure there’s a modeling component to account for the abilities of the teams playing as well as how outcome percentages have changed over time. And I’m sure there’s tons of shades of gray on what goes into that. I don’t know what goes into the AWS commercials but highly unlikely it’s anything very sophisticated. I wouldn’t let it jade you on analytics lol. I don’t know who Hoyle is.
Sure. It’s a tool. An important one though. Got something better? There’s plenty of wiggle room at the margins but in large if you're betting against history (if the history is analyzed/modeled correctly), you’re probably wrong.
In this situation is there anything about playing Mahomes and the Chiefs that makes you think you would want to be conservative and not maximize possessions/points?
The Duff Man
Footballguy
fred_1_15301
Footballguy
On the very first play, the Bills defenders should have been instructed to hold each and every one of the receivers. Maybe not make it super blatant but effective enough to prevent them from getting a lot of yards. That would have run off at least a few seconds. After that, just play good defense for 10 friggin seconds.
DropKick
Footballguy
Numbers without meaning? You're way too casual about dismissing some numbers but taking others as gospel. Here is my quote:
McPherson is 11 for 13 (84%) on 50+ yard attempts this year. As for Justin Tucker, he was 35 for 37 on FG attempts this year, and was perfect (that means 100%) from 50 plus. His career percentage is 73%, and I'm sure some of the misses were the end of the half equivalent of Hail Marys. The odds of converting 4th and 1 is about 65%.
The last number is an NFL average... Some bot told you it was a 71% chance... still less than a stud kicker's chances and possibly too generous since we don't know that Henry was 100%. At 3.0 YPC he was not his normal self. The math swings an lot based on these percentages.
I don't try the kick with Bullock but I do with Tucker. I think the Ravens would too. Let's try this hypothetical... if you knew the outcome of either play would be successful, would you kick or convert?
ignatiusjreilly
Footballguy
You can't just use the conversion rate, because that doesn't account for the fact that a FG is 3 points, whereas converting the drive preserves the possibility of a TD. The key metric is expected points added. If a kicker converts at 80%, his EPA is 2.4. I have no idea what the Titans' EPA was if they had converted the 4th down, but I'm guessing it was greater than their EPA from kicking it.
Totally agree with you on the Henry thing. That's one of those exogenous factors that models can't account for (and to be fair, I'm not aware of anyone who argues that you should ignore stuff like that.) IMO one thing you can definitely fault Vrabel for in that game was putting too much faith in Henry even though he clearly wasn't himself.
DropKick
Footballguy
I took a Decision Theory course in college... so I'm familiar with the expected value.
Converting still doesn't put points on the board. You might turn it over, make/miss a FG, but not necessarily score the TD. But, sure, it could yield a higher EPA.
However, I would consider the time left in the game. And I'm looking for an end-game strategy. This was just over 7 minutes as I recall. You can't really predict the number of possessions left but I like the scenario of taking the lead and then each team getting one possession. For example, say the Bengals have a 3-4 minute possession and you hold them to a FG or, better yet, get a stop, you would be in good position. Even if they score the TD, you would hope for enough time to counter. Obviously, the worst case is a TD drive that drains the clock but that doesn't seem likely.
Kicking short isn't optimal otherwise every kickoff would be short.
I'll still die on the hill that driving 45 yards in 13 seconds and kicking a long field happens less than returning a kickoff for a TD and losing or returning a kickoff 55 yards and kicking a long FG.
Also if you're a coach, losing like you did is on the players, ordering a kickoff that can be returned for a TD is going to point back to you.
I’m glad that you agree with my original statement that you clearly don’t kick it with Bullock.
You provided numbers without reaching a meaningful conclusion. Do you think McPherson has an 84% chance to make 53 yard fg as your post implies? Because that would be 11% higher than the best kicker in NFL history from that range. And that would be 2.5 expected points. First down from between the 30 and 35 would have an expected points of 3.6-3.9 points. It would also have the added value of running more time off the clock and (unless you lost a bunch of yards on the play) not giving the ball back to the other team on their own 43. I don’t have the numbers on the Titans but they were noted to be one of the best short yardage teams in the NFL. If you put them at 70% to make it they’d be at 2.5 expected points if they got only the 1 yard they needed. With all the other benefits I mentioned, I firmly stand by your kicker would have to be in the upper 80s (probably higher actually) before those things even out.
If I knew each scenario would be successful I’m going for it easily as my expected points would be much higher having first and 10 inside the 35 and I’d have the added benefit of running more time off the clock.
In the playoffs 2020 the Ravens in Tenn had a 4th and 2 at the Titans 23 yard line WITH Justin Tucker at kicker. 4:28 left. So they were in easier fg range, with the GOAT, more yards needed, less time left, crucial situation…and elected to go for it.
DropKick
Footballguy
Completely agree with the last point and much of this conversation is 20/20 hindsight
ignatiusjreilly
Footballguy
I mean, this is the problem with like 85% of the scenarios that have been discussed in this thread. Coaches should coach in a way that maximizes win probability, not that minimizes criticism.
Fortunately, that has started to shift in recent years, both because a) coaches increasingly recognize that fact and b) so do fans and the media, which means coaches are just as likely to face criticism for being overly conservative as they are for being too aggressive.
DropKick
Footballguy
I wish you would read more closely.
I don' t think the Titans had a 70% chance of converting in THAT situation with a less than 100% Henry. Citing their season stats is not necessarily accurate.
You keep saying running more time off the clock is a positive. Let's say you run the clock down to 3 minutes and still settle for a FG. Is that good or bad? I can easily see not getting the ball back.
Laughing at your 2020 example... they already had a lead, lost 10 yards on a penalty and then Tucker kicked a 51 FG
DropKick
Footballguy
Do you consider 3.6-3.9 much higher than 3? This isn't a simulation, its a season ending, small sample size of one.
One scenario that would allow us to see an NFL coach make a comparable decision would be a successful FG with a defensive penalty that, if accepted, would take points off the board but provide a first down.
I would be very reluctant to NOT take the lead this late in game. You had already sacked Burrow 8 or 9 times and one defensive stop could end the game.
Let’s simplify this discussion. We’ve moved past the notion that Bullock kicking makes any sort of sense so let’s continue playing your hypotheticals until you get one right. Why don’t you give me your personal % on the Titans making that first down. And give me your personal % on the chance a stud kicker can make a 53 yard fg on that field.
The time on the clock is interesting. I’m almost certain you’d rather lead by 3 with less time remaining. But I can see a scenario where that’s a weird looking curve so I won’t commit to that 100%.
Explain further why the 2020 example isn’t relevant? Going from up 4 to up by 7 is a very important difference. It’s a crucial situation where a fg is huge. And where a first down is huge. The Ravens are one of the more analytic driven teams and elected to go for it. It’s a very good example and directly contradicts your thoughts that with Tucker they would kick.
Yes 3.6-3.9 is much bigger than 3 in this realm. Now 7 minutes left is “this late in the game” when before you were saying it might be good to score at 7 mins since that’s earlier so you can have a shot at another possession if the other team scores? Now with 7 mins left one defensive stop wins it? Your logic here isn’t consistent.
edit- to add to the bolded the pff win probability calculator puts you at 80.6% to win if you accept the hypothetical offsides penalty to put it first and 10 at the 30. If you take the 3 points and kickoff that drops to 72.8%.
Last edited by a moderator:
Tau837
Footballguy
It's not 20/20 hindsight for those who thought in real-time that kicking short or bouncing the kickoff down the middle were better options. Didn't Collinsworth and Michaels say that they were surprised at the decision prior to watching KC drive to tie?
ignatiusjreilly
Footballguy
I’ve come around to squibing it could carry some additional risk that might make it not worth it. But I don’t think you’re more likely to get a long return into fg range or for a td than you are to get 2 chunk plays with 2 TOs. Just my opinion, I don’t have much more than that to back it up other than that I can remember one NFL play in my life that scored in that situation- Music City Miracle. Curious if others can think of more.
As for the bolded, you can’t compare every kickoff to this situation. Here, burning time is a huge deal. Regular kickoffs it’s not.
edit- didn’t mean to quote JWB
Last edited by a moderator:
Sam Quentin
Footballguy
Key points in going for it
- kills more clock
- gets the kick closer
- a miss puts the Bengals in better field position - those 7 yards are critical
if you know either play will be successfully, you go…
ignatiusjreilly
Footballguy
Not totally against KC going for the kill shot at the end of the half, but didn’t like having Mahomes throw it short of the end zone
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
I doubt that was a coaching decision for him to throw it to a guy at the 3 yard line. Mahomes just blew it.
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
Wait, they should have gone for it on 4th goal at the 26 instead of tying the game with a FG? That is your position?
ignatiusjreilly
Footballguy
I think he’s trolling us
ignatiusjreilly
Footballguy
You think he audibled? I’d imagine in that situation you’re using one of your two-point conversion designed plays
ignatiusjreilly
Footballguy
I get the Rams challenging that 4th down spot after Stafford’s sneak because of the stakes, but there was no chance of that getting overturned
ignatiusjreilly
Footballguy
Similar threads
