Post here when coaches do something you disagree with (2 Viewers)

[ignatiusjreilly]

I can't complain too much since it led to such an exciting end of the game, but the clock management on both sides of today's Bengals-Broncos game was truly atrocious. The Bengals will probably be second guessed mostly for scoring the TD from the 1 with 1:20 left and Denver still having a timeout, which gave the Broncos enough time to drive down and score a tying TD with 8 seconds left. But the real mistake came right after the two-minute warning.

Cinci had 1st and 10 at the Denver 21; Broncos had two timeouts. You're already in FG range (or so we all thought at the time; though Cade York would soon give us reason to doubt that). In that situation, best thing to do is run the ball and force Denver to use timeouts. Instead, they went short pass to Brown, who allowed himself to get pushed out of bounds; incomplete pass, and then throw on 3rd down which they were fortunate enough to convert to Chase. Now it's 1st and goal at the 6, Brown runs five yards and goes down at the 1, but he gets injured on the play and Cinci is forced to use its own TO to stop the clock. Now it's 2nd and goal at the 1 with 1:29 left and Denver still holding one TO. I guess the logic is that you're not going to be able to run the clock all the way down, so you might as well score the TD. I think that's debatable, but they never would have been in that situation if they had run more clock down after the two-minute warning.

OK, now Denver puts together an impressive drive to score with 8 seconds left. IMO the general rule of thumb is that road underdogs should go for two in that situation, since you're chances in OT are probably below 50%, but it's a close call.

What was far more unforgivable was Denver's conservatism in OT, particularly after York doinked the FG and gave them the ball back on their own 23. I think Payton's logic was that a tie would be as good as a win for Denver at that point (would have clinched their playoff spot) so the goal was to run the clock down. Problem was that there was 2:43 left and Cinci had two TOs plus the 2MW. Denver goes run, short pass that lost yardage, incomplete pass and punts back to Cinci having burned only 14 seconds, giving Burrow plenty of time to execute the game-winning drive. Even if Denver just wanted to run the clock out and get the tie, they should have known that they would need at least one first down.

Watching that sequence, all I kept thinking was how glad I was to be a Lions fan.There's no way Ben Johnson turtles up in a situation like that.. He probably rips off a couple play-action passes over the middle of the field to ARSB and LaPorta, maybe even a hook-and-lateral or a tackle-eligible or some trick play no one's ever even thought of

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

I can't complain too much since it led to such an exciting end of the game, but the clock management on both sides of today's Bengals-Broncos game was truly atrocious. The Bengals will probably be second guessed mostly for scoring the TD from the 1 with 1:20 left and Denver still having a timeout, which gave the Broncos enough time to drive down and score a tying TD with 8 seconds left. But the real mistake came right after the two-minute warning.

Cinci had 1st and 10 at the Denver 21; Broncos had two timeouts. You're already in FG range (or so we all thought at the time; though Cade York would soon give us reason to doubt that). In that situation, best thing to do is run the ball and force Denver to use timeouts. Instead, they went short pass to Brown, who allowed himself to get pushed out of bounds; incomplete pass, and then throw on 3rd down which they were fortunate enough to convert to Chase. Now it's 1st and goal at the 6, Brown runs five yards and goes down at the 1, but he gets injured on the play and Cinci is forced to use its own TO to stop the clock. Now it's 2nd and goal at the 1 with 1:29 left and Denver still holding one TO. I guess the logic is that you're not going to be able to run the clock all the way down, so you might as well score the TD. I think that's debatable, but they never would have been in that situation if they had run more clock down after the two-minute warning.

OK, now Denver puts together an impressive drive to score with 8 seconds left. IMO the general rule of thumb is that road underdogs should go for two in that situation, since you're chances in OT are probably below 50%, but it's a close call.

What was far more unforgivable was Denver's conservatism in OT, particularly after York doinked the FG and gave them the ball back on their own 23. I think Payton's logic was that a tie would be as good as a win for Denver at that point (would have clinched their playoff spot) so the goal was to run the clock down. Problem was that there was 2:43 left and Cinci had two TOs plus the 2MW. Denver goes run, short pass that lost yardage, incomplete pass and punts back to Cinci having burned only 14 seconds, giving Burrow plenty of time to execute the game-winning drive. Even if Denver just wanted to run the clock out and get the tie, they should have known that they would need at least one first down.

Watching that sequence, all I kept thinking was how glad I was to be a Lions fan.There's no way Ben Johnson turtles up in a situation like that.. He probably rips off a couple play-action passes over the middle of the field to ARSB and LaPorta, maybe even a hook-and-lateral or a tackle-eligible or some trick play no one's ever even thought of

I saw where Payton was asked about kicking the XP at the end of regulation, and he said it was because they knew a tie was a good as a win. That was also clearly evident in their play calling on their last OT drive. The problem with that logic is that if you’re playing for a tie but aren’t actually in a position to make that happen, your excessive caution can make a loss more likely.

Also doesn’t explain why, if the goal was to run the clock down, Denver used both of its timeouts in OT

 

[pecorino]

I thought it was just Mike Tomlin but darned if several other coaches have a hard time knowing how to manage the clock and timeouts before halftime or at the end of the game. The Falcons just went into halftime settling for a field goal with two seconds left and all three timeouts in their pocket. Some atrocious clock management but since they kicked a field goal (and it was on fourth down), maybe the coach won't be skewered.

Seems to me that in a business with just about infinite money, teams could hire one specific person (lots of us FBGs could do better) whose sole job is to manage the timeouts. It shouldn't be this difficult.

 

[Chaka]

Raheem Morris is apparently allergic to time outs.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Raheem Morris is apparently allergic to time outs.

Little known fact: Unused timeouts can be exchanged for free sandwiches at Chick-Fil-A

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

I don't think he handled the end of regulation well on Saturday, but I actually think this is a little harsh on Zac Taylor. The main criticism seems to be that he had Chase Brown run it instead of taking a knee. I take his point that there's no meaningful difference between kicking from the 6 or the 1, but I also think that Brown getting injured while sliding and then forcing Cinci to take an injury timeout was a total black swan play that represented the worst-case scenario for the Bengals. I can't recall ever seeing a guy get injured in a situation like that.

I still maintain the bigger sin was not running the clock down on the plays before that coming out of the two-minute warning

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

What was far more unforgivable was Denver's conservatism in OT, particularly after York doinked the FG and gave them the ball back on their own 23. I think Payton's logic was that a tie would be as good as a win for Denver at that point (would have clinched their playoff spot) so the goal was to run the clock down. Problem was that there was 2:43 left and Cinci had two TOs plus the 2MW. Denver goes run, short pass that lost yardage, incomplete pass and punts back to Cinci having burned only 14 seconds, giving Burrow plenty of time to execute the game-winning drive. Even if Denver just wanted to run the clock out and get the tie, they should have known that they would need at least one first down.

Watching that sequence, all I kept thinking was how glad I was to be a Lions fan.There's no way Ben Johnson turtles up in a situation like that.. He probably rips off a couple play-action passes over the middle of the field to ARSB and LaPorta, maybe even a hook-and-lateral or a tackle-eligible or some trick play no one's ever even thought of

I saw where Payton was asked about kicking the XP at the end of regulation, and he said it was because they knew a tie was a good as a win. That was also clearly evident in their play calling on their last OT drive. The problem with that logic is that if you’re playing for a tie but aren’t actually in a position to make that happen, your excessive caution can make a loss more likely.

Also doesn’t explain why, if the goal was to run the clock down, Denver used both of its timeouts in OT

One last point on this: Washington faced a somewhat similar situation last night, heading into OT knowing that a tie would clinch the playoffs. But they stayed aggressive on offense and drove down the field for a game-winning TD. And they were facing a rookie QB in his second start, not Joe Burrow!

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Raheem Morris’ explanation for not calling a TO

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Even Kevin O'Connell went into "my precious times outses" mode yesterday just before halftime.

 

[Tau837]

Didn't matter, but why did Detroit decide to kick the extra point when they went up 40-28? They missed it, but that isn't really the point. I guess they could reasonably assume that even if SF scored a TD, they would fail to recover the onside kick... or fail to score a second TD even if they did... or fail to make at least one extra point for one of those TDs if they scored twice... but it seems like an odd choice, especially for Campbell.

 

[nysfl2]

Didn't matter, but why did Detroit decide to kick the extra point when they went up 40-28? They missed it, but that isn't really the point. I guess they could reasonably assume that even if SF scored a TD, they would fail to recover the onside kick... or fail to score a second TD even if they did... or fail to make at least one extra point for one of those TDs if they scored twice... but it seems like an odd choice, especially for Campbell.

He didn’t want to risk anyone getting injured on the meaningless play

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Some odd decisions on two-point conversations today. Commanders go for two after scoring to go up 4. Even weirder, Bears score to go up 7, go for two, don’t get it, get a defensive penalty, and then decide to kick

 

[sho nuff]

Packers lost by poor coaching and stupidity. 3rd down before the go ahead FG rushed the play…didn’t get the 1st and left an extra 25 seconds or so for Chicago
3rd and long for Chicago with little time left…why are the safeties that far down field and leaving one on one with the best wr wide open to the middle with plenty of time for a spike.

Pissed away the 6th seed by being dumb.

 

[Desert_Power]

Amazing that this play wasn't challenged. Not that it was a certain catch, but the coach has to throw the flag to challenge there. That is not the way to earn a HC shot.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Packers lost by poor coaching and stupidity. 3rd down before the go ahead FG rushed the play…didn’t get the 1st and left an extra 25 seconds or so for Chicago
3rd and long for Chicago with little time left…why are the safeties that far down field and leaving one on one with the best wr wide open to the middle with plenty of time for a spike.

Pissed away the 6th seed by being dumb.

If it makes you feel any better, the Commanders win meant that GB’s game was irrelevant. They would have been the 7 seed regardless

 

[sho nuff]

Packers lost by poor coaching and stupidity. 3rd down before the go ahead FG rushed the play…didn’t get the 1st and left an extra 25 seconds or so for Chicago
3rd and long for Chicago with little time left…why are the safeties that far down field and leaving one on one with the best wr wide open to the middle with plenty of time for a spike.

Pissed away the 6th seed by being dumb.

If it makes you feel any better, the Commanders win meant that GB’s game was irrelevant. They would have been the 7 seed regardless

In the end its all meaningless as this team just doesn’t have it. Couldn’t stop the bears in the 4th quarter. Cant beat good teams either

Still just absolutely terrible coaching errors down the stretch.

 

[joeschmo]

Some odd decisions on two-point conversations today. Commanders go for two after scoring to go up 4. Even weirder, Bears score to go up 7, go for two, don’t get it, get a defensive penalty, and then decide to kick

Twilight zone stuff.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Not really in keeping with the spirit of the thread (epa affected by coaches decision), but I felt like KOC didn't coach his game tonight.

Just feels like if you have only gone for it on 4th down 10 times in the first 16 games, why try it three times on a night when your QB is having difficulty dealing with the pressure? It's like he was trying to keep up with Dan Campbell in the aggression department. Game was super tight until late, probably better served doing what you normally do rather than go off script because the stakes are higher.

20-20 hindsight, I could be off base.

Again, not really the point of the thread, but that's four straight times Brian Flores has decided to heavily blitz the QB who deals with the blitz better than anyone.

Blitzed Goff on 25 of his 36 drop backs, Jared went 27/33 81.8%. Did result in one tipped ball INT behind LOS, FG. Arm punt (one of the few times they weren't blitzing) INT resulted in a 2nd FG. Most of the night free runners were crashing into Goff & the ball was already out. That is four straight Detroit wins over Minnesota where I have wondered if he has another scheme to try because the one he keeps rolling with, the Lions have had answers for.

20-20 hindsight, I could be off base.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Not really in keeping with the spirit of the thread (epa affected by coaches decision), but I felt like KOC didn't coach his game tonight.

Just feels like if you have only gone for it on 4th down 10 times in the first 16 games, why try it three times on a night when your QB is having difficulty dealing with the pressure? It's like he was trying to keep up with Dan Campbell in the aggression department. Game was super tight until late, probably better served doing what you normally do rather than go off script because the stakes are higher.

20-20 hindsight, I could be off base.

Again, not really the point of the thread, but that's four straight times Brian Flores has decided to heavily blitz the QB who deals with the blitz better than anyone.

Blitzed Goff on 25 of his 36 drop backs, Jared went 27/33 81.8%. Did result in one tipped ball INT behind LOS, FG. Arm punt (one of the few times they weren't blitzing) INT resulted in a 2nd FG. Most of the night free runners were crashing into Goff & the ball was already out. That is four straight Detroit wins over Minnesota where I have wondered if he has another scheme to try because the one he keeps rolling with, the Lions have had answers for.

20-20 hindsight, I could be off base.

I had a similar thought tonight re: Campbell being in KOC's head a little. The thing about Campbell is not just that he's aggressive on 4th down, he and Johnson come up with such great playcalls (the arrow route to Gibbs for a TD tonight being just one example). I don't know what Minnesota had dialed up on those plays, but wherever they were supposed to go, the Lions weren't fooled

As for Flores, as I mentioned in the other thread, I wonder if he's still dining out on the NE-LAR Super Bowl. Because that #### doesn't work on Goff anymore

 

[Donnybrook]

Not really in keeping with the spirit of the thread (epa affected by coaches decision), but I felt like KOC didn't coach his game tonight.

Just feels like if you have only gone for it on 4th down 10 times in the first 16 games, why try it three times on a night when your QB is having difficulty dealing with the pressure? It's like he was trying to keep up with Dan Campbell in the aggression department. Game was super tight until late, probably better served doing what you normally do rather than go off script because the stakes are higher.

20-20 hindsight, I could be off base.

Again, not really the point of the thread, but that's four straight times Brian Flores has decided to heavily blitz the QB who deals with the blitz better than anyone.

Blitzed Goff on 25 of his 36 drop backs, Jared went 27/33 81.8%. Did result in one tipped ball INT behind LOS, FG. Arm punt (one of the few times they weren't blitzing) INT resulted in a 2nd FG. Most of the night free runners were crashing into Goff & the ball was already out. That is four straight Detroit wins over Minnesota where I have wondered if he has another scheme to try because the one he keeps rolling with, the Lions have had answers for.

20-20 hindsight, I could be off base.

I had a similar thought tonight re: Campbell being in KOC's head a little. The thing about Campbell is not just that he's aggressive on 4th down, he and Johnson come up with such great playcalls (the arrow route to Gibbs for a TD tonight being just one example). I don't know what Minnesota had dialed up on those plays, but wherever they were supposed to go, the Lions weren't fooled

As for Flores, as I mentioned in the other thread, I wonder if he's still dining out on the NE-LAR Super Bowl. Because that #### doesn't work on Goff anymore

You obviously didn't watch the Vikings play D when Donashell was the coach. The scheme works but I will admit Goff know how to beat it. Dropping back and giving him time is going to get them anywhere. Vikings lost this game at LOS. Detroit has a superior run blocking Oline, Gibbs is the next Alvin Kamara. He can win a game for you single handed.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Not really in keeping with the spirit of the thread (epa affected by coaches decision), but I felt like KOC didn't coach his game tonight.

Just feels like if you have only gone for it on 4th down 10 times in the first 16 games, why try it three times on a night when your QB is having difficulty dealing with the pressure? It's like he was trying to keep up with Dan Campbell in the aggression department. Game was super tight until late, probably better served doing what you normally do rather than go off script because the stakes are higher.

20-20 hindsight, I could be off base.

Again, not really the point of the thread, but that's four straight times Brian Flores has decided to heavily blitz the QB who deals with the blitz better than anyone.

Blitzed Goff on 25 of his 36 drop backs, Jared went 27/33 81.8%. Did result in one tipped ball INT behind LOS, FG. Arm punt (one of the few times they weren't blitzing) INT resulted in a 2nd FG. Most of the night free runners were crashing into Goff & the ball was already out. That is four straight Detroit wins over Minnesota where I have wondered if he has another scheme to try because the one he keeps rolling with, the Lions have had answers for.

20-20 hindsight, I could be off base.

I had a similar thought tonight re: Campbell being in KOC's head a little. The thing about Campbell is not just that he's aggressive on 4th down, he and Johnson come up with such great playcalls (the arrow route to Gibbs for a TD tonight being just one example). I don't know what Minnesota had dialed up on those plays, but wherever they were supposed to go, the Lions weren't fooled

As for Flores, as I mentioned in the other thread, I wonder if he's still dining out on the NE-LAR Super Bowl. Because that #### doesn't work on Goff anymore

You obviously didn't watch the Vikings play D when Donashell was the coach. The scheme works but I will admit Goff know how to beat it. Dropping back and giving him time is going to get them anywhere. Vikings lost this game at LOS. Detroit has a superior run blocking Oline, Gibbs is the next Alvin Kamara. He can win a game for you single handed.

I think Flores is a great DC. He did an amazing job this year and may even earn himself another shot as an HC. But over the past two seasons Goff has consistently had his number (four straight games with 30+ points). I don't know the exact reason, but I wonder if the SB has something to do with it. It started Goff on a road that damn near ended his career, but he's come all the way back from it. Meanwhile, Flores has had his own rise-fall-rebirth arc in the past six years. Would be ironic -- in the true Greek tragedy sense of the word -- if Flores' success in that SB was the thing holding him back from reaching another

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

College edition: Penn State gets the ball back with a minute to go, tie game. They haven't recorded a single catch by their WRs all game, though they have had two INTs called back by penalty. Second play is a downfield throw to a WR that gets picked off on the PSU 43.

Now the Irish drive down into FG range and are attempting a 41-yarder to take the lead with 12 seconds left. For some inexplicable reason, Penn State has two guys playing off the line. Why? In case they run a fake kick with 12 seconds left instead of trying to kick a game-winning FG? In case a 41-yard kick lands short and gives them an opportunity for a kick-six?

It's unlikely another two guys on the line would have made a difference in terms of their ability to block the kick, but if your season is on the line, why wouldn't you do everything possible to extend it?

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

@dgreen and I were discussing this in the game thread: Washington is killing time before attempting the game-winning FG. All they need to do is have Daniels position the ball for the kick and take a knee. For some reason, they do a shotgun snap and lose about 4 yards on the play. Gonzalez's kick doinks off the upright and goes through. If he had been literally one foot further away, it might have been no good.

What possible reason is there for voluntarily making the kick 3 yards longer than it needed to be?

 

[Instinctive]

Not really in keeping with the spirit of the thread (epa affected by coaches decision), but I felt like KOC didn't coach his game tonight.

Just feels like if you have only gone for it on 4th down 10 times in the first 16 games, why try it three times on a night when your QB is having difficulty dealing with the pressure? It's like he was trying to keep up with Dan Campbell in the aggression department. Game was super tight until late, probably better served doing what you normally do rather than go off script because the stakes are higher.

20-20 hindsight, I could be off base.

Again, not really the point of the thread, but that's four straight times Brian Flores has decided to heavily blitz the QB who deals with the blitz better than anyone.

Blitzed Goff on 25 of his 36 drop backs, Jared went 27/33 81.8%. Did result in one tipped ball INT behind LOS, FG. Arm punt (one of the few times they weren't blitzing) INT resulted in a 2nd FG. Most of the night free runners were crashing into Goff & the ball was already out. That is four straight Detroit wins over Minnesota where I have wondered if he has another scheme to try because the one he keeps rolling with, the Lions have had answers for.

20-20 hindsight, I could be off base.

I had a similar thought tonight re: Campbell being in KOC's head a little. The thing about Campbell is not just that he's aggressive on 4th down, he and Johnson come up with such great playcalls (the arrow route to Gibbs for a TD tonight being just one example). I don't know what Minnesota had dialed up on those plays, but wherever they were supposed to go, the Lions weren't fooled

As for Flores, as I mentioned in the other thread, I wonder if he's still dining out on the NE-LAR Super Bowl. Because that #### doesn't work on Goff anymore

You obviously didn't watch the Vikings play D when Donashell was the coach. The scheme works but I will admit Goff know how to beat it. Dropping back and giving him time is going to get them anywhere. Vikings lost this game at LOS. Detroit has a superior run blocking Oline, Gibbs is the next Alvin Kamara. He can win a game for you single handed.

I think Flores is a great DC. He did an amazing job this year and may even earn himself another shot as an HC. But over the past two seasons Goff has consistently had his number (four straight games with 30+ points). I don't know the exact reason, but I wonder if the SB has something to do with it. It started Goff on a road that damn near ended his career, but he's come all the way back from it. Meanwhile, Flores has had his own rise-fall-rebirth arc in the past six years. Would be ironic -- in the true Greek tragedy sense of the word -- if Flores' success in that SB was the thing holding him back from reaching another

I mean re: Goff there's something to be said for having an amazing offensive line now

 

[cheese]

@dgreen and I were discussing this in the game thread: Washington is killing time before attempting the game-winning FG. All they need to do is have Daniels position the ball for the kick and take a knee. For some reason, they do a shotgun snap and lose about 4 yards on the play. Gonzalez's kick doinks off the upright and goes through. If he had been literally one foot further away, it might have been no good.

What possible reason is there for voluntarily making the kick 3 yards longer than it needed to be?

Does he ever take snaps under center? It could be to not fumble if he doesn’t know how. I’m assuming they have done it more than zero but maybe not. In HSFB, most teams kneel from shotgun because nobody practices qb center exchanges.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

@dgreen and I were discussing this in the game thread: Washington is killing time before attempting the game-winning FG. All they need to do is have Daniels position the ball for the kick and take a knee. For some reason, they do a shotgun snap and lose about 4 yards on the play. Gonzalez's kick doinks off the upright and goes through. If he had been literally one foot further away, it might have been no good.

What possible reason is there for voluntarily making the kick 3 yards longer than it needed to be?

Does he ever take snaps under center? It could be to not fumble if he doesn’t know how. I’m assuming they have done it more than zero but maybe not. In HSFB, most teams kneel from shotgun because nobody practices qb center exchanges.

If an NFL QB couldn’t take a single snap behind center simply to take a knee, I’d be very concerned.

Also, whatever risk there is of fumbling the snap would seem to be less than the risk of giving a shaky kicker a longer FG (as we saw)

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

x.com

x.com

Dan Campbell losing a playoff game because he stuck to his guns on fourth down and it didn't work out and then losing a playoff game the next year because the other coach stuck to his guns on fourth down and it did work out just hurts

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

As he heads off for Chicago, I think we have to recognize that Ben Johnson's last game in Detroit was not exactly his best. Specifically ...

1, Empty backfield on 3rd and 1 as Detroit was driving to go up 14-3. Gibbs had been running all over Washington. Hell, Monty hadn't looked as good coming back from injury, but he's still near the top of the list of guys I would count on when you need that one yard. Instead, pass play (where admittedly ARSB slipped and threw off Goff's timing), strip sack, Washington drives down and scores and completely changes the complexion of the game.

2. The trick play that involved Jameson Williams throwing a pass. On the one hand, Williams has to know that you never throw that pass unless the guy is wide open. On the other hand, maybe at a critical point in the game you don't hang your fate on the judgment of a guy who, for all his talent, is a notorious knucklehead.

Also, this obviously isn't on Johnson, but given that the Lions assistants on the sideline were all shown yelling and gesticulating wildly before the play, how did Detroit not call a timeout when they had 12 men on the field?

 

[Moonlight]

As he heads off for Chicago, I think we have to recognize that Ben Johnson's last game in Detroit was not exactly his best. Specifically ...

1, Empty backfield on 3rd and 1 as Detroit was driving to go up 14-3. Gibbs had been running all over Washington. Hell, Monty hadn't looked as good coming back from injury, but he's still near the top of the list of guys I would count on when you need that one yard. Instead, pass play (where admittedly ARSB slipped and threw off Goff's timing), strip sack, Washington drives down and scores and completely changes the complexion of the game.

2. The trick play that involved Jameson Williams throwing a pass. On the one hand, Williams has to know that you never throw that pass unless the guy is wide open. On the other hand, maybe at a critical point in the game you don't hang your fate on the judgment of a guy who, for all his talent, is a notorious knucklehead.

Also, this obviously isn't on Johnson, but given that the Lions assistants on the sideline were all shown yelling and gesticulating wildly before the play, how did Detroit not call a timeout when they had 12 men on the field?

Ben Johnson has been a great coordinator. Lions offense has been so productive with him. Wish he was still with the Lions.

That said he can get too cute at times. I still hold it against him for his failed trick play against the 49ers last year when he had St. Brown running the ball up the middle on a key 3rd down play.
A handoff to Montgomery was all that was needed.

 

[kutta]

x.com

x.com

Dan Campbell losing a playoff game because he stuck to his guns on fourth down and it didn't work out and then losing a playoff game the next year because the other coach stuck to his guns on fourth down and it did work out just hurts

This doesn’t make a lot of sense. Wrong on all accounts.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

x.com

x.com

Dan Campbell losing a playoff game because he stuck to his guns on fourth down and it didn't work out and then losing a playoff game the next year because the other coach stuck to his guns on fourth down and it did work out just hurts

This doesn’t make a lot of sense. Wrong on all accounts.

What do you mean?

 

[kutta]

x.com

x.com

Dan Campbell losing a playoff game because he stuck to his guns on fourth down and it didn't work out and then losing a playoff game the next year because the other coach stuck to his guns on fourth down and it did work out just hurts

This doesn’t make a lot of sense. Wrong on all accounts.

What do you mean?

I mean they didn’t lose last year because of Dan’s fourth down calls and they didn’t lose this year because of Washington’s fourth down calls.

Wrong on all accounts.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

x.com

x.com

Dan Campbell losing a playoff game because he stuck to his guns on fourth down and it didn't work out and then losing a playoff game the next year because the other coach stuck to his guns on fourth down and it did work out just hurts

This doesn’t make a lot of sense. Wrong on all accounts.

What do you mean?

I mean they didn’t lose last year because of Dan’s fourth down calls and they didn’t lose this year because of Washington’s fourth down calls.

Wrong on all accounts.

Well first of all, it was meant as a joke. Barnwell is a big analytics guy who has long advocated that more teams should go for it on 4th down.

Second, he wasn't saying they lost solely because of those calls or that they should therefore have kicked FGs in those situations. I don't think it's a stretch to say that if Detroit had converted those two key fourth downs last year, they might have held on to their 14-point halftime win. (They also probably would have won if not for the Aiyuk catch and Gibbs fumble). Similarly, the Lions would have had a much better chance to win if they hadn't allowed the Commanders to go 4/5 (really 5/6 if you include the 12-men penalty) on 4th, just as they also might have done better if they hadn't turned the ball over five times

But don't take it all too literally. He was really just commenting on the irony of how the two games played out

 

[kutta]

x.com

x.com

Dan Campbell losing a playoff game because he stuck to his guns on fourth down and it didn't work out and then losing a playoff game the next year because the other coach stuck to his guns on fourth down and it did work out just hurts

This doesn’t make a lot of sense. Wrong on all accounts.

What do you mean?

I mean they didn’t lose last year because of Dan’s fourth down calls and they didn’t lose this year because of Washington’s fourth down calls.

Wrong on all accounts.

Well first of all, it was meant as a joke. Barnwell is a big analytics guy who has long advocated that more teams should go for it on 4th down.

Second, he wasn't saying they lost solely because of those calls or that they should therefore have kicked FGs in those situations. I don't think it's a stretch to say that if Detroit had converted those two key fourth downs last year, they might have held on to their 14-point halftime win. (They also probably would have won if not for the Aiyuk catch and Gibbs fumble). Similarly, the Lions would have had a much better chance to win if they hadn't allowed the Commanders to go 4/5 (really 5/6 if you include the 12-men penalty) on 4th, just as they also might have done better if they hadn't turned the ball over five times

But don't take it all too literally. He was really just commenting on the irony of how the two games played out

I just don’t think the “going for it on fourth down” narrative really played into the end result of either game. So the joke falls a bit flat.

But I’m just a bummed out Lions fan, so don’t mind me…

 

[rockaction]

What possible reason is there for voluntarily making the kick 3 yards longer than it needed to be?

How close was the kick and was it on the hash or in the center of the field? If it was on the ten yard line and in (from the ten to the opposition's end zone) and on a hash, the angle becomes a tough one (although it shouldn't be too concerning for a pro kicker because the college hash marks are wider). In college, I can absolutely see them trying to get the ball further back and to the center of the field. But I can see it in the pros also when it's in really close.

Kicking from the hashes presents you with an angle that becomes more severe as you move towards the opponent's end zone.

Just think about the goal posts, the hashes where they put the ball, and the field and you'll see what I'm talking about. If you visualize college or high school fields and their hashes, you'll get a really good idea of what I'm talking about.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

I just don’t think the “going for it on fourth down” narrative really played into the end result of either game. So the joke falls a bit flat.

But I’m just a bummed out Lions fan, so don’t mind me…

Right there with you, brother!

Unfortunately, I spent way too much time on this site a year ago arguing with people who felt that those failed fourth downs absolutely doomed Detroit in the NFCCG because yada yada momentum (I'm being somewhat uncharitable, because there were plenty of more nuanced arguments, but there were also lots of bad ones). It is true that we're not hearing as many people this year citing Washington's successful conversions, but that's typically how it works -- people focus far more on the costs of failing than on the benefits of succeeding

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

What possible reason is there for voluntarily making the kick 3 yards longer than it needed to be?

How close was the kick and was it on the hash or in the center of the field? If it was on the ten yard line and in (from the ten to the opposition's end zone) and on a hash, the angle becomes a tough one (although it shouldn't be too concerning for a pro kicker because the college hash marks are wider). In college, I can absolutely see them trying to get the ball further back and to the center of the field. But I can see it in the pros also when it's in really close.

Kicking from the hashes presents you with an angle that becomes more severe as you move towards the opponent's end zone.

Just think about the goal posts, the hashes where they put the ball, and the field and you'll see what I'm talking about. If you visualize college or high school fields and their hashes, you'll get a really good idea of what I'm talking about.

I think the play before the kneeldown was at the 15, they lost 4 on the kneel, and the FG distance was 37. Definitely not close enough that the angle would make a difference, especially, as you say, in the NFL. Also seems like it shouldn't be that hard to position yourself on the correct hash without losing four yards.

I'm reminded of the time -- probably discussed earlier in this thread -- when Bruce Arians deliberately took a delay penalty before a potential game-winning FG because he claimed his kicker was more accurate from five yards further out (it was something like 45 yards vs 40)

 

[Alex P Keaton]

McDermott shouldn’t have gone for 2 in the first half at 21-16, and it had a cascading effect on the rest of the game.

In addition, Joe Brady’s stubborn commitment to the tush push when it wasn’t working might be what lost Buffalo the game.

 

[Gally]

McDermott shouldn’t have gone for 2 in the first half at 21-16, and it had a cascading effect on the rest of the game.

He didn't go for two until the penalty moved it half the distance to the goal. So they were trying from the 1 yd line. I think once the penalty happened going for 2 was the right choice. They just didn't execute a quality play.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

McDermott shouldn’t have gone for 2 in the first half at 21-16, and it had a cascading effect on the rest of the game.

He didn't go for two until the penalty moved it half the distance to the goal. So they were trying from the 1 yd line. I think once the penalty happened going for 2 was the right choice. They just didn't execute a quality play.

Had the same debate with an Eagles fan yesterday when the exact same thing happened.

Purely by the numbers, your expected points on the 2PC is clearly more than 1 (technically 0.95 given the possibility of missing the XP) so you should go for it. When you throw in the fact that Philly and Buffalo are two of the best short-yardage teams in the league, it's a no-brainer.

It did seem like the Chiefs had something on the Bills yesterday in those short yardage situations. Maybe that's on Brady for not figuring that out and having a countermove. But I can't think of an argument -- either qualitative or quantitative -- for kicking in that situation

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Didn't end up affecting the outcome, but Philly made a bizarre choice yesterday at the end of the half.

Washington drove down to the 34 with 13 seconds left, no timeouts. If they kick from there it's a 52 yarder, no guarantee with a somewhat shaky kicker in Gonzalez. If they complete something in the middle of the field, they might have trouble clocking the ball before time runs out. But they have plenty of time to throw a quick out to the sideline, so you'd assume Philly would try to defend that.

Instead, Philly sends all its defenders deep and concedes the short pass. Daniels to Ertz for 12 yards, and Gonzalez hits a much easier 42 yarder to cut the lead to 12 heading into the locker room.

Did the Chicago Hail Mary really have them that spooked?

 

[cheese]

McDermott shouldn’t have gone for 2 in the first half at 21-16, and it had a cascading effect on the rest of the game.

He didn't go for two until the penalty moved it half the distance to the goal. So they were trying from the 1 yd line. I think once the penalty happened going for 2 was the right choice. They just didn't execute a quality play.

Had the same debate with an Eagles fan yesterday when the exact same thing happened.

Purely by the numbers, your expected points on the 2PC is clearly more than 1 (technically 0.95 given the possibility of missing the XP) so you should go for it. When you throw in the fact that Philly and Buffalo are two of the best short-yardage teams in the league, it's a no-brainer.

It did seem like the Chiefs had something on the Bills yesterday in those short yardage situations. Maybe that's on Brady for not figuring that out and having a countermove. But I can't think of an argument -- either qualitative or quantitative -- for kicking in that situation

2pt attempts were at 40% success rate this year as opposed to 50% or even higher in previous seasons. I'm a fan of analytics, but I also think teams are getting better at defending them and it's changing the math a little bit.

 

[Gally]

McDermott shouldn’t have gone for 2 in the first half at 21-16, and it had a cascading effect on the rest of the game.

He didn't go for two until the penalty moved it half the distance to the goal. So they were trying from the 1 yd line. I think once the penalty happened going for 2 was the right choice. They just didn't execute a quality play.

Had the same debate with an Eagles fan yesterday when the exact same thing happened.

Purely by the numbers, your expected points on the 2PC is clearly more than 1 (technically 0.95 given the possibility of missing the XP) so you should go for it. When you throw in the fact that Philly and Buffalo are two of the best short-yardage teams in the league, it's a no-brainer.

It did seem like the Chiefs had something on the Bills yesterday in those short yardage situations. Maybe that's on Brady for not figuring that out and having a countermove. But I can't think of an argument -- either qualitative or quantitative -- for kicking in that situation

2pt attempts were at 40% success rate this year as opposed to 50% or even higher in previous seasons. I'm a fan of analytics, but I also think teams are getting better at defending them and it's changing the math a little bit.

is that rate for a standard 2 pt conversion (from the 2 yd line)? This one was from the 1 yd line so I would have to think the success rate is closer to 50-60% with Allen at QB.

 

[cheese]

McDermott shouldn’t have gone for 2 in the first half at 21-16, and it had a cascading effect on the rest of the game.

He didn't go for two until the penalty moved it half the distance to the goal. So they were trying from the 1 yd line. I think once the penalty happened going for 2 was the right choice. They just didn't execute a quality play.

Had the same debate with an Eagles fan yesterday when the exact same thing happened.

Purely by the numbers, your expected points on the 2PC is clearly more than 1 (technically 0.95 given the possibility of missing the XP) so you should go for it. When you throw in the fact that Philly and Buffalo are two of the best short-yardage teams in the league, it's a no-brainer.

It did seem like the Chiefs had something on the Bills yesterday in those short yardage situations. Maybe that's on Brady for not figuring that out and having a countermove. But I can't think of an argument -- either qualitative or quantitative -- for kicking in that situation

2pt attempts were at 40% success rate this year as opposed to 50% or even higher in previous seasons. I'm a fan of analytics, but I also think teams are getting better at defending them and it's changing the math a little bit.

is that rate for a standard 2 pt conversion (from the 2 yd line)? This one was from the 1 yd line so I would have to think the success rate is closer to 50-60% with Allen at QB.

Yes and I agree with you. I'm just pointing out that if you want a counter argument for expected points over the long haul, its not helping our case that teams are getting worse at 2pt conversions by the minute. I suspect that a shorter conversion makes a significant difference in this case.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

McDermott shouldn’t have gone for 2 in the first half at 21-16, and it had a cascading effect on the rest of the game.

He didn't go for two until the penalty moved it half the distance to the goal. So they were trying from the 1 yd line. I think once the penalty happened going for 2 was the right choice. They just didn't execute a quality play.

Meh. Their short yardage wasn’t working. It reeked of desperation. Wasn’t a fan.

 

[Gally]

Meh. Their short yardage wasn’t working. It reeked of desperation. Wasn’t a fan.

To that point in the game the Bills had not been stopped on any short yardage play (anything less than 3 yds) so I don't know how you can say it wasn't working. They were 4 for 4 on any play with 3 or less yards to go before that 2 pt conversion attempt from the 1 yrd line.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Meh. Their short yardage wasn’t working. It reeked of desperation. Wasn’t a fan.

To that point in the game the Bills had not been stopped on any short yardage play (anything less than 3 yds) so I don't know how you can say it wasn't working. They were 4 for 4 on any play with 3 or less yards to go before that 2 pt conversion attempt from the 1 yrd line.

Well, my memory is notoriously bad

Edit to add: yeah, it was the 2nd half when they started doing the stupid tush push.

I don’t know why Curtis Samuel would be the choice for a key 2 pt conversion, but hey, what do I know?

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Meh. Their short yardage wasn’t working. It reeked of desperation. Wasn’t a fan.

To that point in the game the Bills had not been stopped on any short yardage play (anything less than 3 yds) so I don't know how you can say it wasn't working. They were 4 for 4 on any play with 3 or less yards to go before that 2 pt conversion attempt from the 1 yrd line.

Well, my memory is notoriously bad

Edit to add: yeah, it was the 2nd half when they started doing the stupid tush push.

I don’t know why Curtis Samuel would be the choice for a key 2 pt conversion, but hey, what do I know?

Do you mean the one where he caught a pass or the one where Allen threw it to him out of desperation after he had already been stopped?

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

McDermott shouldn’t have gone for 2 in the first half at 21-16, and it had a cascading effect on the rest of the game.

He didn't go for two until the penalty moved it half the distance to the goal. So they were trying from the 1 yd line. I think once the penalty happened going for 2 was the right choice. They just didn't execute a quality play.

Had the same debate with an Eagles fan yesterday when the exact same thing happened.

Purely by the numbers, your expected points on the 2PC is clearly more than 1 (technically 0.95 given the possibility of missing the XP) so you should go for it. When you throw in the fact that Philly and Buffalo are two of the best short-yardage teams in the league, it's a no-brainer.

It did seem like the Chiefs had something on the Bills yesterday in those short yardage situations. Maybe that's on Brady for not figuring that out and having a countermove. But I can't think of an argument -- either qualitative or quantitative -- for kicking in that situation

2pt attempts were at 40% success rate this year as opposed to 50% or even higher in previous seasons. I'm a fan of analytics, but I also think teams are getting better at defending them and it's changing the math a little bit.

is that rate for a standard 2 pt conversion (from the 2 yd line)? This one was from the 1 yd line so I would have to think the success rate is closer to 50-60% with Allen at QB.

Yes and I agree with you. I'm just pointing out that if you want a counter argument for expected points over the long haul, its not helping our case that teams are getting worse at 2pt conversions by the minute. I suspect that a shorter conversion makes a significant difference in this case.

Yeah if conversation rates keep going down that will scramble a lot of the debates we’ve had in recent years.

Also, I know we heard a lot over the past few weeks about how the Commanders converted like 87% of their fourth downs this year, and the Lions and Bills were really good, too. I wonder if we’re heading to a “have and have-nots” situation where some teams are really good that and others are sub-average. League-wide rates would mean a lot less in that scenario