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.

Vrabel is just a donkey (1 Viewer)

All depends on what inputs you use for the "math".
Some good points on both sides of the ball in this thread. I am in the camp above.

Regardless what straight math/probability is, fact is that you have a solid kicker and a team that had monentum and a D that was actually playing soundly if not spectacularly - would have trusted them enough in this game to stop a TD and get the ball back. That AND the fact that the Titans haven’t been good at this aspect of the game - not sure they have such clearly different personnel and/or offensive coaches who may have new/better options for this play in the playbook and suddenly make going for it more viable than their past performance.

There are other variables in this equation besides just historic numbers.

 
Lol at the knuckle draggers in this thread. Justin Tucker missing the FG for Baltimore about sums this up. :hermedwards: You play to win the game! :/hermedwards:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't love or hate the decision to go for 2 at the end. However, that was a really bad play call and formation.

Should've had Henry on the field. Even if they wanted to pass, having him there would have affected how SD defended the play. Just an awful play call.
Liked the call to go for it. Also agree that Henry should have been on the field either as a decoy or to feed the ball for the 2 point conversion attempt.

 
I liked it. You put the game outcome in YOUR OWN hands.

I've won Madden Tournaments with this same mentality. I could tie it and maybe stop them in overtime.

Or I could win it all here on one play.

 
Surprised no one has mentioned this: The Titans actually got two bites at the apple. Their first attempt failed, but a penalty on LA gave them another shot. While I think the initial call was close, from the one-yard line the math was overwhelming in favor of going for it.

All that said, I didn't like either play call.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Totally agree. Although I may amend that to "I didn't like Mariota's decision making."
I wonder what the plays were designed to do. Both of them looked like the old schoolyard play "Everyone go out and I'll find someone open."

If the game is going to come down to one play, shouldn't that be where you roll out something special? I'm not saying they needed to go all Philly Special, but maybe something a little different to get a guy open?

 
good point, don't disagree with that but.......his team dominated the second half. They played better than the Chargers, they had the momentum going into overtime, statistically speaking, going for two with a struggling offense who's looking for confidence wasn't the right call....They would have made it, it still would have been the wrong call. if they don't make the playoffs by one win, this one is going to hurt.
I like this argument. Don't go for 2 because the offense sucks. Instead go to overtime because the offense was so awesome they couldn't be stopped. 

Going for 2 was fine. Having Mariota drop back and pass from the pocket on the 1 yard line was dumb. 

 
Bill Barnwell had a good analogy as to why you should go for two in a situation where you're the underdog (Chargers were favored by 6.5):

Imagine if you were playing Steph Curry in one-on-one and you get the ball first. Would you rather play to 1 (where you might get lucky and bury a jumper to win) or to 11 (where Steph’s advantage is definitely going to reveal itself over a longer period of time)?

 
mike11162 said:
No, their offensive coaching is actually worse now though.
Yep

31st in points scored and 29th in red zone TD percentage ad personneL-wise not much different from previous years teams which were incapable of converting the two..

 
Bill Barnwell had a good analogy as to why you should go for two in a situation where you're the underdog (Chargers were favored by 6.5):
The spread of that game was not exactly accurate. Spreads get effected by the volumes/amounts of bets--and Melvin Gordon was a very late scratch for that game.  Had Gordon been ruled out of the game early in the week--that spread would most likely be less than 6.5.  Secondly--did you watch the game?  Aside from the Chargers winning the first quarter 10-3---the Titans tied or beat the Chargers in each of the next 3 quarters.   They effectively were outplaying the Chargers for the vast majority of the game.  There was no need for the Titans coaching staff to try to "steal" a victory.  It's not like the Chargers without Gordon were playing better than they were.   The Titans were the team that was playing better and carrying the momentum.  You look at the fact that the Titans had all of the momentum and the fact that they are not very good at converting 2 pt conversions (they missed their last 7)---I think it was an absolutely atrocious decision in my opinion.   

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wait a second, the ball was on the 1 yard line after a penalty and people are saying this was a dumb move?
The penalty should really have no weight in the discussion, as the decision to go for two was made prior to that event. 

I'm usually a fan of favoring the math, but it had just taken the Titans 4 attempt to go two yards for the touchdown. And they just don't have the creativity and athletes that teams like the Pats and Chiefs do to routinely convert those attempts. I think you have to account for personnel and situation in addition to analytics. Didn't really like the call, but I think the bigger error was the play call itself, as previously discussed.

 
So some people are saying the Titans offense is so bad as a reason kick the PAT? Isn't that all the more reason to go for 2? 

 
Hilarious title but not the wrong decision. Probably the wrong play call. 

The idea that your team has played well in the 2nd half doesn't matter much - there's no "momentum" carrying into OT. 

As has been mentioned, you're playing a better team and the longer that game goes on the more apparent that will become. 

 
Hilarious title but not the wrong decision. Probably the wrong play call. 

The idea that your team has played well in the 2nd half doesn't matter much - there's no "momentum" carrying into OT. 

As has been mentioned, you're playing a better team and the longer that game goes on the more apparent that will become. 
And the worse the offense is, the better shot they have at scoring  on a play from the 2 than they would on an 80 yard drive. 

 
I feel that you go for 2 there if you believe you found a flaw in the D that you have a high degree of confidence that you can exploit with a specific formation/play.  It could be that is what happened and it’s possible that the D might have solved the flaw or changed its formation/scheme which could have essentially done the same thing.

Either way, I’m not going to fault a coach who is willing to make a decision of that magnitude even if it ends up failing.  More balls than I would have had in the same spot. Some fans might not like it, but I’d bet he has the full support of his players in making that decision.

.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
After the penalty, are they allowed to kick the x-point instead of trying for 2 again or are they locked into it?

 
They had just as much of a chance to score from the 1 than they did to win in OT no matter what momentum there was, because one play can change momentum. I'd argue that their chances of scoring from the 1 on that play would be BETTER than their chance to win in OT.

But the play call was horrible when you have a team that's primarily set up to be a running team. Mariota, Lewis, and Henry could've all been in the backfield and the success of QB runs on plays like that is like 70%. A pass like that was just poor execution of a perfectly justifiable decision.

 
I think you guys are all forgetting one important thing....they were 0-7 or 0-8 on two points conversions.

Again, I understand different opinions here and at the end of the day, it comes down to a gut feeling type of play. With that said, I'm no coach but between taking the PAT and try my chance in OT when I outscored the Chargers in the second half versus taking a shoot at something I failed at 7 or 8 times in a row and risking the loss on it....then sorry guys, I still think it was a horrible call. Both the call and then the play calling was awful.

You can argue as much as you want about this but taking a chance on something you are 0-7 or 0-8 is just not good odds. You can turn it any ways you want...this is a fact.

Stupid example to illustrate although different sport....world series of baseball, 9th inning, you are trailed by one run, you have a guy on base, 2 outs...who do you put at the plate...a big hitter guy who can win it with a homerun but he's 0-8 against that pitcher or a guy who you think can give you a shot at extra innings because he's a .350 batting average guy? Sorry guys, but I'm not going with the homerun guy who's 0-8 on this one. Maybe it's me....I might be a pu....but I'll go with the statistical play that makes sense....

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think you guys are all forgetting one important thing....they were 0-7 or 0-8 on two points conversions.

Again, I understand different opinions here and at the end of the day, it comes down to a gut feeling type of play. With that said, I'm no coach but between taking the PAT and try my chance in OT when I outscored the Chargers in the second half versus taking a shoot at something I failed at 7 or 8 times in a row and risking the loss on it....then sorry guys, I still think it was a horrible call. Both the call and then the play calling was awful.

You can argue as much as you want about this but taking a chance on something you are 0-7 or 0-8 is just not good odds. You can turn it any ways you want...this is a fact.

Stupid example to illustrate although different sport....world series of baseball, 9th inning, you are trailed by one run, you have a guy on base, 2 outs...who do you put at the plate...a big hitter guy who can win it with a homerun but he's 0-8 against that pitcher or a guy who you think can give you a shot at extra innings because he's a .350 batting average guy? Sorry guys, but I'm not going with the homerun guy who's 0-8 on this one. Maybe it's me....I might be a pu....but I'll go with the statistical play that makes sense....
I can't claim any expertise on the Titans' two-point attempts, but I'm willing to bet that it is a statistical anomaly. There is no particular reason a team with different coaching staffs/personnel would be particularly good or bad at converting those over an extended period.

Then again, if every attempt has been as uninspired as the two they ran in yesterday's game, maybe that does explain it ...

 
I think you guys are all forgetting one important thing....they were 0-7 or 0-8 on two points conversions.
They are also 31st in scoring so that arguement doesn' t hold up too well either. They are about the worst in the league at scoring points. I take the chance to win the game from the 2 yard line over having to put together a scoring drive.

 
They are also 31st in scoring so that arguement doesn' t hold up too well either. They are about the worst in the league at scoring points. I take the chance to win the game from the 2 yard line over having to put together a scoring drive.
then we completely disagree...they outscored by a fair margin the chargers in the second half. The chargers' offense was not good in the second half....and they decide to go for something they failed 7 or 8 times in a row...

I'm sorry but my logic here seem a lot more solid than yours...respectfully.

 
I think you guys are all forgetting one important thing....they were 0-7 or 0-8 on two points conversions.

You can argue as much as you want about this but taking a chance on something you are 0-7 or 0-8 is just not good odds. You can turn it any ways you want...this is a fact.


So by that logic they should never go for 2 again for the remaining history of the franchise?  You ought to do some research on statistics and independent events.  None of the previous 2 point attempts had any impact on the success/failure of this attempt.  That’s not even rational to think that it would.

 
Love the decision to go for it but hate the play call. I wish every team went for the win instead of playing to tie the game. Like going for it on 4th and 1, you should always go for it because if you cant get one yard you deserve to lose. Same for a 2 pointer from the 1.

 
So by that logic they should never go for 2 again for the remaining history of the franchise?  You ought to do some research on statistics and independent events.  None of the previous 2 point attempts had any impact on the success/failure of this attempt.  That’s not even rational to think that it would.
So how do you calculate the "math"?

 
And the worse the offense is, the better shot they have at scoring  on a play from the 2 than they would on an 80 yard drive. 
No no no no no no

the alternatuve isn’t execute an 80 yard drive or lose

its play football for another 10 minutes, where the Titans had outplayed and out scored  the Chargers over the previous 54 minutes....

 
I can't claim any expertise on the Titans' two-point attempts, but I'm willing to bet that it is a statistical anomaly. There is no particular reason a team with different coaching staffs/personnel would be particularly good or bad at converting those over an extended period.

Then again, if every attempt has been as uninspired as the two they ran in yesterday's game, maybe that does explain it ...
I’d feel more confident going for two if I had a Tom Brady and/or a Todd Gurley than I do with Marcus Mariottta and Derrick Henry....

i would guess that teams with superior personnel probably go for two more often the poor offensive teams like the Titans which would also skew the historical “average.”

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So by that logic they should never go for 2 again for the remaining history of the franchise?  You ought to do some research on statistics and independent events.  None of the previous 2 point attempts had any impact on the success/failure of this attempt.  That’s not even rational to think that it would.
Tennessee has pretty much the same personnel and their poor offensive performance over the course of the season provides plenty of evidence that Vrabel hasn’t had some sort of magic wand to make this group of players more effective than recent  past performances would indicate....if anything, they are less effective...

 
No no no no no no

the alternatuve isn’t execute an 80 yard drive or lose

its play football for another 10 minutes, where the Titans had outplayed and out scored  the Chargers over the previous 54 minutes....
54 minutes where they had scored 19 points.  And 12 total the previous two games.

Versus a team that is the strong favorite, and an offense that on the season has doubled up the Titans on points scored. 

eta - I suppose they were missing a RB.  But you are still taking LA in this scenario every time.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tennessee has pretty much the same personnel and their poor offensive performance over the course of the season provides plenty of evidence that Vrabel hasn’t had some sort of magic wand to make this group of players more effective than recent  past performances would indicate....if anything, they are less effective...


And none of those other past events had any impact on yesterday’s attempt, nor do they have any impact on future attempts.  Each attempt is a unique event with complete replacement.  

 
Sorry if this has been mentioned but one of the reasons I felt the Titans should kick the PAT was the Chargers K situation. Fully understand FG's are not only way to in in OT and their K had not missed but if you are talking about a street FA temporary K and you got to think all things equal the Titans had a huge kicking game advantage in OT.

 
And none of those other past events had any impact on yesterday’s attempt, nor do they have any impact on future attempts.  Each attempt is a unique event with complete replacement.  
Which, based on current offensive ineptitude and past failures with the same personnel has chances of success that are much lower than the historical NFL average...

 
No no no no no no

the alternatuve isn’t execute an 80 yard drive or lose

its play football for another 10 minutes, where the Titans had outplayed and out scored  the Chargers over the previous 54 minutes....
Ofcourse not, but the point is the same. I think a team should always make the play to win and not the play that just makes the game longer. 

I’d feel more confident going for two if I had a Tom Brady and/or a Todd Gurley than I do with Marcus Mariottta and Derrick Henry....

i would guess that teams with superior personnel probably go for two more often the poor offensive teams like the Titans which would also skew the historical “average.”
I feel the opposite. I am more confident in better players over a larger period of time. In one play, randomness benefits the less talented players. 

 
Also - those throws by Mariota :lmao:

Not just a bad throw in terms of accuracy, but a throw from a guy that already knew it was going to fail.  No confidence at all.. 

The last angle from behind QB at :30... I mean... what the heck?

 
Which, based on current offensive ineptitude and past failures with the same personnel has chances of success that are much lower than the historical NFL average...
Same applies in OT.  That offense is still inept in OT.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Same applies in OT.  That offense is still inept in OT.
But the defense has been good enough to get them to 3-3 on the season, good enough to keep them in the game and good enough to have the Titans outplaying and beating the Chargers over the final 54 minutes of regulation...

 
But the defense has been good enough to get them to 3-3 on the season, good enough to keep them in the game and good enough to have the Titans outplaying and beating the Chargers over the final 54 minutes of regulation...
Ah, the genius of arbitrary starting points! I mean, why not just argue that Tennessee blanked LAC 6-0 in the final minute of the game? Clearly they were outplaying them!

 
Also - those throws by Mariota :lmao:

Not just a bad throw in terms of accuracy, but a throw from a guy that already knew it was going to fail.  No confidence at all.. 

The last angle from behind QB at :30... I mean... what the heck?
Watching that again. I know, standard disclaimer about second-guessing guys on the field, but ... Lewis appeared to be open on both plays. Whoever he threw it to on the final play (Sharpe?) was open for a moment, but by the time he threw it (behind him) he was covered.

Still, I put most of the blame on the play-calling. I just think you have to scheme a guy open there. Hoping for guys to get open when the D has so little ground to cover is not a recipe for winning.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top