Was this NOT the worst coaching move ever? (1 Viewer)

[Sinrman]

The worst non-decision is by Mike Sherman. Playoffs against the Eagles, which would later be known as the 4th & 26 victory, when the Packers had been winning the game in the trenches all the time. Sherman elects to punt on 4th and 1 instead of running Ahman Green up the middle or sideways or whatever in front of William Henderson and that awesome Packers OLine. This was going to be Brett Favre's last year in 2003 because that team was all set to win that Superbowl. They could have beat Carolina and gone on to the Superbowl that year. Had the Packers been beaten by a 4th and 4 or something like that instead of a 4th and 26, I could live with that. But non running Ahman Green and then losing on a 4th and 26... for ever and ever.

Oh yeah, I remember that one, too. THAT was bad...

 

[Chase Stuart]

I still maintain that Herm Edwards choosing to kickoff to start both halves is as dumb as it gets. Wyche was at least in a bit of a unique situation. Edwards messed up the most basic of things.

You can't shouldn't choose to kickoff both halves.

Agreed.

 

[Sinrman]

The only other awful coaching decision

which comes to mind that rivals this one was when Marty Mornhinweg was

coaching the Lions, and they are playing the Bears. The game goes into

overtime, Detroit wins the coin toss, and he elects to kick off. Naturally, the

Bears receive the ball and proceed to score on their first possession.

Any other coaching blunders I'm forgetting???

The only other awful coaching decision

which comes to mind that rivals this one was when Marty Mornhinweg was

coaching the Lions, and they are playing the Bears. The game goes into

overtime, Detroit wins the coin toss, and he elects to kick off. Naturally, the

Bears receive the ball and proceed to score on their first possession.

As a Lions fan... this just hurts... this has GOT to be the worst decision ever. Though the one you pointed out was definitely a top 2 or 3 blunder...

Come on. It wasn't even a BAD decision. If it had worked, no one on the planet would even remember it. How do I know that? Because Mike Shanahan took the wind in overtime against Buffalo in week 9 of the 1997 season, and Denver won the game. In fact, Shanny was roundly praised, and that "outside-the-box" thinking was one of the big reasons Shanny earned the nickname "The Mastermind".What's that? You don't remember any of this? That's my point exactly.

If Bill Bellichick's intentional safety vs. Denver had failed, would we be sitting around right now talking about how THAT was one of the worst coaching decisions of all time, too?

Also, fun fact: the team that takes the wind in overtime is actually 2-1 lifetime. The three coaches "stupid" enough to make that call? Marty Mornhinweg, Mike Shanahan, and Hank Stram. Food for thought.

You're kidding me, right? Wasn't even a bad decision?! It's basic Coaching 101. You give your team a chance to win. If the Lions elected to receive the kickoff, like they should have, they would have at least had a chance to win on offense. Sure, Chicago could have been stopped on offense, and Detroit given the chance, but Moronweig didn't even give them that opportunity. I think Jim Miller, the Chicago QB at the time, said it best after the game:"Any team wants the ball in overtime. They made the decision, and it cost them."

Another one, this one from Paul Edinger, the winning kicker:

"You always want to take the ball," Edinger said. 'It's sudden death.'"

As for your "fun fact." You actually did the research for me. I was going to ask you how many coaches have every elected to kick rather than receive in overtime. You only strengthen my argument. Only three coaches have ever done it. 2-1 or not, it doesn't matter. If it's such a smart coaching decision, then why don't more coaches do so? Because it's ridiculous is why! If the wind is whipping around at 50 mph, then perhaps I can see it. But it wasn't that day. It was swirling around SW at about 4 MPH.

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/gamebook/NFL_20021124_DET@CHI

Sure, the wind could have been gusting, as it does fairly often in Chicago. But it still doesn't matter. You give your team the chance to win on the first try. Besides, if going with the wind was such a "smart move," then I guess Paul Edinger's 40 yard field goal going AGAINST the wind was just lucky, right? A 40 yarder isn't exactly a chip shot, especially going AGAINST the wind......

As for Shannahan... perhaps he got lucky with that move. Has he done it since? I hardly believe that this decision was a major reason for him being called a "Mastermind." Perhaps it was getting things together and putting together a championship-caliber team that won two straight Super Bowls? Perhaps setting up a running back factory in Denver for YEARS now...?

**EDIT** Meant to add that this very game was the death knell for Moronweig. He was already on thin ice in Detroit up to that point, but this game brought about a deep, deep hatred for Moronweig, where fans wanted his HEAD. Him, and Matt Millen, actually. Did Moronweig last past 2002? I think not, and this very game was a perfect example of what a s***** head coach he was.

 

[AB in DC]

I still maintain that Herm Edwards choosing to kickoff to start both halves is as dumb as it gets. Wyche was at least in a bit of a unique situation. Edwards messed up the most basic of things.

You can't shouldn't choose to kickoff both halves.

Agreed.

What I think Pick was saying is that coaches don't get the choice in both halfs.What I think you're trying say that "Herm Edwards choosing to kickoff the second half when his team already kicked off the first half is as dumb as it gets."

 

[Chase Stuart]

I still maintain that Herm Edwards choosing to kickoff to start both halves is as dumb as it gets. Wyche was at least in a bit of a unique situation. Edwards messed up the most basic of things.

You can't shouldn't choose to kickoff both halves.

Agreed.

What I think Pick was saying is that coaches don't get the choice in both halfs.What I think you're trying say that "Herm Edwards choosing to kickoff the second half when his team already kicked off the first half is as dumb as it gets."

Oh. Right. See what years of watching Herm did to me?

 

[Raider Nation]

You guys are missing the big picture here. This is probably the only piece of documentation in all of history that proves Joe T was right about something....this is unbelievable!!!!!!!

Good point. The play-by-play guy (Tim Brandt?) was about as clueless as Wyche until Theisman filled him in. I love the blase call of the finale. Brandt describes the TD pass as "incredible" but from his voice you'd just think the Bengals had actually run out the clock.

First off, I believe you mean "Tim Brando"... Secondly, it wasn't Brando. It was Tim Ryan. Not the former USC Trojan/Chicago Bear Tim Ryan.... but the small, nerdy Tim Ryan.

 

[redman]

For those too young to remember, I'll set it up.

1987, week 2. San Francisco @ Cincinnati.

Bengals lead 26-20 with 0:06 remaining. Cincy has the

ball, it's 4th down and they are on their own 30 yard line.

They could have done a few things which would easily have run out the clock:

- Line up to punt, and have the punter run into the end zone.

- Pitch the ball to Brooks and let him slowly, calmly run the ball into his own end zone.

- Have Boomer do the same thing, as Theismann correctly (GULP!) pointed out.

- Get Boomer into a shotgun, and throw the ball nine miles in the air downfield.

So what happened? SEE FOR YOURSELF

It is inconceivable that Cincinnati could lose that game. Wyche deserved

whatever crap he got afterwards. The only other awful coaching decision

which comes to mind that rivals this one was when Marty Mornhinweg was

coaching the Lions, and they are playing the Bears. The game goes into

overtime, Detroit wins the coin toss, and he elects to kick off. Naturally, the

Bears receive the ball and proceed to score on their first possession.

Any other coaching blunders I'm forgetting???

Simply unbelievable. The ONLY two options are either to, as Theisman said, run out of the back of the end zone or to punt it, and the punt option is a distant second to the safety. The only reason you'd punt is because you thought (perhaps reasonably) that the ball carrier would not have been able to reach the end zone before being tackled.

 

[SSOG]

You're kidding me, right? Wasn't even a bad decision?! It's basic Coaching 101. You give your team a chance to win. If the Lions elected to receive the kickoff, like they should have, they would have at least had a chance to win on offense. Sure, Chicago could have been stopped on offense, and Detroit given the chance, but Moronweig didn't even give them that opportunity.

Basic Coaching 102: You have a defense.Basic Coaching 103: Field Position is fluid.

Here's an example. Did you know that if Team A has the ball on their own 1 yardline, then Team B is more likely to make the next score? It's a statistical fact that Team B is far more likely to score next in that situation... even though their defense is on the field. So we've already established that there are certain instances where the defense is more likely to score than the offense. If a coach had a choice between starting overtime with the ball at the 1, or starting overtime on defense and letting the other team have the ball on the 1, he'll choose to defend every single time. Move it out to the 10 yard line, and they'll probably make the same decision.

More numbers. I'm sure we'll all agree that last season, Indy had a PHENOMINAL offense, right? Well, their average starting field position was the 31.24 yard line... and they scored, on average, on 46% of drives. That's with the best offense in the league and an average starting field position of the 33 yard line. Assuming Mornhinweg was convinced he could get a touchback (due to the wind), that would reduce their chances. But this is INDIANAPOLIS. Let's see what the 2002 Chicago Bears did in that regard.

In 2002, the Bears were *HORRIBLE* on offense. They only scored points on 26.8% of their drives (and that was with an average starting position of the 30.77 yard line). It's not at all unreasonable to surmise that, with a starting position at the 20 yard line, Chicago had only a 20% chance to score in ideal circumstances. With the wind, maybe Mornhinweg is calculating that they've only got a 15% chance to score. Suddenly the decision isn't looking quite as bad.

As for your "fun fact." You actually did the research for me. I was going to ask you how many coaches have every elected to kick rather than receive in overtime. You only strengthen my argument. Only three coaches have ever done it. 2-1 or not, it doesn't matter. If it's such a smart coaching decision, then why don't more coaches do so? Because it's ridiculous is why! If the wind is whipping around at 50 mph, then perhaps I can see it. But it wasn't that day. It was swirling around SW at about 4 MPH.

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/gamebook/NFL_20021124_DET@CHI

How many coaches have ever taken an intentional safety? Does that mean it was a bad decision when Bellichick did it? First off, coaching is a relatively risk-adverse position. Second off, certain coaching moves require the right combination of events to be worthwhile. While only two other coaches have tried taking the wind, look at who they were- Hank Stram and Mike Shanahan. Both are two of the greatest football minds the game has seen. Both are widely respected as innovators, and incredibly successful. It's not like we're talking about Pete Carroll and Rich Kotite here.

Sure, the wind could have been gusting, as it does fairly often in Chicago. But it still doesn't matter. You give your team the chance to win on the first try. Besides, if going with the wind was such a "smart move," then I guess Paul Edinger's 40 yard field goal going AGAINST the wind was just lucky, right? A 40 yarder isn't exactly a chip shot, especially going AGAINST the wind......

Let's play a hypothetical game. Let's say I line up a kicker to make an attempt that he only has a 1-in-a-million shot at making. Let's say we're going to make a bet on whether he makes it or not. OBVIOUSLY you're going to bet that he misses it. If he then makes it, does that mean you were stupid for betting against him? Did that make it a bad decision?The outcome of an event does not change whether the decision was a good one or not. If Edinger missed that 40 yarder (which is actually a pretty short figgie, as far as figgies go), then we'd all be talking about how brilliant Morninwheg was, because the wind was totally responsible for Edinger missing, blah blah blah.

As for Shannahan... perhaps he got lucky with that move. Has he done it since? I hardly believe that this decision was a major reason for him being called a "Mastermind." Perhaps it was getting things together and putting together a championship-caliber team that won two straight Super Bowls? Perhaps setting up a running back factory in Denver for YEARS now...?

Maybe Shanny got lucky. Maybe Mornhinweg got unlucky. Maybe.Also, as a very avid Denver fan (obviously), I can tell you that this is ABSOLUTELY one of the primary reasons he earned the "Mastermind" nickname. It wasn't for his ability to evaluate talent or assemble good rosters. It wasn't for winning SBs (he earned the nickname before the SB wins). It certainly wasn't for setting up an RB factory (he earned the nickname back when Terrell Davis was the only RB he'd ever used). Mike Shanahan earned the mastermind nickname for making very unconventional choices (like taking the wind) and succeeding with them.

**EDIT** Meant to add that this very game was the death knell for Moronweig. He was already on thin ice in Detroit up to that point, but this game brought about a deep, deep hatred for Moronweig, where fans wanted his HEAD. Him, and Matt Millen, actually. Did Moronweig last past 2002? I think not, and this very game was a perfect example of what a s***** head coach he was.

I agree that this was the death knell for Mornhinweg. Doesn't mean it was a bad decision.Let's compare it to going for it on 4th down. If a coach goes for it on 4th-and-goal from the 1 with 30 seconds left when down by 3 and makes it, then he's a hero. If he doesn't make it, then he's fired. Whether he makes it or not doesn't change whether it was a good decision or a bad decision, though.

 

[Raider Nation]

For those too young to remember, I'll set it up.

1987, week 2. San Francisco @ Cincinnati.

Bengals lead 26-20 with 0:06 remaining. Cincy has the

ball, it's 4th down and they are on their own 30 yard line.

They could have done a few things which would easily have run out the clock:

- Line up to punt, and have the punter run into the end zone.

- Pitch the ball to Brooks and let him slowly, calmly run the ball into his own end zone.

- Have Boomer do the same thing, as Theismann correctly (GULP!) pointed out.

- Get Boomer into a shotgun, and throw the ball nine miles in the air downfield.

So what happened? SEE FOR YOURSELF

It is inconceivable that Cincinnati could lose that game. Wyche deserved

whatever crap he got afterwards. The only other awful coaching decision

which comes to mind that rivals this one was when Marty Mornhinweg was

coaching the Lions, and they are playing the Bears. The game goes into

overtime, Detroit wins the coin toss, and he elects to kick off. Naturally, the

Bears receive the ball and proceed to score on their first possession.

Any other coaching blunders I'm forgetting???

Simply unbelievable. The ONLY two options are either to, as Theisman said, run out of the back of the end zone or to punt it, and the punt option is a distant second to the safety. The only reason you'd punt is because you thought (perhaps reasonably) that the ball carrier would not have been able to reach the end zone before being tackled.

I think the best move is to line up your best/quickest athlete into punt formation. Maybe the guy who normally returns punts or kickoffs for you. Make him the "punter" and have him run around until he kills the six seconds, then he runs out of the end zone. I know it's easy to pile on Wyche, but I mean c'mon.... that should NEVER have happened.

 

[Raider Nation]

You're kidding me, right? Wasn't even a bad decision?! It's basic Coaching 101. You give your team a chance to win. If the Lions elected to receive the kickoff, like they should have, they would have at least had a chance to win on offense. Sure, Chicago could have been stopped on offense, and Detroit given the chance, but Moronweig didn't even give them that opportunity.

Basic Coaching 102: You have a defense.Basic Coaching 103: Field Position is fluid.

Here's an example. Did you know that if Team A has the ball on their own 1 yardline, then Team B is more likely to make the next score? It's a statistical fact that Team B is far more likely to score next in that situation... even though their defense is on the field. So we've already established that there are certain instances where the defense is more likely to score than the offense. If a coach had a choice between starting overtime with the ball at the 1, or starting overtime on defense and letting the other team have the ball on the 1, he'll choose to defend every single time. Move it out to the 10 yard line, and they'll probably make the same decision.

More numbers. I'm sure we'll all agree that last season, Indy had a PHENOMINAL offense, right? Well, their average starting field position was the 31.24 yard line... and they scored, on average, on 46% of drives. That's with the best offense in the league and an average starting field position of the 33 yard line. Assuming Mornhinweg was convinced he could get a touchback (due to the wind), that would reduce their chances. But this is INDIANAPOLIS. Let's see what the 2002 Chicago Bears did in that regard.

In 2002, the Bears were *HORRIBLE* on offense. They only scored points on 26.8% of their drives (and that was with an average starting position of the 30.77 yard line). It's not at all unreasonable to surmise that, with a starting position at the 20 yard line, Chicago had only a 20% chance to score in ideal circumstances. With the wind, maybe Mornhinweg is calculating that they've only got a 15% chance to score. Suddenly the decision isn't looking quite as bad.

As for your "fun fact." You actually did the research for me. I was going to ask you how many coaches have every elected to kick rather than receive in overtime. You only strengthen my argument. Only three coaches have ever done it. 2-1 or not, it doesn't matter. If it's such a smart coaching decision, then why don't more coaches do so? Because it's ridiculous is why! If the wind is whipping around at 50 mph, then perhaps I can see it. But it wasn't that day. It was swirling around SW at about 4 MPH.

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/gamebook/NFL_20021124_DET@CHI

How many coaches have ever taken an intentional safety? Does that mean it was a bad decision when Bellichick did it? First off, coaching is a relatively risk-adverse position. Second off, certain coaching moves require the right combination of events to be worthwhile. While only two other coaches have tried taking the wind, look at who they were- Hank Stram and Mike Shanahan. Both are two of the greatest football minds the game has seen. Both are widely respected as innovators, and incredibly successful. It's not like we're talking about Pete Carroll and Rich Kotite here.

Sure, the wind could have been gusting, as it does fairly often in Chicago. But it still doesn't matter. You give your team the chance to win on the first try. Besides, if going with the wind was such a "smart move," then I guess Paul Edinger's 40 yard field goal going AGAINST the wind was just lucky, right? A 40 yarder isn't exactly a chip shot, especially going AGAINST the wind......

Let's play a hypothetical game. Let's say I line up a kicker to make an attempt that he only has a 1-in-a-million shot at making. Let's say we're going to make a bet on whether he makes it or not. OBVIOUSLY you're going to bet that he misses it. If he then makes it, does that mean you were stupid for betting against him? Did that make it a bad decision?The outcome of an event does not change whether the decision was a good one or not. If Edinger missed that 40 yarder (which is actually a pretty short figgie, as far as figgies go), then we'd all be talking about how brilliant Morninwheg was, because the wind was totally responsible for Edinger missing, blah blah blah.

As for Shannahan... perhaps he got lucky with that move. Has he done it since? I hardly believe that this decision was a major reason for him being called a "Mastermind." Perhaps it was getting things together and putting together a championship-caliber team that won two straight Super Bowls? Perhaps setting up a running back factory in Denver for YEARS now...?

Maybe Shanny got lucky. Maybe Mornhinweg got unlucky. Maybe.Also, as a very avid Denver fan (obviously), I can tell you that this is ABSOLUTELY one of the primary reasons he earned the "Mastermind" nickname. It wasn't for his ability to evaluate talent or assemble good rosters. It wasn't for winning SBs (he earned the nickname before the SB wins). It certainly wasn't for setting up an RB factory (he earned the nickname back when Terrell Davis was the only RB he'd ever used). Mike Shanahan earned the mastermind nickname for making very unconventional choices (like taking the wind) and succeeding with them.

**EDIT** Meant to add that this very game was the death knell for Moronweig. He was already on thin ice in Detroit up to that point, but this game brought about a deep, deep hatred for Moronweig, where fans wanted his HEAD. Him, and Matt Millen, actually. Did Moronweig last past 2002? I think not, and this very game was a perfect example of what a s***** head coach he was.

I agree that this was the death knell for Mornhinweg. Doesn't mean it was a bad decision.Let's compare it to going for it on 4th down. If a coach goes for it on 4th-and-goal from the 1 with 30 seconds left when down by 3 and makes it, then he's a hero. If he doesn't make it, then he's fired. Whether he makes it or not doesn't change whether it was a good decision or a bad decision, though.

So, in summation, you are basically a contrarian. I appreciate the way in which you outline your arguments, but you are the only person on the planet who defended this move. His own players wanted him fired after the game. Even if it worked once or twice, it's a stupid move.

 

[redman]

For those too young to remember, I'll set it up.

1987, week 2. San Francisco @ Cincinnati.

Bengals lead 26-20 with 0:06 remaining. Cincy has the

ball, it's 4th down and they are on their own 30 yard line.

They could have done a few things which would easily have run out the clock:

- Line up to punt, and have the punter run into the end zone.

- Pitch the ball to Brooks and let him slowly, calmly run the ball into his own end zone.

- Have Boomer do the same thing, as Theismann correctly (GULP!) pointed out.

- Get Boomer into a shotgun, and throw the ball nine miles in the air downfield.

So what happened? SEE FOR YOURSELF

It is inconceivable that Cincinnati could lose that game. Wyche deserved

whatever crap he got afterwards. The only other awful coaching decision

which comes to mind that rivals this one was when Marty Mornhinweg was

coaching the Lions, and they are playing the Bears. The game goes into

overtime, Detroit wins the coin toss, and he elects to kick off. Naturally, the

Bears receive the ball and proceed to score on their first possession.

Any other coaching blunders I'm forgetting???

Simply unbelievable. The ONLY two options are either to, as Theisman said, run out of the back of the end zone or to punt it, and the punt option is a distant second to the safety. The only reason you'd punt is because you thought (perhaps reasonably) that the ball carrier would not have been able to reach the end zone before being tackled.

I think the best move is to line up your best/quickest athlete into punt formation. Maybe the guy who normally returns punts or kickoffs for you. Make him the "punter" and have him run around until he kills the six seconds, then he runs out of the end zone. I know it's easy top pile on Wyche, but I mean c'mon.... that should NEVER have happened.

Ok, so you're telegraphing what you're doing, because everybody's going to notice that it's not your punter back there. The defense will only drop one guy to return any drop kick that this punter-stand in might try to make, and the other ten guys are going to rush like it's a punt block attempt. They were where, on the 35 yard line? I could easily envision a DB rushing from the outside able to catch up to a guy who 1) has to wait for the snap to reach him, 2) field it cleanly, and 3) turn around 180 degrees before accellerating. It also bears mention that whoever you had back there to receive the snap, assuming it was a speedster rather than your punter, is unaccustomed to receiving snaps.

I'm not defending Wyche because he made the one decision that definitely ensured that the 49'ers had one last play to run, but it's not necessarily a slam dunk that they go for the safety. It's not like they were on the 15 yard line with only a few steps to go before you reach the end zone.

 

[SSOG]

So, in summation, you are basically a contrarian. I appreciate the way in which you outline your arguments, but you are the only person on the planet who defended this move. His own players wanted him fired after the game. Even if it worked once or twice, it's a stupid move.

I'm not a contrarian. I would have chosen the ball, and I think it's ridiculous that he accepted the holding penalty. I think taking the wind was a BAD decision, just not a HORRIBLE decision. And I think Mornhinweg takes *WAY TOO MUCH* heat for it, when if it had succeeded, nobody would even remember it- just like no one remembers Shanahan making the same choice.

 

[redman]

So, in summation, you are basically a contrarian. I appreciate the way in which you outline your arguments, but you are the only person on the planet who defended this move. His own players wanted him fired after the game. Even if it worked once or twice, it's a stupid move.

I'm not a contrarian. . . .

 

[Chase Stuart]

You're kidding me, right? Wasn't even a bad decision?! It's basic Coaching 101. You give your team a chance to win. If the Lions elected to receive the kickoff, like they should have, they would have at least had a chance to win on offense. Sure, Chicago could have been stopped on offense, and Detroit given the chance, but Moronweig didn't even give them that opportunity.

Basic Coaching 102: You have a defense.Basic Coaching 103: Field Position is fluid.

Here's an example. Did you know that if Team A has the ball on their own 1 yardline, then Team B is more likely to make the next score? It's a statistical fact that Team B is far more likely to score next in that situation... even though their defense is on the field. So we've already established that there are certain instances where the defense is more likely to score than the offense. If a coach had a choice between starting overtime with the ball at the 1, or starting overtime on defense and letting the other team have the ball on the 1, he'll choose to defend every single time. Move it out to the 10 yard line, and they'll probably make the same decision.

More numbers. I'm sure we'll all agree that last season, Indy had a PHENOMINAL offense, right? Well, their average starting field position was the 31.24 yard line... and they scored, on average, on 46% of drives. That's with the best offense in the league and an average starting field position of the 33 yard line. Assuming Mornhinweg was convinced he could get a touchback (due to the wind), that would reduce their chances. But this is INDIANAPOLIS. Let's see what the 2002 Chicago Bears did in that regard.

In 2002, the Bears were *HORRIBLE* on offense. They only scored points on 26.8% of their drives (and that was with an average starting position of the 30.77 yard line). It's not at all unreasonable to surmise that, with a starting position at the 20 yard line, Chicago had only a 20% chance to score in ideal circumstances. With the wind, maybe Mornhinweg is calculating that they've only got a 15% chance to score. Suddenly the decision isn't looking quite as bad.

As for your "fun fact." You actually did the research for me. I was going to ask you how many coaches have every elected to kick rather than receive in overtime. You only strengthen my argument. Only three coaches have ever done it. 2-1 or not, it doesn't matter. If it's such a smart coaching decision, then why don't more coaches do so? Because it's ridiculous is why! If the wind is whipping around at 50 mph, then perhaps I can see it. But it wasn't that day. It was swirling around SW at about 4 MPH.

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/gamebook/NFL_20021124_DET@CHI

How many coaches have ever taken an intentional safety? Does that mean it was a bad decision when Bellichick did it? First off, coaching is a relatively risk-adverse position. Second off, certain coaching moves require the right combination of events to be worthwhile. While only two other coaches have tried taking the wind, look at who they were- Hank Stram and Mike Shanahan. Both are two of the greatest football minds the game has seen. Both are widely respected as innovators, and incredibly successful. It's not like we're talking about Pete Carroll and Rich Kotite here.

Sure, the wind could have been gusting, as it does fairly often in Chicago. But it still doesn't matter. You give your team the chance to win on the first try. Besides, if going with the wind was such a "smart move," then I guess Paul Edinger's 40 yard field goal going AGAINST the wind was just lucky, right? A 40 yarder isn't exactly a chip shot, especially going AGAINST the wind......

Let's play a hypothetical game. Let's say I line up a kicker to make an attempt that he only has a 1-in-a-million shot at making. Let's say we're going to make a bet on whether he makes it or not. OBVIOUSLY you're going to bet that he misses it. If he then makes it, does that mean you were stupid for betting against him? Did that make it a bad decision?The outcome of an event does not change whether the decision was a good one or not. If Edinger missed that 40 yarder (which is actually a pretty short figgie, as far as figgies go), then we'd all be talking about how brilliant Morninwheg was, because the wind was totally responsible for Edinger missing, blah blah blah.

As for Shannahan... perhaps he got lucky with that move. Has he done it since? I hardly believe that this decision was a major reason for him being called a "Mastermind." Perhaps it was getting things together and putting together a championship-caliber team that won two straight Super Bowls? Perhaps setting up a running back factory in Denver for YEARS now...?

Maybe Shanny got lucky. Maybe Mornhinweg got unlucky. Maybe.Also, as a very avid Denver fan (obviously), I can tell you that this is ABSOLUTELY one of the primary reasons he earned the "Mastermind" nickname. It wasn't for his ability to evaluate talent or assemble good rosters. It wasn't for winning SBs (he earned the nickname before the SB wins). It certainly wasn't for setting up an RB factory (he earned the nickname back when Terrell Davis was the only RB he'd ever used). Mike Shanahan earned the mastermind nickname for making very unconventional choices (like taking the wind) and succeeding with them.

**EDIT** Meant to add that this very game was the death knell for Moronweig. He was already on thin ice in Detroit up to that point, but this game brought about a deep, deep hatred for Moronweig, where fans wanted his HEAD. Him, and Matt Millen, actually. Did Moronweig last past 2002? I think not, and this very game was a perfect example of what a s***** head coach he was.

I agree that this was the death knell for Mornhinweg. Doesn't mean it was a bad decision.Let's compare it to going for it on 4th down. If a coach goes for it on 4th-and-goal from the 1 with 30 seconds left when down by 3 and makes it, then he's a hero. If he doesn't make it, then he's fired. Whether he makes it or not doesn't change whether it was a good decision or a bad decision, though.

 

[parasaurolophus]

i dont remember the exact specifics, but dave campo not going for 2 on thanxgiving was pretty bad. I guess he really had a lot of faith in his onside kicking. denver ended up winning the game by 2 points.

 

[MarshallRob]

None of the other examples provided compare to the Wyche mistake other than the Miracle in the Meadowlands. Unconventional strategy isn't necessarily bad. A coach might have what he thinks is a very good reason for passing up the percentage move. Maybe Wannstadt thought the Patriots would be expecting Ricky Williams to get the ball which would therefore increase the chances of a successful pass in that 2002 game. Late in the 2d quarter of that Green Bay playoff loss to Philly, Green Bay went for it on 4th-and-goal and the Eagles stuffed Ahman Green. The same thing had happened on third down. Sherman had to be thinking about that when he decided to punt late instead of going for it. His defense did force a 4th-and-26 so I don't see how Sherman blundered. His defense just let him down.

The Bengals on the other hand had their game won. All they needed to do was run a play lasting 6 seconds. Since the play Wyche called had no chance to last 6 seconds, he gave the game away. The Miracle in the Meadowlands is the worst blunder ever because all the Giants coaches had to do was order the simplest of all plays to execute: the kneel down.

 

[Hastur]

Barry Switzer continually running Emmitt Smith into the line against the Eagles. I think it was 3 straight plays in their own territory. Forget which year

I was at that game. The 'load left' game. Awful.

 

[Raider Nation]

Fixed the link in the OP. It was broken after 5½ years. Go figure.

This clip still makes me laugh every time. Enjoy.