Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Why not let (Forte) score? (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter AngryPatriot
- Start date
OU#1
Footballguy
You guys are also missing the fact that the Chicago coach is just as dumb for trying to score a TD.
Shoulda been taking knees and understanding the situation with proper time management. It worked out ok for Lovie so he doesn't look like the moron that he is either.
Poor coaching on both sides. Neither team deserved to win that game. Chicago won't be undefeated for long playing like this.
Edit: I didn't read this entire thread. Looks like others have mentioned this....but the point stands. Dumb coaches!
Shoulda been taking knees and understanding the situation with proper time management. It worked out ok for Lovie so he doesn't look like the moron that he is either.
Poor coaching on both sides. Neither team deserved to win that game. Chicago won't be undefeated for long playing like this.
Edit: I didn't read this entire thread. Looks like others have mentioned this....but the point stands. Dumb coaches!
Last edited by a moderator:
pizzatyme
Footballguy
Fair enough, maybe I overspoke. He's a very average coach.
Although, he did let them punt it to Hester. Just kick it out of bounds. He just doesn't seem to be in control out there to me. When I think of guys who are in full control and fully aware of the game situation, I think of Jeff Fisher, Kubiak, Payton, etc. Maybe it's just my perception. 
I think its more that everyone was all ready taking for granted that Lovie was making bad decisions...its pretty much routine at this point.
Last edited by a moderator:
zoonation
Footballguy
The other way is to watch the two plays again with your eyes open.
DBIsports
Footballguy
If you are a coach I think you have to look at it like you never give away points. By not just allowing a walk-in touchdown you give your team three opportunities to win the game.
1. Forte could have fumbled the ball.
2. Field goal could have been blocked or missed
3. Kickoff could have been returned for a touchdown
1. Forte could have fumbled the ball.
2. Field goal could have been blocked or missed
3. Kickoff could have been returned for a touchdown
DepthCharts
Footballguy
I have to think the real decision was made before the actual events ever took place, years ago, when a coach either did his own math (or had a number pusher help him) so when this situation came up he knew what he exactly what he was going to do. This wasn't a wing it decision made at soldier field on Sep 27, 2010. They practice and preach as such year round. They (the whole packer organization) knew they were not going to "let them score". Even though the fact that the resulting kick may even be a 98% chance, as a coach he has decided that the odds have a better chance of dropping from a 98% successful kick if in fact you do not let them score on 1st down with only 2 timeouts left. Here are the odds he favored in choosing to not "let them score" ("let them score", ugh, brutal words in coaching to here)
2nd down
Snap Ball (% possiblilty of penalty, % possibility of fumble)
Receive Snap (% possibility of fumble, % possibility of one of 11 man bolting through line and making a stop in backfield moving kick back any* number of yards
Handoff to RB (% possibily of fumble, % chance a penalty could be happening anywhere here on the offense, tackle for a loss)
RB Run (% possibilty of stripping the ball with the guys you have trained to 2 man gang strip all week in practice)
2 timeouts, so they have to do it twice
3rd Down
Repeat all of the above
4th Down Kick,
comes down to a Kicker kicking a 98% or less field goal to win the game in the NFL in front of 55000 people. (its either going to remain at 98% success rate or its going to have decreased based on above, the odds will not increase)
now wait, the kick isnt over.....
Snap, Hold, Kick (bad snap, bad catch, bad hold, bad kick, penalty, block, miss (add to this the mental pressure))
all of this being said I believe I understand why coaches make the decisions they make and sadly they do not help my fantasy team in some cases. I am not a Packer or a Bear fan and had no one going tonight and dont think the call was stupid (if i had buffalo's defense this does not hold too much water)
I know i do or have thrown the word around that a coach is dumb, but i think this one is explainable.
2nd down
Snap Ball (% possiblilty of penalty, % possibility of fumble)
Receive Snap (% possibility of fumble, % possibility of one of 11 man bolting through line and making a stop in backfield moving kick back any* number of yards
Handoff to RB (% possibily of fumble, % chance a penalty could be happening anywhere here on the offense, tackle for a loss)
RB Run (% possibilty of stripping the ball with the guys you have trained to 2 man gang strip all week in practice)
2 timeouts, so they have to do it twice
3rd Down
Repeat all of the above
4th Down Kick,
comes down to a Kicker kicking a 98% or less field goal to win the game in the NFL in front of 55000 people. (its either going to remain at 98% success rate or its going to have decreased based on above, the odds will not increase)
now wait, the kick isnt over.....
Snap, Hold, Kick (bad snap, bad catch, bad hold, bad kick, penalty, block, miss (add to this the mental pressure))
all of this being said I believe I understand why coaches make the decisions they make and sadly they do not help my fantasy team in some cases. I am not a Packer or a Bear fan and had no one going tonight and dont think the call was stupid (if i had buffalo's defense this does not hold too much water)
I know i do or have thrown the word around that a coach is dumb, but i think this one is explainable.
LargeMouthBass
Footballguy
Bottom line, McCarthy is an idiot... You gotta let Chicago score in that situation, especially when they were trying to score.
Last edited by a moderator:
CalBear
Footballguy
2. and 3. are still available if you let him walk in. All you get by trying to stop him is the possibility that he fumbles.
CalBear
Footballguy
Horse manure. Do you have any evidence that the decision was based on rigorous statistical analysis? It's been well-proven that NFL teams (and teams in other sports) regularly make decisions which are statistically wrong. This was two of them (going for the TD, and trying to stop it).
DBIsports
Footballguy
2 would no longer be available, 3 would give you a chance to tie the game, not win it.
pizzatyme
Footballguy
Technically, you could go for 2 and the win.
Catbird
Footballguy
That's just wrong. The reality is that coaches make mistakes in clock management and late game decisions, and both made mistakes here - although it didn't hurt the Bears to try and run it in instead of taking a knee on the two Forte carries. (My thought was that Lovie might have Forte in a close fantasy game?)
You are correct that something COULD have happened to save the Pack by taking the path they did. But their odds of stopping the FG were not greater that their odds would be receiving a kickoff with over a minute left. You wouldn't have to watch a lot of football to know which is going to happen more often. Heck, returning the kick for a score is about as likely as the Bears missing an extra point. Also having a minute after that for Rodgers to lead a passing drive?
Look at it from the other side. Do you think the Bears would rather face kicking off to the Pack with a minute left or a having to hold the ball for 2 plays and make a 3 yard FG? The chances of screwing up the FG are just FAR, FAR less - meaning the Packers chances were far, far greater if they let the Bears score when it became next to certain they would, and receiving a kickoff.
You are correct that something COULD have happened to save the Pack by taking the path they did. But their odds of stopping the FG were not greater that their odds would be receiving a kickoff with over a minute left. You wouldn't have to watch a lot of football to know which is going to happen more often. Heck, returning the kick for a score is about as likely as the Bears missing an extra point. Also having a minute after that for Rodgers to lead a passing drive?
Look at it from the other side. Do you think the Bears would rather face kicking off to the Pack with a minute left or a having to hold the ball for 2 plays and make a 3 yard FG? The chances of screwing up the FG are just FAR, FAR less - meaning the Packers chances were far, far greater if they let the Bears score when it became next to certain they would, and receiving a kickoff.
nor do they care about maximizing their teams chances of winning. they care about keeping their jobs. the bill belichick fiasco of last yr illustrates this.
DBIsports
Footballguy
If you allow the walk-in, you then need to score in a touchdown of your own in less than a minute, win the coin toss and then score again. The odds are even more against you. You have to give your defense and special teams the chance to win it in regulation.
you are gonna have to show your work here
hugebearsfansinceforever
Footballguy
That's pretty much what McCarthy said in his press conference after the game. He seemed miffed that the reporter who asked the question would even consider the possibility.
Catbird
Footballguy
If you allow the walk-in, you then need to score in a touchdown of your own in less than a minute, win the coin toss and then score again. The odds are even more against you. You have to give your defense and special teams the chance to win it in regulation.
This is not nuclear physics. Either way, the best the Pack can hope for is a tie and overtime. The way they handled it, the only chance is a fumble or the Bears miss an extra point kick. The other option would have been to let them to score and get the ball back on a kickoff with a minute left. Its not the best of situations. But having the chance to run back a kickoff and if not give the ball to Rodgres with a minute left and hope to tie, is a lot better than placing your hopes for a tie and overtime on the Bears missing a 3 yard FG.
This is not nuclear physics. Either way, the best the Pack can hope for is a tie and overtime. The way they handled it, the only chance is a fumble or the Bears miss an extra point kick. The other option would have been to let them to score and get the ball back on a kickoff with a minute left. Its not the best of situations. But having the chance to run back a kickoff and if not give the ball to Rodgres with a minute left and hope to tie, is a lot better than placing your hopes for a tie and overtime on the Bears missing a 3 yard FG.
Its just a question of who do you want to trust and what situation would they be in
Situation A: You're MVP level quarterback whose been carrying your team on his back all night vs a Lovie smith D notorious for caving in prevent situations (see: Bears v Falcons 08, Bears v Lions 10)
Situation B: You're various lineman vs a running back with out particular tendency to fumble & one of the more reliable short yardage kickers around in a comfortable situation and then your average(not certain on ranking pack return unit?) special teams unit vs a solid bears coverage team
Situation A: You're MVP level quarterback whose been carrying your team on his back all night vs a Lovie smith D notorious for caving in prevent situations (see: Bears v Falcons 08, Bears v Lions 10)
Situation B: You're various lineman vs a running back with out particular tendency to fumble & one of the more reliable short yardage kickers around in a comfortable situation and then your average(not certain on ranking pack return unit?) special teams unit vs a solid bears coverage team
From post game:
(Did you consider letting them score on their last drive to give your offense time on the clock to come back?)
No I did not. I did not consider letting them score at the end. I felt that if they missed the field goal, we’d win the game. It was talked about, but that was not the decision I went with.
This is why McCarthy could never even sniff being an above average coach. This and the challenge. He's way to stubborn and usually his first gut reaction is just plain dumb. Here's what the above quote boils down to:
"I thought there was a better chance that they would miss a five yard field goal than our offense scoring a TD with less than two minutes left on the clock."
(Did you consider letting them score on their last drive to give your offense time on the clock to come back?)
No I did not. I did not consider letting them score at the end. I felt that if they missed the field goal, we’d win the game. It was talked about, but that was not the decision I went with.
This is why McCarthy could never even sniff being an above average coach. This and the challenge. He's way to stubborn and usually his first gut reaction is just plain dumb. Here's what the above quote boils down to:
"I thought there was a better chance that they would miss a five yard field goal than our offense scoring a TD with less than two minutes left on the clock."
Football Critic
Footballguy
LOL, so because they didnt make it obvious means they were not try to let them score?Some of you are the same people I am sure that would be blasting the Packerslet the Bears score, saying they should of stopped them anyways, so why even bother.The point is the Bears didnt want to score, because these professional coaches who have studied game play, seen more film, and have more experience in game management then any of us, thought it was in the best interest to run out the clock and attempt a field goal with a sure footed kicker. The Packers some what tried I believe to lwt thwm score, even tho u seen players waving there hands as to say they got stopped.....fact is Lovie didnt want to get in, so the point is moot. ...and remember coaches don't coach to put up fantasy points, they coach to win a real football game.So, you interpreted them tackling the ball carrier as "trying to let them score"? Interesting analysis (?).I believe they tried to let them score, but Chicago didnt want to, I dont know why...but I do know that coaches do whats best for winning, and that was the best.Yeah, I'm not sure that they're getting the big picture here..FF has nothing to do with it
Last edited by a moderator:
Utter Chaos
Footballguy
A) Not let Forte score:
The chance of a fumble = 1%
The chance of a failed FG= 2%
The chance of a kickoff return after a FG = 1% [the only scenario that guarantees GB a victory]
B) Let Fote score:
The chance of a kickoff return after a TD = 1%
The chance of Rogers marching down the field with 1 timeout in a minute for a TD = probably about 10%
I'd take my chances with the scenario B
People are blaming the penalties and TO/clock management for costing the Packers the game but I haven't seen much mention of special teams. Two good punt returns (one of which was a TD) and a missed FG. Green Bay should have won the game easily.
The chance of a fumble = 1%
The chance of a failed FG= 2%
The chance of a kickoff return after a FG = 1% [the only scenario that guarantees GB a victory]
B) Let Fote score:
The chance of a kickoff return after a TD = 1%
The chance of Rogers marching down the field with 1 timeout in a minute for a TD = probably about 10%
I'd take my chances with the scenario B
People are blaming the penalties and TO/clock management for costing the Packers the game but I haven't seen much mention of special teams. Two good punt returns (one of which was a TD) and a missed FG. Green Bay should have won the game easily.
Todem
Footballguy
Ya....ok. He was driving towards the endzone. They would have loved a TD.
Sam Quentin
Footballguy
All coaches should carry a card like that 2-point conversion card. Based on clock time and timeouts; if the other team can run the clock down under say :23, then you let them score.
Chicago was absolutely trying to score a TD at the end. They absolutely should have been also. I know some of you think they should have knealt on the ball to run out the clock and kick a FG as time ran out, but too much can go wrong on a FG attempt. There is a reason Lovie Smith (and not CalBear) coaches the Bears. In a tie game you play for the TD, not the FG. Ever watched an OT game where a team kicks the FG on third down??? Did you ever wonder why??? It's the same reason Lovie Smith made the CORRECT decision to go for the TD at the end of the game last night.
Were I the coach I would have had my defense punching the ball out, not tackling the runner. I also would have had my strong safety charging the line and diving over the pile for the Q.B. anticipating a quick count hoping to time it at to create a fumble. If succesfully timed, great, if not it's not like a penalty at that point would have hurt them. Simply do everything to create a funmble or allow the score with time remaining.
this was kind of like watching Jim Carey and Jeff Daniels play a game of chess..........
I'm just a dumb Missouri schmuck living in CO and watching the game in bed with my wife.....the FIRST thing that comes to my mind is "let them score"......the second is "don't score, take a knee".....cause I really couldn't care less who won this one....
my point is on both sides, I think it was a no brainer.....yet here we are still trying to figure out what BOTH of these guys were thinking......I don't get paid millions, but I thought it was pretty easy....
CHI:....I can see a point being made for CHI to go ahead and take the TD, but my gut still says take a knee, run out the clock and kick the FG.....from the Bears point of view, that seems to give me the best chance to win the game....
GB: only choice here is to let them score......I don't even think it is a tough decision....and don't give me this crap about missing it or I trust my FG block unit.....nobody would have second guessed McCarthy if he let's them score......nobody
the major point here is how much time was left......
I'm just a dumb Missouri schmuck living in CO and watching the game in bed with my wife.....the FIRST thing that comes to my mind is "let them score"......the second is "don't score, take a knee".....cause I really couldn't care less who won this one....
my point is on both sides, I think it was a no brainer.....yet here we are still trying to figure out what BOTH of these guys were thinking......I don't get paid millions, but I thought it was pretty easy....
CHI:....I can see a point being made for CHI to go ahead and take the TD, but my gut still says take a knee, run out the clock and kick the FG.....from the Bears point of view, that seems to give me the best chance to win the game....
GB: only choice here is to let them score......I don't even think it is a tough decision....and don't give me this crap about missing it or I trust my FG block unit.....nobody would have second guessed McCarthy if he let's them score......nobody
the major point here is how much time was left......
Last edited by a moderator:
Utter Chaos
Footballguy
I had it at 1% but bumped it up to 2% because of the possibility of a bad snap or hold.BusterTBronco said:
Sam Quentin
Footballguy
Gould is also 40 for 40 from under 30 yards
I think you are giving McCarthy too much consideration regarding prepping for every circumstance. End of game clock management is a nightmare for many coaches. If there was some "manual" somewhere Andy Reid, Herm Edwards, Singletary, etc. wouldn't make so many mistakes. They dont know if Chicago is going to kneel the ball (as they should) so all those potential turnovers on runs go out the window and your just relying on a kicker to miss an extra pt distance kick. Your only hope is to open up your defense and hope Chicago is stupid enough to score. You get the ball back with 2 timeouts and around a minute and a half. And THE JERMICAL FINLEY!
Last edited by a moderator:
CalBear
Footballguy
Are you suggesting that this doesn't happen? If so, you're completely wrong; teams who feel they're in easy field goal range in OT will kick on their first opportunity, after centering the ball. Happens all the time. Happened this weekend, actually (but Hartley missed the kick, which was on first down).But the OT situation isn't exactly analogous. The reason the Bears should have gone for a FG was the clock situation, not the score; taking two knees, they could avoid the risk of fumble, and score with almost no time left on the clock.
Here's what it comes down to: would you rather be up 20-17 with 8 seconds left, or 24-17 with a minute left?
I think you're over estimating this a bit, probably a lot actually, I'd put it closer to 5%. There's a reason why GB had 3 long time consuming drives last night, because Chicago forces GB to nickel and dime their way down the field. That wouldn't have changed. The bears defense are also excellent tacklers limiting the chances of getting out of bounds. Not to mention that in a clear passing situation GB's line had a rough time protecting Rodgers (well they protected him well by holding a lot). Even if they let them score, I think the chances with only 1 time out of Green Bay coming back aren't great.
That said, I think Green Bay should have let them score b/c even though I dont' think the chances are as great as you think, I think they're still better than hoping his misses the kick.
Restricted
Footballguy
Clifford
Footballguy
Umm, what?
If you come back after your time off, be way cooler.J
FFdork
Footballguy
I agree that GB should have let the Bears score. The odds of winning were long either way, but I'd rather have the ball with over a minute and Aaron Rogers than hope they screw up what amounts to an extra point.
On the flip side, I don't think it would have been dumb for Chicago to take the TD there, especially if the Pack tried to hand it to them. Yes, the FG is probably a 98% success rate, but being handed a TD is 100%. Then you're up 7 at home, you have all the momentum, GB would have had one or no timeouts depending on when they let you score, and was having a tough time with your pass rush. If you take a knee a couple times to run out the clock, have the holder pull a Romo, and then lose in OT that's the kind of hangover-inducing loss that could turn a season.
On the flip side, I don't think it would have been dumb for Chicago to take the TD there, especially if the Pack tried to hand it to them. Yes, the FG is probably a 98% success rate, but being handed a TD is 100%. Then you're up 7 at home, you have all the momentum, GB would have had one or no timeouts depending on when they let you score, and was having a tough time with your pass rush. If you take a knee a couple times to run out the clock, have the holder pull a Romo, and then lose in OT that's the kind of hangover-inducing loss that could turn a season.
CalBear
Footballguy
This is illogical. If it's right for GB to let Chicago score a TD, than it's wrong for Chicago to score a TD.
Excellent question.
Mike & Mike did this this morning. Greenberg was all for letting them score. Golic acknowledged it might be the right play but said players and coaches don't think in terms of allowing the other team to score.
J
Mike & Mike did this this morning. Greenberg was all for letting them score. Golic acknowledged it might be the right play but said players and coaches don't think in terms of allowing the other team to score.
J
jurb26
Footballguy
I don't agree with letting a team score. You don't know what could happen when they try that FG. They could botch the snap. The snapper may snap it high, low or sideways leading to messed up timing. Hell, maybe you BLOCK the K like the other team just did to you earlier that game. The chances of any of those things happening are better than your chances of going 80 to 70 yds with less than a minute and no time outs IMO.
Wolfpacker
Footballguy
If the Packers would have allowed Forte to walk into the end zone, there would be twice as many people in here complaining - those who would call McCarthy an idiot for allowing it, and the fantasy football players that lost to the Forte owner by 5 points or less.
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
You're giving these guys way, way too much credit.That sad thing is that for the millions of dollars on the line here, there's not a team out there that DOES have someone doing something like this. If they did, we would see a lot of the traditional decisions made in football be completely reversed by now. College coaches are catching on much faster than pro coaches, but 30 years from now I think we're going to see a completely different style of decision making in football that is more similar to what people with nothing on the line have been doing in videogames for the last 10 years. Someone just has to be the one to step up kickstart it. Bellicheck tried to on that 4th and 2 play last year, but it didn't work so naturally the "judge only from the result, not from the reason" crowd jumped down his throat and set the whole thing back a couple years.It's risk aversion. If there was nothing on the line and Mike McCarthy were playing a videogame, he would have let them score. But with his job on the line and millions of people watching, he's scared to make the decision that's not generally accepted based on tradition. We've seen this a million times over. The guys with more job security (Bellicheck in the NFL, and Saban, Meyer, etc in college football) take far more "risks" by playing the smart decision rather than the traditional one. It's only a matter of time before the number of successes that have come out of these risks (Urban would never have won his first NC without faking a punt on 4th and long from his own 20 yard line, something that up until that point was deemed absolutely insane) become too much to ignore.
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
That kick took place from the two yard line, middle of the field. It was for all intents and purposes, an extra point.Robbie Gould is 179-180 on extra points in his career. Every single one of those kicks included a snap, a kick, and a team trying to block it. And yet, he made it 99.5% of the time.Green Bay ran their first goal to go play with 1:44 left on the clock, and one timeout.So basically what you're saying is that you believe the chance that one of the top 3 offenses in the NFL could get the ball via a kickoff and score a TD with 1:44 left on the clock and one timeout is less than a half of one percent?Cuh-razy.
Last edited by a moderator:
CalBear
Footballguy
This is not exactly correct; Gould's XP percentage doesn't include botched snaps or other plays where he didn't manage to kick it.Still, the success percentage is extremely high; clearly higher than the success percentage of stopping Green Bay from running a 2-minute drill.
jurb26
Footballguy
GB had all game, or more specifically 58:16, to score all these points you seem to think are so easy to come by yet they managed only 17. You act as if this were a game of madden and they could score whenever they want. They tried to score all game long and only put up 17 points.
@ the notion that players are trying just as hard to block extra points as they are to blocking game winning FGs.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fixed.
CalBear
Footballguy
Green Bay had nine drives and scored TDs on two of them. So a baseline for their success rate would be 22%, modified downwards by time factors, and upwards by the knowledge that they need a TD (they wouldn't kick a FG from the 7 yard line). Whether that comes out to 10%, 15%, or 20%, it's clearly way higher than the probability that they'll block a 19-yard FG.GB had all game, or more specifically 58:16, to score all these points you seem to think are so easy to come by yet they managed only 17. You act as if the were a game of madden and they could score whenever they want. They tried to score all game long and only put up 17 points.
Similar threads
