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.

Why the Cowher FG call was the worst of his career (1 Viewer)

Not sure if anyone in here brought this up.  The Steelers were on the 2 yard line.  If you kick the field goal you still need another FG, TD, and 2 pt conversion.  The 2 pt conversion comes from the 2 yard line.  So you are saying you can't get a TD from the 2, but you can get a 2 point conversion from the exact same spot on the field?  Makes absolutely no sense.
I agere, it was a ridiculous call. In fact, Cowher even defended his decision basing it on the fact that he'd only need another field goal and TD (and 2 pt conversion). As if the 2 point conversion was easier to convert than the 4th and goal from the 2.
Huh, seems you guys have no understanding of the term "strategy" :rolleyes:
If you kick the field goal there you are saying that you can score 3 times in one quarter against that Patriot D. What I can't understand is a flawed strategy like that. And please explain to me how you can say that you can't score a TD from the 2 but you can get a 2 point conversion from the exact same spot.
That's exactly what I'm saying. If you don't have faith in your offense to score 2 TD's in the last 13 minutes of a game, why would you think you deserve to be in the Superbowl to begin with?
 
Not sure if anyone in here brought this up. The Steelers were on the 2 yard line. If you kick the field goal you still need another FG, TD, and 2 pt conversion. The 2 pt conversion comes from the 2 yard line. So you are saying you can't get a TD from the 2, but you can get a 2 point conversion from the exact same spot on the field? Makes absolutely no sense.
I agere, it was a ridiculous call. In fact, Cowher even defended his decision basing it on the fact that he'd only need another field goal and TD (and 2 pt conversion). As if the 2 point conversion was easier to convert than the 4th and goal from the 2.
Huh, seems you guys have no understanding of the term "strategy" :rolleyes:
If you kick the field goal there you are saying that you can score 3 times in one quarter against that Patriot D. What I can't understand is a flawed strategy like that. And please explain to me how you can say that you can't score a TD from the 2 but you can get a 2 point conversion from the exact same spot.
That's exactly what I'm saying. If you don't have faith in your offense to score 2 TD's in the last 13 minutes of a game, why would you think you deserve to be in the Superbowl to begin with?
If you don't think your team can score on a 4th and 2, why do you think they can convert a 2 point conversion?
 
The Steelers had momentum. They needed to put pressure on the PATS. If you got within 1 score, 1 PATS mistake of tieing the game after being down by 21 at the half. That is real pressure. Even someone as cool as Brady would feel it then.Down by 11 with 13 minutes left represented no pressure to the PATS and they showed it by marching right down the field for a field goal taking 5 minutes off the clock.SCOOBYI'm interested to know what questionable calls went the PATS way? Please elaborate.

 
The Steelers had momentum. They needed to put pressure on the PATS. If you got within 1 score, 1 PATS mistake of tieing the game after being down by 21 at the half. That is real pressure. Even someone as cool as Brady would feel it then.Down by 11 with 13 minutes left represented no pressure to the PATS and they showed it by marching right down the field for a field goal taking 5 minutes off the clock.SCOOBYI'm interested to know what questionable calls went the PATS way? Please elaborate.
Yes and as a head coach you have to have a feel for the game in that spot. When he kicked the field goal the crowd completely left the game.
 
Not sure if anyone in here brought this up.  The Steelers were on the 2 yard line.  If you kick the field goal you still need another FG, TD, and 2 pt conversion.  The 2 pt conversion comes from the 2 yard line.  So you are saying you can't get a TD from the 2, but you can get a 2 point conversion from the exact same spot on the field?  Makes absolutely no sense.
I agere, it was a ridiculous call. In fact, Cowher even defended his decision basing it on the fact that he'd only need another field goal and TD (and 2 pt conversion). As if the 2 point conversion was easier to convert than the 4th and goal from the 2.
Huh, seems you guys have no understanding of the term "strategy" :rolleyes:
If you kick the field goal there you are saying that you can score 3 times in one quarter against that Patriot D. What I can't understand is a flawed strategy like that. And please explain to me how you can say that you can't score a TD from the 2 but you can get a 2 point conversion from the exact same spot.
That's exactly what I'm saying. If you don't have faith in your offense to score 2 TD's in the last 13 minutes of a game, why would you think you deserve to be in the Superbowl to begin with?
If you don't think your team can score on a 4th and 2, why do you think they can convert a 2 point conversion?
:wall: It's not about being able to score there, it's about doing the smart thing. Hindsight is 20/20 but looking at the situation you need think about all the possibilities. I'll give you a scenario:If the Steelers go for it on 4th down and fail and the Pats drive down to the Steelers 30, do you think they would try to kick a 47 yard FG on 4th and 1 or go for it? Chances are they go for it since they have already have a 2 TD lead. This is why you take the FG and give yourself a chance to hold them to just a FG and not give them incentive to go for it on 4th down.
 
Take your scenario. The Steelers fail and the PATS drive from the 2 to the Steelers 30. THE GAME IS OVER because the PATS would have run about 8-9 minutes off the clock getting to the 30.

 
Not sure if anyone in here brought this up. The Steelers were on the 2 yard line. If you kick the field goal you still need another FG, TD, and 2 pt conversion. The 2 pt conversion comes from the 2 yard line. So you are saying you can't get a TD from the 2, but you can get a 2 point conversion from the exact same spot on the field? Makes absolutely no sense.
I agere, it was a ridiculous call. In fact, Cowher even defended his decision basing it on the fact that he'd only need another field goal and TD (and 2 pt conversion). As if the 2 point conversion was easier to convert than the 4th and goal from the 2.
Huh, seems you guys have no understanding of the term "strategy" :rolleyes:
If you kick the field goal there you are saying that you can score 3 times in one quarter against that Patriot D. What I can't understand is a flawed strategy like that. And please explain to me how you can say that you can't score a TD from the 2 but you can get a 2 point conversion from the exact same spot.
That's exactly what I'm saying. If you don't have faith in your offense to score 2 TD's in the last 13 minutes of a game, why would you think you deserve to be in the Superbowl to begin with?
If you don't think your team can score on a 4th and 2, why do you think they can convert a 2 point conversion?
:wall: It's not about being able to score there, it's about doing the smart thing. Hindsight is 20/20 but looking at the situation you need think about all the possibilities. I'll give you a scenario:If the Steelers go for it on 4th down and fail and the Pats drive down to the Steelers 30, do you think they would try to kick a 47 yard FG on 4th and 1 or go for it? Chances are they go for it since they have already have a 2 TD lead. This is why you take the FG and give yourself a chance to hold them to just a FG and not give them incentive to go for it on 4th down.
WTF?
 
Not sure if anyone in here brought this up. The Steelers were on the 2 yard line. If you kick the field goal you still need another FG, TD, and 2 pt conversion. The 2 pt conversion comes from the 2 yard line. So you are saying you can't get a TD from the 2, but you can get a 2 point conversion from the exact same spot on the field? Makes absolutely no sense.
I agere, it was a ridiculous call. In fact, Cowher even defended his decision basing it on the fact that he'd only need another field goal and TD (and 2 pt conversion). As if the 2 point conversion was easier to convert than the 4th and goal from the 2.
Huh, seems you guys have no understanding of the term "strategy" :rolleyes:
If you kick the field goal there you are saying that you can score 3 times in one quarter against that Patriot D. What I can't understand is a flawed strategy like that. And please explain to me how you can say that you can't score a TD from the 2 but you can get a 2 point conversion from the exact same spot.
That's exactly what I'm saying. If you don't have faith in your offense to score 2 TD's in the last 13 minutes of a game, why would you think you deserve to be in the Superbowl to begin with?
If you don't think your team can score on a 4th and 2, why do you think they can convert a 2 point conversion?
:wall: It's not about being able to score there, it's about doing the smart thing. Hindsight is 20/20 but looking at the situation you need think about all the possibilities. I'll give you a scenario:If the Steelers go for it on 4th down and fail and the Pats drive down to the Steelers 30, do you think they would try to kick a 47 yard FG on 4th and 1 or go for it? Chances are they go for it since they have already have a 2 TD lead. This is why you take the FG and give yourself a chance to hold them to just a FG and not give them incentive to go for it on 4th down.
I'll give you another scenario. The Steelers get a TD and kick the extra point and are down 7 instead of down 11. They have the momentum, the crowd is going crazy and all the pressure is on the Patriots. They only need one TD instead of a TD, a 2 point conversion and a field goal or 2 TDs.Worst case scenario is the Patriots get the ball at their own 2 and the Steelers still need 2 TDs.To have any chance in the game at all, the Steelers D was going to have to step it up. You have to assume they would in that situation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Let me get this straight......you think Cowher was correct in not going for the TD cause he prevented NE from going for a first down later?

 
That was a call that may define his career.
im really afraid of that. he is such a good coach and giving the whole team the fire, passion, heart that defines steelers football... but he just cant give us the mental edge of having a winning game plan for that one game. we have the exact same game plan for every game, you would think that after a 1-3 record in afc title games at home, cowher would realize that you have to put some wrinkles in to get to the super bowl...
Does anyone think that Marv Levy was not a great football coach?It's too bad that Cowher's season (or even career) is being defined by a FG attempt that put the steelers 11 pts down with 14 minutes left in the 4th quarter.I thought they should have went for it too, but I'll remember this as the season the Steelers and Coach Cowher went 16-2 and won 14 straight with a rookie QB. Stoudt, Malone, Brister, O'donnell (OK, Neil was good, but Superbowl XXX...) , Stewart, Tomsac, Stewart, Jim Miller, Stewart, Graham, Stewart, Maddox... How many did I miss? This loss hurts, but knowing we probably have ourselves the QB we've been waiting over 20 years for takes a lot of the sting out of it.
 
Good points guys and believe me I see your point of view. However, you've watched the Patriots pull out victories by FG since 2001 and that's exactly how I think this game could've turned out. I have plenty of faith in Brady to march his team down inside the 35 yard line at least once in the 4th quarter to set a Vinitieri FG to win. I think that's what Cowher was thinking about as well when he made the call.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It was easily the stupidest call I've seen in a long time. Worst case scenario if you don't punch it in: You need 2 scores (2 TDs). NE is stuck at their 1 yard line, and I don't care how bummed Pitt is that they didn't score the FG, you know those fans are going to suck it up and scream their butts off with NE stuffed at their own endzone. Field position is so crucial, and if you can get a 3-and-out on them, you start the next drive with 9-10 minutes left at the 50. That, to me is acceptable.Here's the BEST case scenario of you kick the FG: You still need to score 3 times (TD, 2-ptconv, FG). This is worse than if you DON'T make the TD on that 4th down play. Forget that you still have to score another TD and a pressure-packed FG in crummy conditions...That 2pt conversion is a must, and you line your team up at the 3. Otherwise, you need a FOURTH score. And, Cowher thinks THAT'S better than lining up at the 1 on the play in question? Unreal.Totally brain-dead move by Cowher. And, if that defines him as a coach, let it. That was absurd.

 
That was a call that may define his career.
im really afraid of that. he is such a good coach and giving the whole team the fire, passion, heart that defines steelers football... but he just cant give us the mental edge of having a winning game plan for that one game. we have the exact same game plan for every game, you would think that after a 1-3 record in afc title games at home, cowher would realize that you have to put some wrinkles in to get to the super bowl...
Does anyone think that Marv Levy was not a great football coach?It's too bad that Cowher's season (or even career) is being defined by a FG attempt that put the steelers 11 pts down with 14 minutes left in the 4th quarter.I thought they should have went for it too, but I'll remember this as the season the Steelers and Coach Cowher went 16-2 and won 14 straight with a rookie QB. Stoudt, Malone, Brister, O'donnell (OK, Neil was good, but Superbowl XXX...) , Stewart, Tomsac, Stewart, Jim Miller, Stewart, Graham, Stewart, Maddox... How many did I miss? This loss hurts, but knowing we probably have ourselves the QB we've been waiting over 20 years for takes a lot of the sting out of it.
I like Cowher a lot and I think he is a very good coach and a great motivator.....however, he is a bad big game coach. Not necessarily for this game, but 1-4 in AFC title games in your own building speaks for itself. He is from the Marty school of coaching where you coach scared and not to lose in the playoffs and that is not how you win titles. Some guys are very good regular season coaches but they are not big game coaches.
 
It was easily the stupidest call I've seen in a long time. Worst case scenario if you don't punch it in: You need 2 scores (2 TDs). NE is stuck at their 1 yard line, and I don't care how bummed Pitt is that they didn't score the FG, you know those fans are going to suck it up and scream their butts off with NE stuffed at their own endzone. Field position is so crucial, and if you can get a 3-and-out on them, you start the next drive with 9-10 minutes left at the 50. That, to me is acceptable.Here's the BEST case scenario of you kick the FG: You still need to score 3 times (TD, 2-ptconv, FG). This is worse than if you DON'T make the TD on that 4th down play. Forget that you still have to score another TD and a pressure-packed FG in crummy conditions...That 2pt conversion is a must, and you line your team up at the 3. Otherwise, you need a FOURTH score. And, Cowher thinks THAT'S better than lining up at the 1 on the play in question? Unreal.Totally brain-dead move by Cowher. And, if that defines him as a coach, let it. That was absurd.
After the FG by the Steelers and the FG by the Patriots, the Steelers had 8 minutes to score two TD's. You expect your QB to lead you down the field and score a TD in that situation, not throw his 3rd pick. If they scored on that drive within 4 minutes they could have given the ball back to the Pats and stopped them, giving Ben a chance for a game-tying drive in the final 2 minutes.However, that's a lot to ask for a rookie QB - even one that played as well as he did all year. I don't think either call (FG or go for it) is wrong, but I like the chances of winning better by taking the FG.
 
That was a call that may define his career.
im really afraid of that. he is such a good coach and giving the whole team the fire, passion, heart that defines steelers football... but he just cant give us the mental edge of having a winning game plan for that one game. we have the exact same game plan for every game, you would think that after a 1-3 record in afc title games at home, cowher would realize that you have to put some wrinkles in to get to the super bowl...
Does anyone think that Marv Levy was not a great football coach?It's too bad that Cowher's season (or even career) is being defined by a FG attempt that put the steelers 11 pts down with 14 minutes left in the 4th quarter.I thought they should have went for it too, but I'll remember this as the season the Steelers and Coach Cowher went 16-2 and won 14 straight with a rookie QB. Stoudt, Malone, Brister, O'donnell (OK, Neil was good, but Superbowl XXX...) , Stewart, Tomsac, Stewart, Jim Miller, Stewart, Graham, Stewart, Maddox... How many did I miss? This loss hurts, but knowing we probably have ourselves the QB we've been waiting over 20 years for takes a lot of the sting out of it.
I like Cowher a lot and I think he is a very good coach and a great motivator.....however, he is a bad big game coach. Not necessarily for this game, but 1-4 in AFC title games in your own building speaks for itself. He is from the Marty school of coaching where you coach scared and not to lose in the playoffs and that is not how you win titles. Some guys are very good regular season coaches but they are not big game coaches.
So how do you feel about Marv Levy's coaching abilities? Win a ton of regular season games, but if you don't win the big one you're not a great coach?It's in the Steelers nature to play conservative. I doubt you'll find a more conservative coach than Chuck Noll and he won 4 Superbowls. How about Cowher's suprise on-sides kick in Superbowl XXX? I know it wasn't Bill Cowher that threw those 2 interceptions. In 2001 I know Bill Cowher didn't tell his special teams to go out and let the Patriots block a FG and return it for a TD and while you're at it go ahead and let them return a punt for a TD. I'm sure Cowher didn't tell Ben to throw a TD pass to the guy in the white jersey. Was it Cowher who had that critical holding penalty on 3rd and 19? You just don't win as many games as Bill Cowher has and not be a real good coach. I wouldn't put him in the likes of Lombardi, Shula, Landry... or even Belechick, but the guy is a real good coach.BTW: Remember when Marty told Byner to go in there and fumble that ball! Even a Steelers fan has to feel bad for the Browns that year! Shoulda happened to the Raiders! ;) Or Cowboys.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm absolutely SHOCKED that people here are defending the FG. The Steelers have HALF A QUARTER left to try and pull out the miracle win. You need points in a hurry in this situation and 2 yards from the goalline is probably as good as it's gonna get the rest of the game. You go for the TD and the possibility of the win. Kicking the FG serves nothing but making the score look a little closer in the final tally.

 
Then playaction. Either way, you've got to go with what you do best regardless of the other team's strength. THe Steelers WERE best at getting a push up the middle and making things happen that way. I think you've got to go with what got you there, so to speak.

COlin
Or, if you may quote Austin, TX, legend Darrll K. Royal, "You Gotta Dance With Who Brung Ya. . ."
 
I'm absolutely SHOCKED that people here are defending the FG. The Steelers have HALF A QUARTER left to try and pull out the miracle win. You need points in a hurry in this situation and 2 yards from the goalline is probably as good as it's gonna get the rest of the game. You go for the TD and the possibility of the win. Kicking the FG serves nothing but making the score look a little closer in the final tally.
A half a quarter as in 13 minutes? :confused:I didn't believe that the Steelers could shut out the Pats the rest of the game and at the time thought it was the right call. It turned out to be since the Pats kicked a FG on the next drive. I'm amazed people are saying it's a terrible call. I can see why you would say go for it, but it's certainly not a gimme play and you could end the game right there if you fail. I don't understand the problem with keeping yourself in a 2 score game with 13 minutes to go.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Patriots had an absurd ratio of points scored per yardage gained. We can attribute that to the Pats ability to "make those big plays when they counted" or we can attribute it to a variety of factors, including luck, that consistently broke for the Pats.
This isn't luck. That ratio is almost 100% due to turnovers. Harrison scores a TD on defense but the yards don't count in the stats. One INT put the Pats at the edge of FG range and turned into 3 points despite only one first down. Another INT gave the Pats a short field and turned into 7.
 
A half a quarter as in 13 minutes? :confused:
Don't be impudent. The Steelers aren't gonna have the ball the entire 13 minutes. Assuming an average amount of TOP for the Pats the rest of the way, Pitt will probably have 7-8 minutes tops to overcome the point deficit.
I didn't believe that the Steelers could shut out the Pats the rest of the game and at the time thought it was the right call.
Even more reason why you go for 7. At this point, the game is basically lost for the Steelers. There are fewer and fewer potential outcomes as the clock winds down. What you're trying to do is maximize your small opportunity. If you kick the 3, and the Pats score again (like you the coach assume they will) you're right back where you started in point differential with less time on the clock. So if YOU are Cowher and think the Pats could at least score another FG you HAVE to go for 7 since at least you've made up 4 points on the scoreboard. Let's see... Option 1) You kick FG, you assume Pats will score FG. 5 minutes later, scoring differential is the same. You now have less time to pull off the upset.

Option 2) You go for TD

Branch 1) You make it. You're now down 7 with momentum on your side (if you believe in these things). A defensive hold and you're right back in the game.

Branch 2) You fail to convert. Compensation for still being down 14 is the Pats playing out of their own endzone with the crowd noise and all. A holding penalty in the endzone is a safety and possession for you (granted the 2 points aren't all that helpful, but consider it a free 2 pt conversion should you need it later in the game). Higher probability of you being the next team that scores based on several things (good FP, punt return, pick 6...).

There is no safe, no downside, no drawback solution. It makes no sense to consider the worst case scenario in an already lost position. What do you have to lose? A FG or a failed TD attempt is a loss. The only difference is, Cowher can make himself look more respectable if the scoreboard is closer at the end of the game. You're basically saying you're afraid of not being able to win. Kicking the FG all but ensures you don't win and lets your team know this too. There are studies that show teams that fail to convert in scenarios like that, actually play HARDER after the failure. The reasons why could fill another five pages of posts I'm sure.

 
Sorry I couldn't read all the replies in this thread but the main points I wanted to re-emphasize were1. YOU GO FOR IT WHEN YOU ARE IN THE 5 down 14 with a quarter to play. Worst case scenario you give the ball back up but force Brady to play himself out of it.Some are saying that the Pittsburgh D were not playing well - it wasn't that - it was just the Pittsburgh D were on the field a lot more than they are normally acustomed to. Usually Pitts wins the TOP battle handily however this was not the case.That D was plaining inspired - they had a 3 and out to begin the 2nd half followed by an offensive TD - on the next series if not for a holding Penalty they would have been out as well.I think in this scenario you put one of the best D's in the NFL on the opponents 2 yard line you find out what your D is made of.Throw everything that had happened in the game out at that moment. 4th and 2 at the 2 - YOU GO FOR ITI really think this is the defining moment of that game.

 
Footballcommentary.com analysis of the decision to go for it or not is up. Like I stated earlier, it was bleak either way, but their chances of winning are greatly increased by going for the TD.

The most controversial coaching decision of the weekend occurred with 13:32 remaining in the 4th quarter of this game. Trailing 31-17, Pittsburgh faced 4th and goal at the New England 2-yard line. Steelers' coach Bill Cowher decided to kick a field goal. According to the Model , if the Steelers kick, their probability of winning is 0.05. If they go for the touchdown, their probability of winning is 0.142 if they score but 0.03 if they are stopped. Using 0.4 for the probability of scoring from the 2-yard line (which is the same as a two-point conversion), we find that Pittsburgh's probability of winning if they go for it is 0.4 × 0.142 + (1 − 0.4) × 0.03 = 0.075. So Pittsburgh's chances are poor regardless of their decision, but there is a clear advantage to trying for the touchdown. In fact, it's easy to check that it's right for the Steelers to go for it in this situation as long as the probability of scoring exceeds 0.18. Since any model is subject to modeling errors, it's nice when you don't have to use one. It turns out that, in this case, we can determine the proper decision using a simpler analysis.
It continues on with a "simpler" analysis which may be 50x more confusing to the average Joe. He analyzes the Philly decision to call timeout with :.01 left in the quarter also.Check out the full link:http://www.footballcommentary.com/analysis2004conf.htmFor those of you who never heard of this website, it's a really good read even if you can't follow all the math.
 
Footballcommentary.com analysis of the decision to go for it or not is up. Like I stated earlier, it was bleak either way, but their chances of winning are greatly increased by going for the TD.

The most controversial coaching decision of the weekend occurred with 13:32 remaining in the 4th quarter of this game. Trailing 31-17, Pittsburgh faced 4th and goal at the New England 2-yard line. Steelers' coach Bill Cowher decided to kick a field goal. According to the Model , if the Steelers kick, their probability of winning is 0.05. If they go for the touchdown, their probability of winning is 0.142 if they score but 0.03 if they are stopped. Using 0.4 for the probability of scoring from the 2-yard line (which is the same as a two-point conversion), we find that Pittsburgh's probability of winning if they go for it is 0.4 × 0.142 + (1 − 0.4) × 0.03 = 0.075. So Pittsburgh's chances are poor regardless of their decision, but there is a clear advantage to trying for the touchdown. In fact, it's easy to check that it's right for the Steelers to go for it in this situation as long as the probability of scoring exceeds 0.18. Since any model is subject to modeling errors, it's nice when you don't have to use one. It turns out that, in this case, we can determine the proper decision using a simpler analysis.
It continues on with a "simpler" analysis which may be 50x more confusing to the average Joe. He analyzes the Philly decision to call timeout with :.01 left in the quarter also.Check out the full link:http://www.footballcommentary.com/analysis2004conf.htmFor those of you who never heard of this website, it's a really good read even if you can't follow all the math.
So what we're really arguing about is a 2.5% difference in probability of winning (.05 vs. .075)? That's also assuming that they have a 40% chance of getting the TD, which I won't nitpick but it is debatable.
 
Footballcommentary.com analysis of the decision to go for it or not is up. Like I stated earlier, it was bleak either way, but their chances of winning are greatly increased by going for the TD.

The most controversial coaching decision of the weekend occurred with 13:32 remaining in the 4th quarter of this game. Trailing 31-17, Pittsburgh faced 4th and goal at the New England 2-yard line. Steelers' coach Bill Cowher decided to kick a field goal. According to the Model , if the Steelers kick, their probability of winning is 0.05. If they go for the touchdown, their probability of winning is 0.142 if they score but 0.03 if they are stopped. Using 0.4 for the probability of scoring from the 2-yard line (which is the same as a two-point conversion), we find that Pittsburgh's probability of winning if they go for it is 0.4 × 0.142 + (1 − 0.4) × 0.03 = 0.075. So Pittsburgh's chances are poor regardless of their decision, but there is a clear advantage to trying for the touchdown. In fact, it's easy to check that it's right for the Steelers to go for it in this situation as long as the probability of scoring exceeds 0.18. Since any model is subject to modeling errors, it's nice when you don't have to use one. It turns out that, in this case, we can determine the proper decision using a simpler analysis.
It continues on with a "simpler" analysis which may be 50x more confusing to the average Joe. He analyzes the Philly decision to call timeout with :.01 left in the quarter also.Check out the full link:http://www.footballcommentary.com/analysis2004conf.htmFor those of you who never heard of this website, it's a really good read even if you can't follow all the math.
So what we're really arguing about is a 2.5% difference in probability of winning (.05 vs. .075)? That's also assuming that they have a 40% chance of getting the TD, which I won't nitpick but it is debatable.
The 40% is based on league average of getting a 2 yard TD/2 pt conversion.
 
Not sure if this was said?As a coach you know on 1st down what your doing on 4th down.Unless you coach the Vikes or Rams.But on third down they run the ball from the 3 yard line.That tells me your going on 4th. If you pass from the 3 then your kicking the field goal.That's about as simple as it gets.So yes Pitt. should have went for the TD.Plus I will add 1 more why not try a on-side kick. When they scored to make it 31-17. Not playing to win,so they lost 'Go figure'.

 
So what we're really arguing about is a 2.5% difference in probability of winning (.05 vs. .075)? That's also assuming that they have a 40% chance of getting the TD, which I won't nitpick but it is debatable.
No: what we're really arguing about is a 50% increase in Pittsburgh's likelihood of victory. And if they make it, a tripling of their chances of winning.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That was a call that may define his career.
im really afraid of that. he is such a good coach and giving the whole team the fire, passion, heart that defines steelers football... but he just cant give us the mental edge of having a winning game plan for that one game. we have the exact same game plan for every game, you would think that after a 1-3 record in afc title games at home, cowher would realize that you have to put some wrinkles in to get to the super bowl...
Does anyone think that Marv Levy was not a great football coach?It's too bad that Cowher's season (or even career) is being defined by a FG attempt that put the steelers 11 pts down with 14 minutes left in the 4th quarter.I thought they should have went for it too, but I'll remember this as the season the Steelers and Coach Cowher went 16-2 and won 14 straight with a rookie QB. Stoudt, Malone, Brister, O'donnell (OK, Neil was good, but Superbowl XXX...) , Stewart, Tomsac, Stewart, Jim Miller, Stewart, Graham, Stewart, Maddox... How many did I miss? This loss hurts, but knowing we probably have ourselves the QB we've been waiting over 20 years for takes a lot of the sting out of it.
I like Cowher a lot and I think he is a very good coach and a great motivator.....however, he is a bad big game coach. Not necessarily for this game, but 1-4 in AFC title games in your own building speaks for itself. He is from the Marty school of coaching where you coach scared and not to lose in the playoffs and that is not how you win titles. Some guys are very good regular season coaches but they are not big game coaches.
So how do you feel about Marv Levy's coaching abilities? Win a ton of regular season games, but if you don't win the big one you're not a great coach?It's in the Steelers nature to play conservative. I doubt you'll find a more conservative coach than Chuck Noll and he won 4 Superbowls. How about Cowher's suprise on-sides kick in Superbowl XXX? I know it wasn't Bill Cowher that threw those 2 interceptions. In 2001 I know Bill Cowher didn't tell his special teams to go out and let the Patriots block a FG and return it for a TD and while you're at it go ahead and let them return a punt for a TD. I'm sure Cowher didn't tell Ben to throw a TD pass to the guy in the white jersey. Was it Cowher who had that critical holding penalty on 3rd and 19? You just don't win as many games as Bill Cowher has and not be a real good coach. I wouldn't put him in the likes of Lombardi, Shula, Landry... or even Belechick, but the guy is a real good coach.BTW: Remember when Marty told Byner to go in there and fumble that ball! Even a Steelers fan has to feel bad for the Browns that year! Shoulda happened to the Raiders! ;) Or Cowboys.
What Bill Cowher did do is kick a field goal from the 2 yard line down 14 in the fourth quarter. His record in AFC title games speaks for itself. 1-4 AT HOME. Some guys are very good coaches but they can only take a team to a certain level. Marty and Cowher are good coaches but they are AWFUL big game coaches. He is a great motivator and a very good coach but he is a terrible big game coach. And for anyone who has watched Marty's career you can not defend how he coaches in the playoffs. I wonder how he even got to the playoffs when I see how he coaches in them.
 
Footballcommentary.com analysis of the decision to go for it or not is up.  Like I stated earlier, it was bleak either way, but their chances of winning are greatly increased by going for the TD.

The most controversial coaching decision of the weekend occurred with 13:32 remaining in the 4th quarter of this game. Trailing 31-17, Pittsburgh faced 4th and goal at the New England 2-yard line. Steelers' coach Bill Cowher decided to kick a field goal. According to the Model , if the Steelers kick, their probability of winning is 0.05. If they go for the touchdown, their probability of winning is 0.142 if they score but 0.03 if they are stopped. Using 0.4 for the probability of scoring from the 2-yard line (which is the same as a two-point conversion), we find that Pittsburgh's probability of winning if they go for it is 0.4 × 0.142 + (1 − 0.4) × 0.03 = 0.075. So Pittsburgh's chances are poor regardless of their decision, but there is a clear advantage to trying for the touchdown. In fact, it's easy to check that it's right for the Steelers to go for it in this situation as long as the probability of scoring exceeds 0.18. Since any model is subject to modeling errors, it's nice when you don't have to use one. It turns out that, in this case, we can determine the proper decision using a simpler analysis.
It continues on with a "simpler" analysis which may be 50x more confusing to the average Joe. He analyzes the Philly decision to call timeout with :.01 left in the quarter also.Check out the full link:http://www.footballcommentary.com/analysis2004conf.htmFor those of you who never heard of this website, it's a really good read even if you can't follow all the math.
So what we're really arguing about is a 2.5% difference in probability of winning (.05 vs. .075)? That's also assuming that they have a 40% chance of getting the TD, which I won't nitpick but it is debatable.
The 40% is based on league average of getting a 2 yard TD/2 pt conversion.
What was average against the Patriots this year? That would be a lot more meaningful than the average against the league's crappy defenses.
 
Footballcommentary.com analysis of the decision to go for it or not is up.  Like I stated earlier, it was bleak either way, but their chances of winning are greatly increased by going for the TD.

The most controversial coaching decision of the weekend occurred with 13:32 remaining in the 4th quarter of this game. Trailing 31-17, Pittsburgh faced 4th and goal at the New England 2-yard line. Steelers' coach Bill Cowher decided to kick a field goal. According to the Model , if the Steelers kick, their probability of winning is 0.05. If they go for the touchdown, their probability of winning is 0.142 if they score but 0.03 if they are stopped. Using 0.4 for the probability of scoring from the 2-yard line (which is the same as a two-point conversion), we find that Pittsburgh's probability of winning if they go for it is 0.4 × 0.142 + (1 − 0.4) × 0.03 = 0.075. So Pittsburgh's chances are poor regardless of their decision, but there is a clear advantage to trying for the touchdown. In fact, it's easy to check that it's right for the Steelers to go for it in this situation as long as the probability of scoring exceeds 0.18. Since any model is subject to modeling errors, it's nice when you don't have to use one. It turns out that, in this case, we can determine the proper decision using a simpler analysis.
It continues on with a "simpler" analysis which may be 50x more confusing to the average Joe. He analyzes the Philly decision to call timeout with :.01 left in the quarter also.Check out the full link:http://www.footballcommentary.com/analysis2004conf.htmFor those of you who never heard of this website, it's a really good read even if you can't follow all the math.
So what we're really arguing about is a 2.5% difference in probability of winning (.05 vs. .075)? That's also assuming that they have a 40% chance of getting the TD, which I won't nitpick but it is debatable.
The 40% is based on league average of getting a 2 yard TD/2 pt conversion.
What was average against the Patriots this year? That would be a lot more meaningful than the average against the league's crappy defenses.
3-7 teams were at going for 2 vs. NE. So higher then the League average of 40 %.It was 43 %. So hell yes go for it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Come on,someone anyone. Lets kill Cowher.
Anyone else find it funny that Cowher is getting all the blame for this one "bad" call when it was Big Ben that threw 3 INT's? I can't stand the Pats and rooted for the Steelers, but if I was blaming anyone it would be Ben, who gave the game away.
 
Come on,someone anyone. Lets kill Cowher.
Anyone else find it funny that Cowher is getting all the blame for this one "bad" call when it was Big Ben that threw 3 INT's? I can't stand the Pats and rooted for the Steelers, but if I was blaming anyone it would be Ben, who gave the game away.
There are at least two Rothlish-choker threads.
 
Come on,someone anyone. Lets kill Cowher.
Anyone else find it funny that Cowher is getting all the blame for this one "bad" call when it was Big Ben that threw 3 INT's? I can't stand the Pats and rooted for the Steelers, but if I was blaming anyone it would be Ben, who gave the game away.
I meant lets Kill Cowher not blame Him. :rotflmao:
 
Haven't read the whole thread, but put me in Bloom's camp. Coaches that play "not to lose", or in this case, "not to win", invariably end up losing.

Down 14 to the Champs, you can't expect them to tighten up, at all, because of a field goal. You do not "stay in range". You must try to score a TD there...or a quick stop thereafter.

Pitt played for NE to stop driving the ball, or panic...which they didn't. It was a conservative call, and a big reason they did not get a real chance in the game...that was their chance, and they didn't take it.

 
Haven't read the whole thread, but put me in Bloom's camp. Coaches that play "not to lose", or in this case, "not to win", invariably end up losing.

Down 14 to the Champs, you can't expect them to tighten up, at all, because of a field goal. You do not "stay in range". You must try to score a TD there...or a quick stop thereafter.

Pitt played for NE to stop driving the ball, or panic...which they didn't. It was a conservative call, and a big reason they did not get a real chance in the game...that was their chance, and they didn't take it.
Well said. :thumbup:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top