Would the "average" avid football fan be a better "coor (1 Viewer)

[Zow]

I think Holmgren's call was absolutely the right one, though they should have been throwing to the end zone on both 3rd and 4th down. Assuming they recover the onside kick, it is a lot easier to move the ball 25 yards or so to get it into field goal range than it is to move it over 50 yards into the end zone against a defense that knows it only has to stop a TD, not a FG. The Seahawks needed a TD at some stage, and the best opportunity was when they were already on the 15-yard line.

here because it does bring in some logic. However, it was what, 4th and 9 or so? What are the odds the Seahawks make that? I'm willing to bet a lot of money it's more probable that their chances of successfully kicking a field goal, recovering the onside kick, then moving the ball 50 yards than converting that down, recovering the kick, then moving the ball either 25 yards (and subsequently faced with a longer, less likely to be made FG) or farther for the easier FG.

 

[Zow]

This is stupid. There's a LITTLE BIT more to being an HC than calling plays. It's easy with John Madden and Al Michaels telling you what to think.

I clearly stated we're talking about in-game decisions. Not talking about who to cut, how to run a practice, keeping up team morale, etc. I'd totally agree you can have a great head coach who may not be the best at make in-game decisions. But I mean it's gotta be bad when a girl who doesn't watch football goes, "do they have to run the ball on first down every time?" In-game decisions are a significant part of being a head coach.

Uh, yeah I guess I didn't read the whole page of instructions to vote. Sorry 'bout that. And I'd still vote no. I can understand the frustration of your poll, but it's easy to call plays with 20/20 hindsight.

1. I'm not "frustrated" as it's just a game I have no say in it. But I'm finding myself consistently saying "what the hell is he thinking" prior to the play and thought has me curious as to whether I could do a more efficient job in this aspect of coaching. Thought this would then create an interesting instruction. 2. We do benefit from 20/20 hindsight, but I think what was so shocking to me for most of my examples was that the decisions seem so mathematically/statistically obvious. Think of some of these calls like pinch hitting for A-Rod, intentionally walking a guy w/ the bases loaded, pulling the goalie down one w/ 5 minutes left in hockey, etc.

There is a lot more to coaching then just calling plays.

But I'm only talking about playcalling and game/time management. Would you prefer I switch the title?

Yes because that's only part of the job. You also couldn't call plays correctly with out knowing how your players performed in practice. If there is a injury do you know who to put in? etc etc... Going undefeated in Madden does not mean you would be unstoppable in the NFL.

Right, again I'm only talking about one part of the job here. Also, again, I'm talking about in-game strategy decisions which can be based on objectified facts. I'm not talking about whether Childress should put in Bollinger or Holcomb if Tavraris goes down but instead whether whoever comes in should be handing it off to the back statistically most likely to gain yardage and least likely to fumble in a situation where the mathetmatically sound choice is to eat X amount of time off the clock given the time left and game performance of the defense. And, FWIW, I sucked at Madden and only ever owned like Madden 93.

 

[Zow]

This is ridiculous. You sound just like a clueless parent who comes to me after a basketball game. Parent: Why didn't my son play more? Me: Help me understand - at what point in the game would you have liked to seen him play?Parent: How about in the start of the 4th quarter when you were down 15 points?Me: Sir, did you notice that since we were down, we were pressing? Did you notice that your son had 4 fouls and couldn't afford to play the aggressive style defense that we were playing? Did you notice that your son is 30 pounds overweight and too slow to play when we press? Did you notice that when he was in the game, the opposing coach called a play to isolate vs. him 3 times in row and his man scored 2 of those times and got fouled another? How about the fact that they were packing their defense into the lane and your fat, slow, unskilled son was not going to contribute offensively? Or did you notice the fact that I wanted to run a specific offensive set, one that your son doesn't know very well? I could go on, but hopefully you get the point. You see the decision, but you have no idea what the 10 other factors going into that decision were. You know just enough to be dangerous. You don't know NEAR enough to do anything remotely resembling coaching a football game.

I was a JV HS head baseball coach for three years and I know what you're saying. Some decisions work, some don't, and the average parent is not going to know everything that's going on. As I stated in the initial post I'm usually not one to question what a coach or GM does because they job is admittedly very tough, they're under a ton of financial and public pressure to succeed, and it's human to make mistakes. But I'm simply seeing decisions being made here which make no rational sense and the following points then led me to think I may not be completely whacked out in it's merely possible (not certain or even likely):1. Your example talks about a rational personnel decision based on actual FACTS of the game which directly correllate to the situation at hand (ex: kid w/ four fouls can't play tight, pressing defense). The mistakes I've highlighted are mathematical (ex: not kicking the FG) or not supported by in-game facts (ex: Minnesota without AD in the game and passing on first and second down up 14). 2. Head coaches and some GMs are not intellectually very bright. This can effect their in-game decisions if they cannot do quick math, remember certain plays, perform cost-benefit analysises (sp?), etc. Now I'm not saying head coaches are all dumb or anything like that (pretty sure guys like Belichik and Shanahan would do very well academically), but do you really think a coach like Mike Tice, Mike Holmgren, or Art Shell is smarter than the average adult? I don't and I think it's crazy that owners/GMs place the weight of intellectual game decisions accompanied w/ an insane amount of pressures on these guys. Because of this I think a strong argument could be made that teams would be better off w/ some football geek calling these shots. For a real-life example of this take consider Boston's hiring of Theo Epstein as GM or the A's hiring of Billy Beane compared to the hirings of stud players like Isaiah Thomas and Larry Bird. The amount of thought and analysis put in by the former two guys is lightyears ahead of the latter. 3. Again, I reiterate I'm only talking about in-game decisions. To think that the average football geek could coach better than anyone is ludicrous. I know I wouldn't have the slightest idea how to run a practice, boost player morale, or discipline players compared to actual head coaches.ETA: I think to analogize what I'm talking about directly to your example the proper situation would have to be like you deciding not to foul down a couple baskets with a minute left or you putting in all bang-low scorers down 3 points with 2 seconds left.

I guess ultimately I don't know if I'm rigth here and that's the point. I'm really not some arm-chair QB and have never thrown something at my TV or called my team's coach a "bum" or some #### like that. But this really is the first time I'm finding myself continually shuked by coach's doing the opposite of what appears to be the logical decision.

 

[thayman]

This is stupid. There's a LITTLE BIT more to being an HC than calling plays. It's easy with John Madden and Al Michaels telling you what to think.

I clearly stated we're talking about in-game decisions. Not talking about who to cut, how to run a practice, keeping up team morale, etc. I'd totally agree you can have a great head coach who may not be the best at make in-game decisions. But I mean it's gotta be bad when a girl who doesn't watch football goes, "do they have to run the ball on first down every time?" In-game decisions are a significant part of being a head coach.

Uh, yeah I guess I didn't read the whole page of instructions to vote. Sorry 'bout that. And I'd still vote no. I can understand the frustration of your poll, but it's easy to call plays with 20/20 hindsight.

1. I'm not "frustrated" as it's just a game I have no say in it. But I'm finding myself consistently saying "what the hell is he thinking" prior to the play and thought has me curious as to whether I could do a more efficient job in this aspect of coaching. Thought this would then create an interesting instruction. 2. We do benefit from 20/20 hindsight, but I think what was so shocking to me for most of my examples was that the decisions seem so mathematically/statistically obvious. Think of some of these calls like pinch hitting for A-Rod, intentionally walking a guy w/ the bases loaded, pulling the goalie down one w/ 5 minutes left in hockey, etc.

There is a lot more to coaching then just calling plays.

But I'm only talking about playcalling and game/time management. Would you prefer I switch the title?

Yes because that's only part of the job. You also couldn't call plays correctly with out knowing how your players performed in practice. If there is a injury do you know who to put in? etc etc... Going undefeated in Madden does not mean you would be unstoppable in the NFL.

Right, again I'm only talking about one part of the job here. Also, again, I'm talking about in-game strategy decisions which can be based on objectified facts. I'm not talking about whether Childress should put in Bollinger or Holcomb if Tavraris goes down but instead whether whoever comes in should be handing it off to the back statistically most likely to gain yardage and least likely to fumble in a situation where the mathetmatically sound choice is to eat X amount of time off the clock given the time left and game performance of the defense. And, FWIW, I sucked at Madden and only ever owned like Madden 93.

Perhaps better title would be "Would the average FBG be a better coordinator?"

 

[Zow]

This is stupid. There's a LITTLE BIT more to being an HC than calling plays. It's easy with John Madden and Al Michaels telling you what to think.

I clearly stated we're talking about in-game decisions. Not talking about who to cut, how to run a practice, keeping up team morale, etc. I'd totally agree you can have a great head coach who may not be the best at make in-game decisions. But I mean it's gotta be bad when a girl who doesn't watch football goes, "do they have to run the ball on first down every time?" In-game decisions are a significant part of being a head coach.

Uh, yeah I guess I didn't read the whole page of instructions to vote. Sorry 'bout that. And I'd still vote no. I can understand the frustration of your poll, but it's easy to call plays with 20/20 hindsight.

1. I'm not "frustrated" as it's just a game I have no say in it. But I'm finding myself consistently saying "what the hell is he thinking" prior to the play and thought has me curious as to whether I could do a more efficient job in this aspect of coaching. Thought this would then create an interesting instruction. 2. We do benefit from 20/20 hindsight, but I think what was so shocking to me for most of my examples was that the decisions seem so mathematically/statistically obvious. Think of some of these calls like pinch hitting for A-Rod, intentionally walking a guy w/ the bases loaded, pulling the goalie down one w/ 5 minutes left in hockey, etc.

There is a lot more to coaching then just calling plays.

But I'm only talking about playcalling and game/time management. Would you prefer I switch the title?

Yes because that's only part of the job. You also couldn't call plays correctly with out knowing how your players performed in practice. If there is a injury do you know who to put in? etc etc... Going undefeated in Madden does not mean you would be unstoppable in the NFL.

Right, again I'm only talking about one part of the job here. Also, again, I'm talking about in-game strategy decisions which can be based on objectified facts. I'm not talking about whether Childress should put in Bollinger or Holcomb if Tavraris goes down but instead whether whoever comes in should be handing it off to the back statistically most likely to gain yardage and least likely to fumble in a situation where the mathetmatically sound choice is to eat X amount of time off the clock given the time left and game performance of the defense. And, FWIW, I sucked at Madden and only ever owned like Madden 93.

Perhaps better title would be "Would the average FBG be a better coordinator?"

fixed