Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Post here when coaches do something you disagree with


Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, DropKick said:

Full context: only 7 seconds on the clock from outside the 20?   Chance of a FG? 95%  Change of a TD?  1%

Listen, Bill Belichick turned a 1% situation against these guys and turned it into Super Bowl gold...so Pete Carroll obviously wanted a taste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ghostguy123 said:

I think 1% TD chance you gave them there might be a tad generous.  

They didnt even give the ball to someone who could outrun the lineman.

Give it to lockett, Richardson... Even then no. But Luke freakin' Wilson? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did McDermott avoid mention here? In playoff position & pulls starter for a 5th round rookie who proceeds to throw as many picks in 1st quarter as the starter has all year?  And then leaves kid in to throw 2 more picks? Brilliant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, raidergil said:

How did McDermott avoid mention here? In playoff position & pulls starter for a 5th round rookie who proceeds to throw as many picks in 1st quarter as the starter has all year?  And then leaves kid in to throw 2 more picks? Brilliant.

Because he's already playing for the pick. He didn't want to make the playoffs. That's the only explanation. Plus, he keeps saying he doesn't regret the QB change, thus he's happy with the loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, steelers1080 said:

Because he's already playing for the pick. He didn't want to make the playoffs. That's the only explanation. Plus, he keeps saying he doesn't regret the QB change, thus he's happy with the loss.

So weird. Imagine if you were the coach who, in his first year, brought the team to the playoffs. You'd have statues built in your honor! Why wouldn't you sell out to achieve that? Especially after the team just traded a pick for Benjamin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, raidergil said:

How did McDermott avoid mention here? In playoff position & pulls starter for a 5th round rookie who proceeds to throw as many picks in 1st quarter as the starter has all year?  And then leaves kid in to throw 2 more picks? Brilliant.

Off decision to be sure, but they're going nowhere with their "starter" and needed to look at the kid. Making things more complicated is the fact that the five picks is misleading. THe first was a perfect pass that bounced off the receivers hands, the next was under heavy pressure where he took a nice whack, and he was hit on the third as he was trying delivering the ball deep. ONe could argue the bigger mistake was leaving the kid in at THAT point before his confidence was shot. The fourth was all on Peterman.

Odd decision compounded by a bad decision, but not deserving of worst ever labels

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, ghostguy123 said:

The fake field goal that the Seahawks just tried at the end of the first half made no sense.  

If they got the first down they would have just had to kick a FG anyway cause there woulda been like 3 seconds left.

This was one of the worst plays I have ever seen. There was zero reason to risk going for it, unless you were trying to lose on purpose. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, zftcg said:

They were 5-4 in a top-heavy conference where a bunch of mediocre teams are fighting it out for the wild card.

I agree; and why make the move to Peterman anyway unless you were enamored with his ability.  Suspect this was an organizational decision and not sure the blame is 100% on the head coach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Bernie51 said:
22 hours ago, ghostguy123 said:

The fake field goal that the Seahawks just tried at the end of the first half made no sense.  

If they got the first down they would have just had to kick a FG anyway cause there woulda been like 3 seconds left.

This was one of the worst plays I have ever seen. There was zero reason to risk going for it, unless you were trying to lose on purpose. 

:goodposting: 

Cannot recall a dumber play call ever.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, DropKick said:

I agree; and why make the move to Peterman anyway unless you were enamored with his ability.  Suspect this was an organizational decision and not sure the blame is 100% on the head coach.

Good point, although given that the Bills did the exact same thing at the end of last year, with similarly bad results, shouldn't they have learned their lesson by now?

Honestly, I feel bad for even thinking this, because it's probably not Tyrod's fault, but the fact that the Bills keep throwing him under the bus, at the expense of both their record and their credibility, makes me wonder if there is something really bad about him. Like he's a locker room cancer, or won't listen to his coaches or something. Again, I don't think that's the case, I'm just trying to find a plausible explanation for management's repeated self destructive behavior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how much of all these examples are due to Bill Belichick Syndrome.  I've read in the SP over the years that part of the mystique (and frustration) of Belichick is that he knows he's the smartest guy in the room and loves to show it off.  I think some of these coaches think they're thinking outside the box when all they're doing is proving they're not as smart as they think they are, or as they guy they're trying to be like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, zftcg said:

Good point, although given that the Bills did the exact same thing at the end of last year, with similarly bad results, shouldn't they have learned their lesson by now?

Honestly, I feel bad for even thinking this, because it's probably not Tyrod's fault, but the fact that the Bills keep throwing him under the bus, at the expense of both their record and their credibility, makes me wonder if there is something really bad about him. Like he's a locker room cancer, or won't listen to his coaches or something. Again, I don't think that's the case, I'm just trying to find a plausible explanation for management's repeated self destructive behavior.

There are finer points to the position that we don't always pick up as fans.  Maybe they see things we don't appreciate.  I like Taylor and think he has been in an awkward position regarding team volatility in the past couple seasons.  Really weird how they cleaned house at WR.  Strange team - strange times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, DropKick said:

There are finer points to the position that we don't always pick up as fans.  Maybe they see things we don't appreciate.  I like Taylor and think he has been in an awkward position regarding team volatility in the past couple seasons.  Really weird how they cleaned house at WR.  Strange team - strange times.

We're getting far afield at this point, into a discussion that probably belongs in the Tyrod/Bills threads. But to bring this back to the title of this thread, benching Taylor for Peterman was so "obviously stupid" that it practically compels us to try to guess at ulterior motives or unknown factors, since what we've heard from McDermott makes no sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, zftcg said:

We're getting far afield at this point, into a discussion that probably belongs in the Tyrod/Bills threads. But to bring this back to the title of this thread, benching Taylor for Peterman was so "obviously stupid" that it practically compels us to try to guess at ulterior motives or unknown factors, since what we've heard from McDermott makes no sense.

But that's the thing....I'm not so sure it WAS so "obviously" stupid. We don't see the guy in practice. Doesn't it say something that none of Tyrod's team-mates have said ANYTHING? And again I'll point out, 2 of the first three really weren't his fault at all. (After that, he really did fall apart.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, renesauz said:

Doesn't it say something that none of Tyrod's team-mates have said ANYTHING? 

It says they like being employed

ETA: former teammates have been supportive of him on social media, but the guys in the locker room are not going to commit career suicide by second guessing their current boss

Edited by BobbyLayne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/20/2017 at 10:11 PM, ghostguy123 said:

The fake field goal that the Seahawks just tried at the end of the first half made no sense.  

If they got the first down they would have just had to kick a FG anyway cause there woulda been like 3 seconds left.

The Mangini Browns did this a few years ago.  4th and 9 from the 21 at the end of the 1st half.  Fake FG, completed a pass and just barely picked up the first down.  Called timeout, kicked a FG.  :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, renesauz said:

But that's the thing....I'm not so sure it WAS so "obviously" stupid. We don't see the guy in practice. Doesn't it say something that none of Tyrod's team-mates have said ANYTHING? And again I'll point out, 2 of the first three really weren't his fault at all. (After that, he really did fall apart.)

A couple points:

  1. I think we're essentially making the same argument, but coming at it from a different angle. You're saying, "We don't know what was going on behind the scenes; McDermott must have had some reason." I'm saying, "I can think of no plausible reason for the decision, so almost by default there has to be something going on behind the scenes that we don't know about.
  2. I'm not criticizing the decision because Peterman threw 5 picks, I'm criticizing it because it seemed obviously dumb from the start. We talk a lot in this thread about process vs. results (eg, going for it on 4th and goal from the 1 is the right decision even if you fail to convert). McDermott himself even invoked process vs. results around the Peterman decision. But the process was bad! Whatever you think of Taylor, if your process tells you to start a 4th round rookie in the middle of the season, on the road against one of the league's best defensive fronts, at a time when you are in the pole position for a playoff spot, you need to rethink that process.
  3. As @BobbyLayne says, just as we don't know what's going on in practices, we don't know what players are saying to each other behind closed doors. FWIW, the chatter I heard was that the players were not so much supportive of the decision as they were of the coach. In other words, they trusted him to do the right thing. Also not clear on whether they still trust him after last Sunday, or how they will feel if he starts Peterman again.
  4. Slate's "Hang Up and Listen" podcast had a good discussion of this topic on Monday. They attributed it to the typical coach's hubris of "I can make any decision and it will work out because of my genius". Also, I had forgotten that Mike Shanahan did something similar a decade ago, benching Plummer for Cutler at a time when the Broncos had a winning record. Of course, that was slightly more defensible, since Cutler was a first-round pick and clearly the team's QB of the future (at least until Josh McDaniels showed up). But the results were similarly disastrous, as Cutler struggled and fell out of contention for a playoff spot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ignoratio Elenchi said:

The Mangini Browns did this a few years ago.  4th and 9 from the 21 at the end of the 1st half.  Fake FG, completed a pass and just barely picked up the first down.  Called timeout, kicked a FG.  :shrug:

But the Seahawks are in the thick of the playoff chase. Without looking, I assume that wasn't the case with that Browns team. The stakes for this game were much higher, which IMO makes the decision that much worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Just Win Baby said:

But the Seahawks are in the thick of the playoff chase. Without looking, I assume that wasn't the case with that Browns team. The stakes for this game were much higher, which IMO makes the decision that much worse.

That was a terrible play call / decision. Not because it didn’t work, just because it was stupid. They literally took 3 points off the board, in a home game that they lost by 3 points. 

And honestly it didn’t even matter that they lost since that’s 20-20 hindsight. It mattered that it was a stupid decision.  Only 7 seconds on the clock, so even if they managed to get the 1st down, they might not have time to call another play. And even if they did have 1 tic left on the clock, they just kick a FG anyway (albeit 2-3 yards shorter), so the upside is seemingly the same as not doing it at all. The downside is 0 points (the actual result) or worse, a DTD if things really went south. 

Maybe the worst play call of the season. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

Can I just list “Andy Reid, weeks 6-11”? :doh: 

Take it to the Hunt thread, guy. ?

Reid always gets slammed for in game stuff, nothing new. He’s probably the second best administrator of his generation, consistently puts together a great staff, does pretty much everything exceptionally well.

Everything except clock management & getting cute on offense, which are low hanging fruit.

Edited by BobbyLayne
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/17/2017 at 1:26 PM, dhockster said:

Garrett went to Princeton and transferred to Columbia. As far as I know, he and Bill O'Brien (Brown) are the only head coaches who went to an Ivy league school. You be the judge if they are any smarter than the other coaches in the NFL. My opinion is there is book smart and there is football smart. The ivy league guys don't necessarily have the latter.

He went to Columbia and transferred to Princeton, after his father was fired as Columbia's football coach. I'm a Princeton guy so this matters to me. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

That was a terrible play call / decision. Not because it didn’t work, just because it was stupid. They literally took 3 points off the board, in a home game that they lost by 3 points. 

And honestly it didn’t even matter that they lost since that’s 20-20 hindsight. It mattered that it was a stupid decision.  Only 7 seconds on the clock, so even if they managed to get the 1st down, they might not have time to call another play. And even if they did have 1 tic left on the clock, they just kick a FG anyway (albeit 2-3 yards shorter), so the upside is seemingly the same as not doing it at all. The downside is 0 points (the actual result) or worse, a DTD if things really went south. 

Maybe the worst play call of the season. 

I'm onboard the "stupid call" train 100% if Carroll didn't have a TO in his pocket.  That's pretty key.  However the Seahawks' objective on running the fake was obviously not to get a first down and a shorter FG try.  The objective was to get a TD.

It breaks down like this:

Best case, the fake FG goes for a TD: +4 points relative to just kicking the FG.

Worst case, the fake FG fails to pick up a first down, or the clock runs out: -3 points relative to just kicking the FG.

Middle case, you get the first down but not a TD, and kick a shorter FG: 0 points relative to just kicking the FG (actually a bit greater than 0 due to shorter FG attempt).

(You'd want to make small adjustments to all of the above numbers to account for the potential to miss either the FG or the PAT.)

From there you simply attach probabilities to each case and compute the EV. 

If the probability on the best case (+4) is >= the probability on the worst case (-3), then running the fake is not only justifiable, it's optimal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, davearm said:

I'm onboard the "stupid call" train 100% if Carroll didn't have a TO in his pocket.  That's pretty key.  However the Seahawks' objective on running the fake was obviously not to get a first down and a shorter FG try.  The objective was to get a TD.

It breaks down like this:

Best case, the fake FG goes for a TD: +4 points relative to just kicking the FG.

Worst case, the fake FG fails to pick up a first down, or the clock runs out: -3 points relative to just kicking the FG.

Middle case, you get the first down but not a TD, and kick a shorter FG: 0 points relative to just kicking the FG (actually a bit greater than 0 due to shorter FG attempt).

(You'd want to make small adjustments to all of the above numbers to account for the potential to miss either the FG or the PAT.)

From there you simply attach probabilities to each case and compute the EV. 

If the probability on the best case (+4) is >= the probability on the worst case (-3), then running the fake is not only justifiable, it's optimal.

Where in the equation do you factor in the likelihood that your backup TE will take a shovel pass 25 yards?

All kidding aside, I could totally see a scenario where they saw something on film that made them think they could get a guy open downfield. Maybe I could even get on board with getting the ball in, say, Lockett's hands and letting him try to outrun the D to the end zone. In those cases a calculated risk might make sense even if it failed. But the play they called would have been awful even if the Falcons hadn't sniffed it out behind the line of scrimmage.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, davearm said:

I'm onboard the "stupid call" train 100% if Carroll didn't have a TO in his pocket.  That's pretty key.  However the Seahawks' objective on running the fake was obviously not to get a first down and a shorter FG try.  The objective was to get a TD.

It breaks down like this:

Best case, the fake FG goes for a TD: +4 points relative to just kicking the FG.

Worst case, the fake FG fails to pick up a first down, or the clock runs out: -3 points relative to just kicking the FG.

Middle case, you get the first down but not a TD, and kick a shorter FG: 0 points relative to just kicking the FG (actually a bit greater than 0 due to shorter FG attempt).

(You'd want to make small adjustments to all of the above numbers to account for the potential to miss either the FG or the PAT.)

From there you simply attach probabilities to each case and compute the EV. 

If the probability on the best case (+4) is >= the probability on the worst case (-3), then running the fake is not only justifiable, it's optimal.

Optimal? You have to be kidding. 7 seconds. No timeouts. 4th and 1. Need 25yds for a TD . Run play with the backup TE. 

 

Nothing is optimal about going for it in this situation 

edit: especially with that specific play. 

Edited by ldizzle
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, ldizzle said:

Optimal? You have to be kidding. 7 seconds. No timeouts. 4th and 1. Need 25yds for a TD . Run play with the backup TE. 

 

Nothing is optimal about going for it in this situation 

edit: especially with that specific play. 

Well as I said at the outset, I'm 100% in agreement if the Seahawks didn't have a timeout left.  I didn't know if they did or didn't.  You just said they didn't, and I'll take your word for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm onboard the "stupid call" train 100% if Carroll didn't have a TO in his pocket. That's pretty key. However the Seahawks' objective on running the fake was obviously not to get a first down and a shorter FG try. The objective was to get a TD.



It breaks down like this:

Best case, the fake FG goes for a TD: +4 points relative to just kicking the FG.

Worst case, the fake FG fails to pick up a first down, or the clock runs out: -3 points relative to just kicking the FG.

Middle case, you get the first down but not a TD, and kick a shorter FG: 0 points relative to just kicking the FG (actually a bit greater than 0 due to shorter FG attempt).

(You'd want to make small adjustments to all of the above numbers to account for the potential to miss either the FG or the PAT.)

From there you simply attach probabilities to each case and compute the EV.

If the probability on the best case (+4) is >= the probability on the worst case (-3), then running the fake is not only justifiable, it's optimal.



You're gonna need to show some math on this one. What do you think the touchdown rate is for a shovel pass from the 17-year line? Maybe 10%? So, 10% chance at 7 points vs. 85% chance at 3? I'll take the 3 every time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, davearm said:

I'm onboard the "stupid call" train 100% if Carroll didn't have a TO in his pocket.  That's pretty key.  However the Seahawks' objective on running the fake was obviously not to get a first down and a shorter FG try.  The objective was to get a TD.

It breaks down like this:

Best case, the fake FG goes for a TD: +4 points relative to just kicking the FG.

Worst case, the fake FG fails to pick up a first down, or the clock runs out: -3 points relative to just kicking the FG.

Middle case, you get the first down but not a TD, and kick a shorter FG: 0 points relative to just kicking the FG (actually a bit greater than 0 due to shorter FG attempt).

(You'd want to make small adjustments to all of the above numbers to account for the potential to miss either the FG or the PAT.)

From there you simply attach probabilities to each case and compute the EV. 

If the probability on the best case (+4) is >= the probability on the worst case (-3), then running the fake is not only justifiable, it's optimal.

If you want to do the expected value exercise, I'll throw some probabilities out there...

The probability of making the FG is about 95% - so the expected value is 2.85.

Assuming you have a t/o in pocket (maybe not)

The probability of a TD is about 1%.

The probability of a turnover is 2%.

The probability of turning the ball over on downs is 25%

The probability of converting but the clock expiring is 10%

If you end up settling for the FG attempt, The probability of a make remains at 95%

If you accept those numbers the expected value of a fake is 1.76 (not optimal)

If you don't actually have a time-out, you only get a FG attempt if the runner gets out of bounds... Here the EV would plummet (0.25?)

Basically, you have a 1% chance of scoring more than 3 points and all the risk is clearly not worth it.

I don't know that NFL coaches would think about this from a strictly numeric perspective.  Your team just worked hard to get into FG position.  You have a chance to close the gap and go into the locker room with momentum.  Just threw that away.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Joe Summer said:

You're gonna need to show some math on this one. What do you think the touchdown rate is for a shovel pass from the 17-year line? Maybe 10%? So, 10% chance at 7 points vs. 85% chance at 3? I'll take the 3 every time.

It was actually even worse than that. The LOS was the 17. The holder was on the 25. Not sure exactly where Willson was when he caught it, but given that it was a flip pass he probably had to take it 23 or 24 yards to score.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Joe Summer said:



You're gonna need to show some math on this one. What do you think the touchdown rate is for a shovel pass from the 17-year line? Maybe 10%? So, 10% chance at 7 points vs. 85% chance at 3? I'll take the 3 every time.

I don't need the TD rate to be high.  I just need it to be about the same as the probability of not picking up one yard on 4th and 1.

So, if it's:

10% TD

 80% no TD but a first down and clock stopped

10% no first down OR time runs out...

Then the fake is the way to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DropKick said:

If you want to do the expected value exercise, I'll throw some probabilities out there...

The probability of making the FG is about 95% - so the expected value is 2.85.

Assuming you have a t/o in pocket (maybe not)

The probability of a TD is about 1%.

The probability of a turnover is 2%.

The probability of turning the ball over on downs is 25%

The probability of converting but the clock expiring is 10%

If you end up settling for the FG attempt, The probability of a make remains at 95%

If you accept those numbers the expected value of a fake is 1.76 (not optimal)

If you don't actually have a time-out, you only get a FG attempt if the runner gets out of bounds... Here the EV would plummet (0.25?)

Basically, you have a 1% chance of scoring more than 3 points and all the risk is clearly not worth it.

I don't know that NFL coaches would think about this from a strictly numeric perspective.  Your team just worked hard to get into FG position.  You have a chance to close the gap and go into the locker room with momentum.  Just threw that away.

 

Why would the probability of a turnover be twice as high as the probability of a TD?

Regardless, if you think the success rate is only 1%, and the failure rate is 37%, then obviously it's a bad call.  I doubt Carroll had those probabilities in mind and decided to go for it anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, zftcg said:

It was actually even worse than that. The LOS was the 17. The holder was on the 25. Not sure exactly where Willson was when he caught it, but given that it was a flip pass he probably had to take it 23 or 24 yards to score.

Probably an oversimplification, but IMO the distance isn't that big a factor. 

Either the receiver was going to sneak through the line and score easily, or he was going to get stopped at or behind the line.  The possibility that the Falcons would get fooled initially but then recover to tackle Willson downfield but short of the endzone seems miniscule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, davearm said:

I don't need the TD rate to be high.  I just need it to be about the same as the probability of not picking up one yard on 4th and 1.

So, if it's:

10% TD

 80% no TD but a first down and clock stopped

10% no first down OR time runs out...

Then the fake is the way to go.

The probability of scoring isn't close to 10%.

The probability of not converting, turning it over, or running out of time is more than 10%

2 minutes ago, davearm said:

Why would the probability of a turnover be twice as high as the probability of a TD?

Regardless, if you think the success rate is only 1%, and the failure rate is 37%, then obviously it's a bad call.  I doubt Carroll had those probabilities in mind and decided to go for it anyway.

I think the chance of somebody putting the ball on the ground is close to once every 50 plays.  Seems fair to me.

A 1% TD chance might be a little too low.  Just hard to see the backup TE taking a shovel pass 20+ yards in that situation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, davearm said:

Probably an oversimplification, but IMO the distance isn't that big a factor. 

Either the receiver was going to sneak through the line and score easily, or he was going to get stopped at or behind the line.  The possibility that the Falcons would get fooled initially but then recover to tackle Willson downfield but short of the endzone seems miniscule.

Maybe.  You'd have to see the all 22 view or an overhead shot to see the defensive alignment.

Other things go wrong; drop the pass, holding penalty, etc.

At the end of the day, it was an unnecessary risk.  The game was at home and Seattle wasn't "out-manned"...  No need to roll the dice IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, davearm said:

Probably an oversimplification, but IMO the distance isn't that big a factor. 

Either the receiver was going to sneak through the line and score easily, or he was going to get stopped at or behind the line.  The possibility that the Falcons would get fooled initially but then recover to tackle Willson downfield but short of the endzone seems miniscule.

No idea what Willson's 40 time is, but I'm guessing there are some people on the Falcons special-teams unit fast enough to run him down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DropKick said:

Maybe.  You'd have to see the all 22 view or an overhead shot to see the defensive alignment.

Other things go wrong; drop the pass, holding penalty, etc.

At the end of the day, it was an unnecessary risk.  The game was at home and Seattle wasn't "out-manned"...  No need to roll the dice IMO.

All fair points.

My only point here is that the decision to run the fake is easy to defend from a probabalistic/EV perspective, if you have a timeout, and if you think the odds on a TD are roughly similar to the odds on getting stuffed/running out of time/fumbling etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, davearm said:

I'm onboard the "stupid call" train 100% if Carroll didn't have a TO in his pocket.  That's pretty key.  However the Seahawks' objective on running the fake was obviously not to get a first down and a shorter FG try.  The objective was to get a TD.

It breaks down like this:

Best case, the fake FG goes for a TD: +4 points relative to just kicking the FG.

Worst case, the fake FG fails to pick up a first down, or the clock runs out: -3 points relative to just kicking the FG.

Middle case, you get the first down but not a TD, and kick a shorter FG: 0 points relative to just kicking the FG (actually a bit greater than 0 due to shorter FG attempt).

(You'd want to make small adjustments to all of the above numbers to account for the potential to miss either the FG or the PAT.)

From there you simply attach probabilities to each case and compute the EV. 

If the probability on the best case (+4) is >= the probability on the worst case (-3), then running the fake is not only justifiable, it's optimal.

Not when the +4 is less than a hundredth of a percent and the worst case is 50-50 at best. 

This was just a horrible read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, davearm said:

All fair points.

My only point here is that the decision to run the fake is easy to defend from a probabalistic/EV perspective, if you have a timeout, and if you think the odds on a TD are roughly similar to the odds on getting stuffed/running out of time/fumbling etc.

I get that you're talking more in terms of a thought exercise rather than actually defending the decision, but I think this one of those moves that seems preposterous on its face and then, the more you dig into it, seems even more ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, davearm said:

I don't need the TD rate to be high.  I just need it to be about the same as the probability of not picking up one yard on 4th and 1.

So, if it's:

10% TD

 80% no TD but a first down and clock stopped

10% no first down OR time runs out...

Then the fake is the way to go.

Unfortunately those percentage are not close to reality.  10% to score a TD??   Good lord no.  Not even remotely close

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, davearm said:

All fair points.

My only point here is that the decision to run the fake is easy to defend from a probabalistic/EV perspective, if you have a timeout, and if you think the odds on a TD are roughly similar to the odds on getting stuffed/running out of time/fumbling etc.

We should find out if Seattle had a time-out.  But, assuming they did, I understand your point that Carroll felt they could bust the play for a TD or, at worst, pick up a yard and settle for a FG attempt.  I get it..  Seven seconds just isn't much time.  Just take the almost certain points.  Being "too cute" has haunted Carroll in the past.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...