Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Post here when coaches do something you disagree with


Recommended Posts

Bill O'Brien for the 2nd time in the last 4 games, called a timeout with less than 2 minutes to go in the first half while the opponent had the ball and had just made a first down. Result: Ravens kick a FG with :07 left in the first half, after they had used all of their TO's plus the bonus timeout that O'Brien gave them. He is turning into one of the worst clock managers in the league. But don't ask him anything about that "clock management stuff".

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Jayded said:

Bill O'Brien starting Tom Savage. Stupid, stupid, stupid. The evidence is in.

In Week 1? Absolutely a stupid move (and this is the second time in three years he benched his Week 1 starter before the end of the first game).

After Watson's injury? Eh, probably not much he could have done. I personally think they would have been better off signing Kaepernick, but I'm under no illusion it would have magically saved their season. It was most likely over the moment DeShaun got hurt.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, zftcg said:

In Week 1? Absolutely a stupid move (and this is the second time in three years he benched his Week 1 starter before the end of the first game).

After Watson's injury? Eh, probably not much he could have done. I personally think they would have been better off signing Kaepernick, but I'm under no illusion it would have magically saved their season. It was most likely over the moment DeShaun got hurt.

Yeah, except we know how the Texans owner feels about Keepernick. That would never happen. But Kaep is probably better than Savage, and it sure woulda been fun to see what he could do with Hopkins. 

But I agree that it probably doesn’t matter who the Texans start at this point. 

That throw into triple coverage tho - shocking it got picked off to basically end the game (actually not at all shocking, I was being sarcastic) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

Yeah, except we know how the Texans owner feels about Keepernick. That would never happen. But Kaep is probably better than Savage, and it sure woulda been fun to see what he could do with Hopkins. 

But I agree that it probably doesn’t matter who the Texans start at this point. 

That throw into triple coverage tho - shocking it got picked off to basically end the game (actually not at all shocking, I was being sarcastic) 

Tom Savage bad at football. News at 11.

Yeah, the decision not to sign Kaep was, as they say, overdetermined. Still, I wonder how much the calculation that they were screwed played into it; also, the fact that Watson's emergence pretty much guaranteed O'Brien would be back next year. If he were coaching for his job, he might not have been content to put it all in the hands of Savage.

Meanwhile, what does it say about O'Brien that he benched his Week 1 QB in two of the past three years, but the one he let finish the game was Brock Osweiler?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, zftcg said:

In Week 1? Absolutely a stupid move (and this is the second time in three years he benched his Week 1 starter before the end of the first game).

After Watson's injury? Eh, probably not much he could have done. I personally think they would have been better off signing Kaepernick, but I'm under no illusion it would have magically saved their season. It was most likely over the moment DeShaun got hurt.

Week 1 I understand even more because he was not wanting to throw his rookie to the lions too early. Savage was that horrible in week 1 that he couldn't ignore it.

At THAT point you have to wonder why they didn't start to question if they even had a suitable backup. Right now I'm suggesting the Texans' failure to develop a suitable backup and frustratingly continue to trot him out there is even more excusable. Savage is not only not good enough to be the starter, he's not even good enough to be the backup. Because of that, the team is slipping even further behind where it should be this season.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jayded said:

Week 1 I understand even more because he was not wanting to throw his rookie to the lions too early. Savage was that horrible in week 1 that he couldn't ignore it.

At THAT point you have to wonder why they didn't start to question if they even had a suitable backup. Right now I'm suggesting the Texans' failure to develop a suitable backup and frustratingly continue to trot him out there is even more excusable. Savage is not only not good enough to be the starter, he's not even good enough to be the backup. Because of that, the team is slipping even further behind where it should be this season.

Interesting theory about Week 1. I'm also reminded that no one realized at the time just how good Jax D was. I guess this year's was more excusable than 2015, when he started off with the right guy, benched him for Ryan Mallett, and then had to go back to him a few weeks later.

This is veering off topic, since it's more on the GM, but I remember hearing some stat about the Texans before they drafted Watson last year: Despite the fact that they hired an offensive-minded HC in 2014 for a team with no incumbent QB, they invested zero draft capital in the position over the next three years outside of a 4th-round pick (Savage) in 2014. So that's basically the genesis of the problem you identify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jayded said:

Week 1 I understand even more because he was not wanting to throw his rookie to the lions too early. Savage was that horrible in week 1 that he couldn't ignore it.

At THAT point you have to wonder why they didn't start to question if they even had a suitable backup. Right now I'm suggesting the Texans' failure to develop a suitable backup and frustratingly continue to trot him out there is even more excusable. Savage is not only not good enough to be the starter, he's not even good enough to be the backup. Because of that, the team is slipping even further behind where it should be this season.

That is what I don't understand. They started the season with a QB who was entering his 4th year with the team and who had never thrown a TD pass and a QB who was an unproven rookie. They gave the rookie no 1st team reps in the preseason. Yet after 1/2 a game he was the starting QB. What the Texans have done at QB the last 4 years (other than finally drafting Watson) has been criminal, especially with the quality of their defense. Obviously most of the blame goes to Rick Smith (who McNair won't fire) but I have to think Bill O'Brien has some input into who the Texans get at QB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, dhockster said:

That is what I don't understand. They started the season with a QB who was entering his 4th year with the team and who had never thrown a TD pass and a QB who was an unproven rookie. They gave the rookie no 1st team reps in the preseason. Yet after 1/2 a game he was the starting QB. What the Texans have done at QB the last 4 years (other than finally drafting Watson) has been criminal, especially with the quality of their defense. Obviously most of the blame goes to Rick Smith (who McNair won't fire) but I have to think Bill O'Brien has some input into who the Texans get at QB.

O’Brien seems to be the quintessential too loyal coach. He absolutely will not admit fault but will rush to take credit. 

I remember a LOT of skepticism about Watson when he was drafted. Even the majority of fans were worried it was a reaction to KC picking Mahomes, but I loved Watson so I had hope. 

O’Brien went on that he saw raw talent but wasn’t ready. He seemed to try to outsmart Smith by noting he had a ways to go and chose Savage as his guy. Go figure Smith got one right and BOB looks like a boob by halftime of week one. Suddenly Watson is his guy. 

Watching the Texans manage the position has been maddening for years and only has been exasperated by BOb’s loyal stubbornness. I hated the Savage pick from day one but figured I’d give him a shot. Leaving the cupboard empty for him was a fireable offense. Savage was a 56% passer in college and it’s a stat that seems to aptly translate to the NFL and highlights what we all have seen. Ugh. 

Edited by Jayded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Jayded said:

O’Brien seems to be the quintessential too loyal coach. He absolutely will not admit fault but will rush to take credit. 

I remember a LOT of skepticism about Watson when he was drafted. Even the majority of fans were worried it was a reaction to KC picking Mahomes, but I loved Watson so I had hope. 

O’Brien went on that he saw raw talent but wasn’t ready. He seemed to try to outsmart Smith by noting he had a ways to go and chose Savage as his guy. Go figure Smith got one right and BOB looks like a boob by halftime of week one. Suddenly Watson is his guy. 

Watching the Texans manage the position has been maddening for years and only has been exasperated by BOb’s loyal stubbornness. I hated the Savage pick from day one but figured I’d give him a shot. Leaving the cupboard empty for him was a fireable offense. Savage was a 56% passer in college and it’s a stat that seems to aptly translate to the NFL and highlights what we all have seen. Ugh. 

OK, so we're all agreed that the overall way O'Brien has handled the QB position ever since he arrived in Houston is "obviously stupid". And yet ...

Clearly Watson himself deserves most of the credit for his performance this year. But the fact remains that if O'Brien had tried to shoehorn Watson into the NE system, we'd all be shaking our heads and saying, "Typical egotistical coach". So the fact that he didn't do that, but instead built the offense around Watson's strengths (and did it all on the fly), is absolutely a strong point in his favor.

What I'm saying is that nothing will retroactively justify everything he's done with Hoyer, Mallett and Savage over the past few years. But in terms of his overall legacy, he has a chance to really turn things around if he doesn't f### up the Watson situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched 3 games yesterday ... so 6 coaches.

I'm baffled as to how these coaches choose when to throw the red flag and challenge a play.

 

NEP vs. BUF ... Pats up 3-0 early in the 2nd qtr, Brady drops back to pass, trips on his O-linemans foot, falls and throws the ball as he hits the ground.

Receiver was in the area ... about 5 yards beyond where the ball landed.

BUF coach challenges that Brady was DOWN BY CONTACT before he threw the ball.

Everyone including Romo the broadcaster stating that no BUF player was even CLOSE to contacting Brady ... so it doesn't matter if his knee was down.

So the refs let the play stand and at this point Sean McDumass realizes how dumb he was and now looks ... and begins lobbying for intentional grounding. 

Now he looks even dumber.

----------------------------

PHI vs. SEA ... Early 4th qtr, PHI just scored 7 to pull within 7 of SEA

SEA ball 3rd & 8 from SEA 42 > Russel Wilson escapes the pocket, runs for about 8 yards then flips the ball to RB Davis who runs for another 17 yards to PHI 35. 25 yard gain.

Ball clearly went forward a yard, maybe two, from where Wilson released it to where Davis received it. 

PHI does NOT challenge the play. SEA proceeds to score a TD.

Had PHI challenged that play, they would have won the challenge, SEA would have been penalized for an illegal forward pass, 5 yards and loss of down. 4th and 14 from PHI 37.Coach Peterson either never got word from his "guy" to challenge ... or just chose to concede the play. Maybe he couldn't get the red flag out of his sock?

Link:

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2017120313/2017/REG13/Eagles@Seahawks?icampaign=scoreStrip-globalNav-2017120313#menu=gameinfo|contentId%3A0ap3000000887635&tab=analyze&analyze=playbyplay

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bossman said:

PHI vs. SEA ... Early 4th qtr, PHI just scored 7 to pull within 7 of SEA

SEA ball 3rd & 8 from SEA 42 > Russel Wilson escapes the pocket, runs for about 8 yards then flips the ball to RB Davis who runs for another 17 yards to PHI 35. 25 yard gain.

Ball clearly went forward a yard, maybe two, from where Wilson released it to where Davis received it. 

PHI does NOT challenge the play. SEA proceeds to score a TD.

Had PHI challenged that play, they would have won the challenge, SEA would have been penalized for an illegal forward pass, 5 yards and loss of down. 4th and 14 from PHI 37.Coach Peterson either never got word from his "guy" to challenge ... or just chose to concede the play. Maybe he couldn't get the red flag out of his sock?

Link:

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2017120313/2017/REG13/Eagles@Seahawks?icampaign=scoreStrip-globalNav-2017120313#menu=gameinfo|contentId%3A0ap3000000887635&tab=analyze&analyze=playbyplay

That non-challenge was mystifying. The rule of thumb for when to challenge is weigh a) the likelihood that you'll win it, and b) the value of winning the challenge. That play was a slam dunk on both accounts.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PHI vs. SEA ... Early 4th qtr, PHI just scored 7 to pull within 7 of SEA



SEA ball 3rd & 8 from SEA 42 > Russel Wilson escapes the pocket, runs for about 8 yards then flips the ball to RB Davis who runs for another 17 yards to PHI 35. 25 yard gain.

Ball clearly went forward a yard, maybe two, from where Wilson released it to where Davis received it.

PHI does NOT challenge the play. SEA proceeds to score a TD.

Had PHI challenged that play, they would have won the challenge, SEA would have been penalized for an illegal forward pass, 5 yards and loss of down. 4th and 14 from PHI 37.Coach Peterson either never got word from his "guy" to challenge ... or just chose to concede the play. Maybe he couldn't get the red flag out of his sock?


Pederson had a terrible challenge earlier in the game (Torry Smith was 1-yard short of a first down, and Pederson thought that replay would magically make that 1-yard appear. WRONG.) So it's likely that he was gun-shy after already losing a timeout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Joe Summer said:


Pederson had a terrible challenge earlier in the game (Torry Smith was 1-yard short of a first down, and Pederson thought that replay would magically make that 1-yard appear. WRONG.) So it's likely that he was gun-shy after already losing a timeout.

That play was actually really close (definitely was not 1 yard short IMO) but I agree that it was a bad challenge.  I don't see how they could have reversed the call on the field.  Also, the odds of them making it on 4th down anyways was pretty high

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Joe Summer said:

Pederson had a terrible challenge earlier in the game (Torry Smith was 1-yard short of a first down, and Pederson thought that replay would magically make that 1-yard appear. WRONG.) So it's likely that he was gun-shy after already losing a timeout.

"I screwed up this meaningless challenge earlier, so I better avoid this obvious one now."

Also, it was the fourth quarter! Even if they lost it, there were only a few more minutes before the booth challenges kicked in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Bossman said:

I watched 3 games yesterday ... so 6 coaches.

I'm baffled as to how these coaches choose when to throw the red flag and challenge a play.

 

NEP vs. BUF ... Pats up 3-0 early in the 2nd qtr, Brady drops back to pass, trips on his O-linemans foot, falls and throws the ball as he hits the ground.

Receiver was in the area ... about 5 yards beyond where the ball landed.

BUF coach challenges that Brady was DOWN BY CONTACT before he threw the ball.

Everyone including Romo the broadcaster stating that no BUF player was even CLOSE to contacting Brady ... so it doesn't matter if his knee was down.

So the refs let the play stand and at this point Sean McDumass realizes how dumb he was and now looks ... and begins lobbying for intentional grounding. 

Now he looks even dumber.

 

I agree it was a REALLY stupid challenge and he should be smacked for that.

However I did think it was intentional grounding.  Brady was in the pocket, there was no eligible receiver nearby and the ball didn't get close to the line of scrimmage.   At least that is my recollection of the play, I could be wrong

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, fred_1_15301 said:

That play was actually really close (definitely was not 1 yard short IMO) but I agree that it was a bad challenge.  I don't see how they could have reversed the call on the field.  Also, the odds of them making it on 4th down anyways was pretty high

Exactly. Using the balancing test I mentioned earlier, it was low probability of success, medium stakes (since they were going for it on 4th anyway).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Godsbrother said:

I agree it was a REALLY stupid challenge and he should be smacked for that.

However I did think it was intentional grounding.  Brady was in the pocket, there was no eligible receiver nearby and the ball didn't get close to the line of scrimmage.   At least that is my recollection of the play, I could be wrong

 

I thought the ball landed close enough to the TE there. I can't find any video of it to reassess.

Even if it were a question of intentional grounding ... why did coach McDumass tell the ref that he wanted to challenge that Brady was down by contact?

Maybe intentional grounding isn't challengable? Guess that is somewhat of a judgement call ... like pass interference.

... then if that's the case, he should have never threw the red flag. Dumb coaching either way.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/4/2017 at 2:38 PM, zftcg said:

That non-challenge was mystifying. The rule of thumb for when to challenge is weigh a) the likelihood that you'll win it, and b) the value of winning the challenge. That play was a slam dunk on both accounts.

While I agree the ball went forward (and that a challenge was the correct move because of the stakes), I'm not sure the refs would have overturned it.  I thought it was clear Wilson attempted a legal lateral.  

Neil deGrasse Tyson weighs in

I think the definition of a forward pass says something about initially moving forward.  Would it matter if the lateral initially moved backward?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, CalBear said:

How about Sean Payton's bizarre confrontation with the officials tonight, down by 3 with the Falcons facing third and 2 with a minute left in the game?

I blame the ref. Payton was trying to call a timeout and the ref wasn't responding. So he ran on the field to call it. So weird.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I add when an announcer makes an idiot call?

Chris Collinsworth said "I really think this is an important drive for the Saints."  This was in the middle of the 4th quarter with the score tied (17-17).   Obviously you can say that any drive is important, but it was the 4TH QUARTER in a TIED game! Of course it was important.  We were lucky there was such a highly paid professional covering the game or we may not have known how important that was...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, zftcg said:

Thoughts on Quinn declining the holding penalty on NO on 3rd and 1?

Posted this quickly right before I went to bed. Having thought about it some more, it was clearly a dumb move. Let's decision-tree this MFer out:

Background: Falcons leading 20-17, just inside the two-minute warning, both teams have all their TOs, Saints have the ball 3rd and 1 at the Falcons 24. Incomplete pass, but a holding penalty on NO.

  • Scenario 1a: Falcons decline the penalty, Saints kick FG. This is probably what Quinn assumed would happen (this is, after all, the guy who once kicked a FG from the one-yard line down 4 in the 4th quarter). That means a 42yd FGA, which, with a good kicker like Lutz, the Saints probably make, but it leaves Atlanta plenty of time to drive down for a game-winning FG of their own.
  • Scenario 1b: Falcons decline, Saints go for it. This is what actually happened, and was clearly the right decision by Payton. They converted on a QB sneak (high-percentage play), and at that point were in a position to run the clock down and either tie the game late or win it in regulation. Of course, Brees ended up throwing an INT in the end zone that cost them the game, but as I'm sure everyone in this thread knows, results don't retroactively justify process.
  • Scenario 2a: Falcons take penalty, Saints convert first down. This is certainly possible, although I suspect in that situation the Saints would have played it more conservatively and focused on getting back a few of those penalty yards so Lutz didn't have to kick a 52 yarder. Still, if they do convert, you're basically in the same scenario as 1b.
  • Scenario 2b: Falcons take penalty, Saints don't convert. Now you're in the same situation as 1a, except that it's likely a longer FG, and Atlanta has wasted a few seconds for their own drive. Also, if NO completes a pass in bounds, Atlanta may be forced to use an additional time out (they would still have had two left plus 1:40 or so on the clock, which is plenty of time for a FG drive).

Basically, in this scenario, you want NO to kick the FG as soon as possible, and you want to reduce the likelihood that they make it. That means you pretty clearly want 2b; you'll take the tradeoff of a few seconds for adding 10 yards onto Lutz's distance. That does subject you to the risk of 2a, but ask yourself this: Would you rather force your opponent to convert a 3rd and 11 or a 4th and 1?

Ultimately, I attribute a decision like this to Quinn being overly conservative, and also assuming that Payton would be similarly conservative. If he had known the Saints would go for it on 4th down (which he should have), he probably makes a different decision.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Steeler said:

Yes.

I don’t know why, but I think something feels wrong about that interpretation of the rules.  If you attempt a forward pass but the wind were blowing so hard that the ball travelled backward, it would still be a forward pass. If it hit the ground it would be ruled incomplete.  

Meanwhile if you make a backward pass while running fast enough to make the ball travel forward, that’s called a forward pass?  Pretty sure that happens in rugby frequently and it isn’t against any rules.

the answer that I keep hearing is that forward/backward is determined relative to a fixed point on the field.  But I didn’t see that in the rules. And if it is, why?

sorry for the hijack, should have started another thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, oldmanhawkins said:

I don’t know why, but I think something feels wrong about that interpretation of the rules.  If you attempt a forward pass but the wind were blowing so hard that the ball travelled backward, it would still be a forward pass. If it hit the ground it would be ruled incomplete.  

Meanwhile if you make a backward pass while running fast enough to make the ball travel forward, that’s called a forward pass?  Pretty sure that happens in rugby frequently and it isn’t against any rules.

the answer that I keep hearing is that forward/backward is determined relative to a fixed point on the field.  But I didn’t see that in the rules. And if it is, why?

sorry for the hijack, should have started another thread.

I've never read the NFL rule book so I can't quote you the specific rule - I just know that's how the rule has always been interpreted :shrug: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, oldmanhawkins said:

I don’t know why, but I think something feels wrong about that interpretation of the rules.  If you attempt a forward pass but the wind were blowing so hard that the ball travelled backward, it would still be a forward pass. If it hit the ground it would be ruled incomplete.  

Meanwhile if you make a backward pass while running fast enough to make the ball travel forward, that’s called a forward pass?  Pretty sure that happens in rugby frequently and it isn’t against any rules.

the answer that I keep hearing is that forward/backward is determined relative to a fixed point on the field.  But I didn’t see that in the rules. And if it is, why?

sorry for the hijack, should have started another thread.

It's pretty clear. NFL Rulebook, rule 8, section 1, article 1. 

Quote

It is a forward pass if: (a) the ball initially moves forward (to a point nearer the opponent’s goal line) after leaving the passer’s hand(s); or (b) the ball first strikes the ground, a player, an official, or anything else at a point that is nearer the opponent’s goal line than the point at which the ball leaves the passer’s hand(s).

Your own movement doesn't matter at all, nor does the position of your body. The movement of the ball is what matters.

The scenario where you initially throw the ball forward and it gets blown backwards is still a forward pass. (Although, oddly, if you throw it backwards and the wind blows it forwards, it's also a forward pass).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, CalBear said:

It's pretty clear. NFL Rulebook, rule 8, section 1, article 1. 

Your own movement doesn't matter at all, nor does the position of your body. The movement of the ball is what matters.

The scenario where you initially throw the ball forward and it gets blown backwards is still a forward pass. (Although, oddly, if you throw it backwards and the wind blows it forwards, it's also a forward pass).

Thanks.  I looked at that earlier and was hung up on the “forward initially” part and wasn’t reading through part b.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, CalBear said:

It's pretty clear. NFL Rulebook, rule 8, section 1, article 1. 

Your own movement doesn't matter at all, nor does the position of your body. The movement of the ball is what matters.

The scenario where you initially throw the ball forward and it gets blown backwards is still a forward pass. (Although, oddly, if you throw it backwards and the wind blows it forwards, it's also a forward pass).

Wasn't there a famous play in a game in the '40s where a pass (or maybe it was a punt) got blown back by a heavy wind through the back of the end zone? I think it was ruled a safety but it was considered a controversial call.

This ringing any bells for anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, zftcg said:

Wasn't there a famous play in a game in the '40s where a pass (or maybe it was a punt) got blown back by a heavy wind through the back of the end zone? I think it was ruled a safety but it was considered a controversial call.

This ringing any bells for anyone?

Maybe this?

1968 AFL Championship

Raiders were trying to throw a pass out in the flat to Charlie Smith. This was back when everyone used two backs and they sent both backs out to the same side, one on a wheel route up the seam and the second back to the flat. Lamonica threw the ball forward but a tremendous wind gust caused it to curve back & it became a lateral. Jets recovered & Namath drove them down for the winning score.

Further trivia - it was the same play call the Raiders used to win the infamous Heidi game, but they reversed the backs roles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BobbyLayne said:

Maybe this?

1968 AFL Championship

Raiders were trying to throw a pass out in the flat to Charlie Smith. This was back when everyone used two backs and they sent both backs out to the same side, one on a wheel route up the seam and the second back to the flat. Lamonica threw the ball forward but a tremendous wind gust caused it to curve back & it became a lateral. Jets recovered & Namath drove them down for the winning score.

Further trivia - it was the same play call the Raiders used to win the infamous Heidi game, but they reversed the backs roles.

No, it was even earlier than that:

"The Redskins lost the 1945 title to Cleveland thanks to a weird rule that has since been amended. Cleveland was awarded a safety when Baugh's pass from the end zone hit the goalpost. (The goalposts were on the goal line in those days.) The Redskins lost by those two points, 15-14.

"Everyone expected Sam to punt because we were backed up to the goal line," said Wayne Miller, the intended receiver. "There was no one within a mile of me when I broke into the clear. But as Baugh threw the ball, the wind shifted and blew the ball into the goalpost. Instead of being ahead 7-0 on a 105-yard play, we were behind 2-0."

When I was a kid in the early '80s, I used to write literally every book report on a sports book. Usually it was baseball biographies: The Willie Mays Story, the Al Kaline Story, The Richie Ashburn (!) Story. But I guess I must have done at least one football related one, because that story always stuck with me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, zftcg said:

No, it was even earlier than that:

"The Redskins lost the 1945 title to Cleveland thanks to a weird rule that has since been amended. Cleveland was awarded a safety when Baugh's pass from the end zone hit the goalpost. (The goalposts were on the goal line in those days.) The Redskins lost by those two points, 15-14.

"Everyone expected Sam to punt because we were backed up to the goal line," said Wayne Miller, the intended receiver. "There was no one within a mile of me when I broke into the clear. But as Baugh threw the ball, the wind shifted and blew the ball into the goalpost. Instead of being ahead 7-0 on a 105-yard play, we were behind 2-0."

When I was a kid in the early '80s, I used to write literally every book report on a sports book. Usually it was baseball biographies: The Willie Mays Story, the Al Kaline Story, The Richie Ashburn (!) Story. But I guess I must have done at least one football related one, because that story always stuck with me.

Hey take it to the ESPN the Ocho Obscure Sports History Forum, pal! :rant:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the Falcons descision to decline the penalty & give the Saints a 4th & 1, IMO it was suicidal. 

One of the worst calls of the year. You know Peyton is gonna go for it there with a high likelihood of success. 

Best case scenario, NOLA fails on 3rd and long, or worse takes a sack, they’ve got a somewhat long FG, ties the game at 20 and the falcons have a shot at a GW drive. Instead they rolled out the red carpet for their red zone for one of the league’s premier QBs. 

I was only surprised the gamble didn’t cost them the game. It should have. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

As for the Falcons descision to decline the penalty & give the Saints a 4th & 1, IMO it was suicidal. 

One of the worst calls of the year. You know Peyton is gonna go for it there with a high likelihood of success. 

Best case scenario, NOLA fails on 3rd and long, or worse takes a sack, they’ve got a somewhat long FG, ties the game at 20 and the falcons have a shot at a GW drive. Instead they rolled out the red carpet for their red zone for one of the league’s premier QBs. 

I was only surprised the gamble didn’t cost them the game. It should have. 

On The Ringer NFL podcast, Mike Lombardi made an additional point about that decision: even if simple logic doesn't suggest the Saints would go for it on 4th, Payton also gave Quinn a big hint when he passed on third down, which would suggest he considered it four-down territory.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me go away from the purpose of this thread to give Payton props for going for it. A lot of coaches would have taken the meathead-commentator position of "you take the points, tie up the game," failing to understand the risk of missing the FG (42 yards isn't a gimme), and the difference in expected win probability between a tie game kicking off with 2:00 left, and a game where you're down by 3 with 2:00 left at the opponent's 25.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, CalBear said:

Let me go away from the purpose of this thread to give Payton props for going for it. A lot of coaches would have taken the meathead-commentator position of "you take the points, tie up the game," failing to understand the risk of missing the FG (42 yards isn't a gimme), and the difference in expected win probability between a tie game kicking off with 2:00 left, and a game where you're down by 3 with 2:00 left at the opponent's 25.

I always thought the mantra was “play for the tie at home, play for the win on the road”. 

Of course, that was old OT rules-related, but still. So I didn’t see Peyton’s decision as particularly noteworthy myself. Seemed somewhat obvious he was gonna go for it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

I always thought the mantra was “play for the tie at home, play for the win on the road”. 

Of course, that was old OT rules-related, but still. So I didn’t see Peyton’s decision as particularly noteworthy myself. Seemed somewhat obvious he was gonna go for it. 

The home team win percentage in OT games from 1975-2011 was .523. Since 2012 it's .584, but that increase is probably a statistical anomaly.

The overall win probability for home teams from 1975-2011 was .578; since 2012 it's .569, more or less unchanged. 

In any case, there's nothing there to suggest that going for the tie at home is a preferable strategy.

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

6 minutes ago, CalBear said:

The home team win percentage in OT games from 1975-2011 was .523. Since 2012 it's .584, but that's increase is probably a statistical anomaly.

The overall win probability for home teams from 1975-2011 was .578; since 2012 it's .569, more or less unchanged. 

In any case, there's nothing there to suggest that going for the tie at home is a preferable strategy.

I think the more important point is that kicking the FG there isn't really "playing for the tie", it's "playing for the tie as a best-case scenario". Giving the Falcons the ball back with 2:00 and all their timeouts lowers your win expectancy to well below 50%. Converting the first both gives you a chance to win with a TD and run the clock down to ensure the Falcons don't get a chance at a final drive. In other words, playing for a tie as a worst-case scenario (well, other than the scenario where your HoF QB throws an INT into triple coverage).

How many other coaches would have gone for it? No idea, but I expect there are quite a few who would have played it "safe", including the guy on the opposite sideline

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ravens leading by 2, they get the ball back with 3:25 to play. Steelers have all their TOs. Ravens have one of the hottest RBs in the league, who has already put up a buck-13 on the Steelers. Their QB, meanwhile, is named Joe Flacco.

So obviously you run it three times, and hope that if Collins doesn't bully his way to the first, you at least force the Steelers to burn all their time---WAIT, WHY ARE YOU THROWING?!?!?!

Three and out with two incompletions (sandwiched between a six yard Collins run) Steelers get the ball back with all their time outs and the 2min warning. :no:

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, zftcg said:

Ravens leading by 2, they get the ball back with 3:25 to play. Steelers have all their TOs. Ravens have one of the hottest RBs in the league, who has already put up a buck-13 on the Steelers. Their QB, meanwhile, is named Joe Flacco.

So obviously you run it three times, and hope that if Collins doesn't bully his way to the first, you at least force the Steelers to burn all their time---WAIT, WHY ARE YOU THROWING?!?!?!

Three and out with two incompletions (sandwiched between a six yard Collins run) Steelers get the ball back with all their time outs and the 2min warning. :no:

Not to be outdone, Steelers throwing (to Grimble!) on second and 8 there was pretty dumb, too.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, JoeSteeler said:

Boswell bailed them put but JFC horrible play calling

 And keep in mind that a 45-yarder in Pittsburgh in December is no gimme. It's an absolute no-brainer to run Bell a few more times, get it closer, and run down some clock.

  • Like 2
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.

×
  • Create New...