Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Post here when coaches do something you disagree with


Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, CalBear said:

The problem with the quick out is that that's exactly what they're expecting you to do, and if you have Jameis Winston at QB you can't trust him to read the underneath coverage correctly. He's perfectly capable of throwing a pick-6 in that situation.

He's perfectly capable of throwing pick-6's in every situation. This week he threw another pass right to the defender. 3 more TOs and if CLE had any balls, they would have been aggressive and won the game.

  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, CalBear said:

The problem with the quick out is that that's exactly what they're expecting you to do, and if you have Jameis Winston at QB you can't trust him to read the underneath coverage correctly. He's perfectly capable of throwing a pick-6 in that situation.

Unfortunately, no NFL teams have yet responded to my offer to let me call plays for them. So I don't know what the exact right call would be in that situation. But I'm guessing an NFL offense with even a league-average QB can increase their win expectancy more by throwing the ball in that situation than by running into the line twice and attempting a 45 yarder.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zftcg said:

Unfortunately, no NFL teams have yet responded to my offer to let me call plays for them. So I don't know what the exact right call would be in that situation. But I'm guessing an NFL offense with even a league-average QB can increase their win expectancy more by throwing the ball in that situation than by running into the line twice and attempting a 45 yarder.

:lmao:

The ignorance in this place never ceases to amaze me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Short Corner said:

:lmao:

The ignorance in this place never ceases to amaze me.

Here's an idea: Instead of ad hominem insults, why don't you actually try to contribute to the discussion? Do you agree with teams playing for long FGs in late-game situations? Do you have anything constructive to add?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, zftcg said:

Here's an idea: Instead of ad hominem insults, why don't you actually try to contribute to the discussion? Do you agree with teams playing for long FGs in late-game situations? Do you have anything constructive to add?

Easy chief.  You were spot on.  More coaches should manage the game down there as if Aaron Rodgers was their QB.  What could possibly go wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Short Corner said:

Easy chief.  You were spot on.  More coaches should manage the game down there as if Aaron Rodgers was their QB.  What could possibly go wrong?

Oh, I didn't realize we were allowed to use strawmen. In that case, you're the one who had it correct. All teams without Rodgers should hike the ball and immediately go into the fetal position until the game is over.

Did I do that right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, zftcg said:

Oh, I didn't realize we were allowed to use strawmen. In that case, you're the one who had it correct. All teams without Rodgers should hike the ball and immediately go into the fetal position until the game is over.

Did I do that right?

Wow I got it right and I didn't even take a side.  I might just play the lottery this week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

down 12-20, the New York Football Giants just opted to go for 2, with 5 mins left in the 4th quarter. 

Even Booger was confused, and showed he could do math. 

:doh: 

just a terrible decision - zero upside. 

The upside is that if you fail to get the 2 now, then you can still go for 2 later.

If you go for 1, then you're just playing for overtime. And with the Giants, overtime = guaranteed loss.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

The upside is that if you fail to get the 2 now, then you can still go for 2 later.

If you go for 1, then you're just playing for overtime. And with the Giants, overtime = guaranteed loss.

Um, that failed 2 means you now need a two just to tie.  Stupid call.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming you get the 2 touchdowns and those are the only scores, if you kick the XPs then it all comes down to overtime - if you beat them in overtime you win, if they beat you in overtime then you lose.

If you go for 2 after the 2nd touchdown then the decisive moment comes sooner - if you make it then you win, if you miss it then you lose.

If you go for 2 after the 1st touchdown - if you make it then you win, if you miss it then you get to call "best 2 out of 3" and can still win if you make the 2nd 2-pointer and beat them in overtime.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, cjack said:
30 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

The upside is that if you fail to get the 2 now, then you can still go for 2 later.

If you go for 1, then you're just playing for overtime. And with the Giants, overtime = guaranteed loss.

Um, that failed 2 means you now need a two just to tie.  Stupid call.

Think of it like this: when you're down by 2 TDs, your goal should be to score 2 TDs and at least one two-point conversion. (You don't want to score TDs and then kick 2 PATs. That's a recipe for a loss.)

Therefore, you absolutely need to go for 2 at least once.

So, do you want to go for 2 after the FIRST TD, or do you want to go for 2 after the SECOND TD?

There are advantages and disadvantages to either choice. But the advantage of going for it after the FIRST TD is that if you fail, you can still recover and salvage a tie.

The Giants absolutely made the right call here.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, [scooter] said:

Think of it like this: when you're down by 2 TDs, your goal should be to score 2 TDs and at least one two-point conversion. (You don't want to score TDs and then kick 2 PATs. That's a recipe for a loss.)

Therefore, you absolutely need to go for 2 at least once.

So, do you want to go for 2 after the FIRST TD, or do you want to go for 2 after the SECOND TD?

There are advantages and disadvantages to either choice. But the advantage of going for it after the FIRST TD is that if you fail, you can still recover and salvage a tie.

The Giants absolutely made the right call here.

I don’t agree with your initial premise.  And calculating math on 50/50 odds doesn’t work here since not every team has the same odds of succeeding on two’s Or winning in OT.  But, I really don’t want to get dragged into this debate, so I’ll stick to my philosophy and you can to yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, ZWK said:

Assuming you get the 2 touchdowns and those are the only scores, if you kick the XPs then it all comes down to overtime - if you beat them in overtime you win, if they beat you in overtime then you lose.

If you go for 2 after the 2nd touchdown then the decisive moment comes sooner - if you make it then you win, if you miss it then you lose.

If you go for 2 after the 1st touchdown - if you make it then you win, if you miss it then you get to call "best 2 out of 3" and can still win if you make the 2nd 2-pointer and beat them in overtime.

I’ll say this for the decision:

if coach assumed the team will score, make a stop & score again, the :

• OT becomes a coin flip to decide possession 

• odds of hitting the 2 point conversion are about 48% (generally speaking, averaged against the entire league & not speaking to these exact teams offense/defense) 

So in choosing to go for two, you’re (theoretically) facing the “same” odds, but taking the randomness of the coin flip out of it. You’re putting your fate into your own hands.

its still not a risk that I like, because if you fail, it reduces your chances at a tie & OT, where if your defense is any good you STILL might win if you lose the coin flip. 

But in that narrow view I can see making that decision. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, cjack said:

I don’t agree with your initial premise.  And calculating math on 50/50 odds doesn’t work here since not every team has the same odds of succeeding on two’s Or winning in OT.

If you believe that the Giants shouldn't have gone for 2 because they have a lower success rate on 2 pointers, that's a valid point.

But they also have a lower success rate on PATs.

And they also have a lower success rate in overtime games.

And they also have a lower success rate in away games.

Basically, the Giants are below average at all aspects of the game. So, with all things being relative, then you should rely on the math. And the math says that "going for 2" gives you the best chance to win.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Alex P Keaton said:

Loved the press conference where Shurmur justified those choices.   He refused to budge.  "We should be able to get a yard."   Idiot.

When pressed he said “can’t think that way. It’s a defeatist attitude. You assume success”.

ooooookay Pollyanna - But when the 1st sneak fails and burns a bunch of time, maybe try another play? 

After the 1st one, they seriously woulda been better off spiking the ball to stop the clock. Better a wasted play than a wasted 20 seconds. :doh: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, cjack said:

Do people promoting the decision to go for 2 honestly think the Giants odds of converting are 50/50?  Eli sucks.

Even if they suck, it still makes sense:

Quote

I wouldn’t argue with you that the Browns likely have a lower chance of succeeding on 2-point conversions than the average NFL team,2 which lowers their chance of winning in the go-for-it scenario. But the Browns also likely had a lower than 50% chance of winning in overtime, which has a much harsher negative effect on the win probability if you kick extra points.

Let’s estimate that the Browns only had a 35% chance of succeeding on the 2-point conversion versus the 47.5% league average. Let’s also estimate that the Browns only had a 35% chance of winning in overtime. With those estimates, going for 2 is still superior, though the benefit gained narrows to roughly 7%, or 42% versus 35%.

A good rule of thumb for this decision is that you should go for two unless you believe the gap between your probability of winning in overtime and succeeding on the 2-point conversion is more than 12%. I have trouble thinking of many cases where a team would be so much more likely to win in overtime than covert the 2. This would be limited to very poor offensive teams who still have a good chance of winning in overtime due to their strong defenses.

 

2 minutes ago, cjack said:

The odds of a long Barkley or Beckham TD   In OT have to be better than Eli converting two successive 2 pointers in the red zone.

You only need to convert one.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Alex P Keaton said:

Loved the press conference where Shurmur justified those choices.   He refused to budge.  "We should be able to get a yard."   Idiot.

When was the last time any coach admitted a mistake at a post-game presser? That just seems to go with the territory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, cjack said:

I don’t agree with your initial premise.  And calculating math on 50/50 odds doesn’t work here since not every team has the same odds of succeeding on two’s Or winning in OT.  But, I really don’t want to get dragged into this debate, so I’ll stick to my philosophy and you can to yours.

Here is the outcome matrix

Make 2PC after first TD + Make PAT after second TD = WIN 

Make 2PC + Miss PAT = OT

Miss 2PC + Make 2PC = OT

Miss 2PC + Miss 2PC = LOSE

=========================

Make PAT + Make PAT = OT

Make PAT + Miss PAT = LOSE

Miss PAT + Make 2PC = OT

Miss PAT + Miss 2PC = LOSE

Now apply conversion percentages to 2PC and PAT, do the multiplication, and voila, the odds for each result (WIN, OT, or LOSE), is revealed. 

However what is clear even before you take that step is that only one path allows the team to win in regulation, and that's to try the 2PC.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, davearm said:

Here is the outcome matrix

Make 2PC after first TD + Make PAT after second TD = WIN 

Make 2PC + Miss PAT = OT

Miss 2PC + Make 2PC = OT

Miss 2PC + Miss 2PC = LOSE

=========================

Make PAT + Make PAT = OT

Make PAT + Miss PAT = LOSE

Miss PAT + Make 2PC = OT

Miss PAT + Miss 2PC = LOSE

Now apply conversion percentages to 2PC and PAT, do the multiplication, and voila, the odds for each result (WIN, OT, or LOSE), is revealed. 

However what is clear even before you take that step is that only one path allows the team to win in regulation, and that's to try the 2PC.

This can be true, and still be a bad idea to put into practice. It’s a calculated risk.

Not everyone will agree with taking that risk, because only one of those paths causes the team to lose in regulation even if they score 2 TDs. 

So just as there’s a better path to reward, so is there a greater risk of failure (miss 2 PAT, miss 2 PAT) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

This can be true, and still be a bad idea to put into practice. It’s a calculated risk.

Not everyone will agree with taking that risk, because only one of those paths causes the team to lose in regulation even if they score 2 TDs. 

So just as there’s a better path to reward, so is there a greater risk of failure (miss 2 PAT, miss 2 PAT) 

Say what now?  There are three paths that lead to losing in regulation.  And two of those begin with attempting the PAT instead of 2PC after the first TD.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

So just as there’s a better path to reward, so is there a greater risk of failure (miss 2 PAT, miss 2 PAT) 

The risk of failing on two PATs is lower than the risk of losing in overtime, though. It may not feel that way, but that's only because they hadn't gotten to overtime yet.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

because only one of those paths causes the team to lose in regulation even if they score 2 TDs.

Ya, not sure where you're going with this.  2/3rds of the "lose in regulation even if you score 2 td's" options are the PAT route. 

I was skeptical when this was brought up years ago but I've really warmed up to this.  Not sure how anyone can argue against it.  The number every which way you put it, favour going for 2.  Even more so this year with such a high conversion rate and offensive production. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, davearm said:

Say what now?  There are three paths that lead to losing in regulation.  And two of those begin with attempting the PAT instead of 2PC after the first TD.

You can't expect guys to understand game theory and probability when they can't grasp the complicated task of counting. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, zftcg said:

When was the last time any coach admitted a mistake at a post-game presser? That just seems to go with the territory.

My issue wasn't his inability to admit failure.  The bigger issue is that his explanation lays bare that he - the coach - and Elu, who is experienced enough that he should be able to run an efficient 2-min drill.....botched something this basic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

I just realized I never really needed to start the MNF Falcons/Giants topic since we have this topic already. :doh: 

The funniest part is that if you had told me before the game that it would generate a lot of posts about dumb coaching moves, I would have bet anything we would be discussing Dan Quinn.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alex P Keaton said:

My issue wasn't his inability to admit failure.  The bigger issue is that his explanation lays bare that he - the coach - and Elu, who is experienced enough that he should be able to run an efficient 2-min drill.....botched something this basic.

Yes, Eli has lots of experience ... mismanaging the clock in a late-game situation.

Do we know what the sequence was in terms of those play calls? Was Shurmur radioing in the sneaks, or did Eli decide to do that on his own? Is it possible Shurmur is just taking the heat to protect Eli?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, zftcg said:

Yes, Eli has lots of experience ... mismanaging the clock in a late-game situation.

Do we know what the sequence was in terms of those play calls? Was Shurmur radioing in the sneaks, or did Eli decide to do that on his own? Is it possible Shurmur is just taking the heat to protect Eli?

Possible.  Definitely.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, zftcg said:

LOL Giants running two straight QB sneaks with no TOs.

This was the obviously stupid decision. Not sure why everyone is talking about going for 2. Since Shumur is smart enough to go for 2, I'm assuming he's smart enough to not call a QB sneak with such little time remaining... so seems like that was an Eli call, but you never know.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, FF Ninja said:

This was the obviously stupid decision. Not sure why everyone is talking about going for 2. Since Shumur is smart enough to go for 2, I'm assuming he's smart enough to not call a QB sneak with such little time remaining... so seems like that was an Eli call, but you never know.

It was definitely stupid, especially the second one. But as a Lions fan, I flashed back to their miraculous win over the Cowboys in 2013. Stafford completed a long pass to Calvin to the 1, with time running out and Detroit out of TOs. He ran up to the line with about 15 seconds left, called a sneak, and stuck the ball across the plane with just 12 seconds left. Was the only difference between Stafford's play and Eli's that his worked?

I looked it up, and it turned out the answer was no. Stafford definitely took a calculated risk and would have looked really stupid if he had failed, but it was based on the fact that he could tell the Cowboys were expecting a spike (as were his teammates) and they weren't prepared for him to run a play.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, FF Ninja said:

This was the obviously stupid decision. Not sure why everyone is talking about going for 2. Since Shumur is smart enough to go for 2, I'm assuming he's smart enough to not call a QB sneak with such little time remaining... so seems like that was an Eli call, but you never know.

Because the going for two happened with 5 mins left to play & the sneaks happened 4 mins and 20 seconds later. 

The simple explanation is “chronology of events”. 

Plenty of people were discussing the stupidity of the QB sneaks. 

I believe i said in this very topic something to the effect of “when it didn’t work the 1st time they would have been better off spiking the ball instead of running the 2nd one, to save the 20 seconds.”

;) 

Edited by Hot Sauce Guy
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...