What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Post here when coaches do something you disagree with (3 Viewers)

A combo of two of our favorites: Down by 10 with 8:30 left, third and 2 on the 3 yard line, Cowboys just having lost a starting defensive lineman on the previous play, Atlanta lines up with an empty backfield. 

After the pass goes incomplete,, they then kick the field goal “to make it a one-score game” instead of trying to pick up the first or TD.

 
trader jake said:
Cowboys just short of midfield when Zeke gets tackled with over 5 seconds left on the clock before half.  Rather than calling their last time out and throwing a hail mary...The Clapper just lets the clock run out.  Why?
Click to expand...
He has probably been ordered by Jerry Jones not to throw Hail Marys, since those could result in a cheap INT and hurt Dak's stats. 

 
CalBear said:
A combo of two of our favorites: Down by 10 with 8:30 left, third and 2 on the 3 yard line, Cowboys just having lost a starting defensive lineman on the previous play, Atlanta lines up with an empty backfield. 

After the pass goes incomplete,, they then kick the field goal “to make it a one-score game” instead of trying to pick up the first or TD.
Click to expand...
And sure enough, ATL manages to tie it up, and then realizes that being tied isn’t the same thing as being ahead.

 
Heisenberg23 said:
Why? If det kicks a FG you lose anyways ... it was idiotic 
Click to expand...
Yep.  It also puts Detroit in a situation in which they pull out all the stops to get a field goal to win.  If you tie them they might take the game to OT if something goes slightly wrong, instead of go crazy for the FG.   It's the difference between going for it on 4th down and taking it to OT. 

Stupid call IMO.  You cant win if you convert there, but you lose if you don't. 

Maybe would be different if Carolina was the worse team and didn't feel confident about winning if it went to OT. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
fred_1_15301 said:
The playcalling at the end of the game for the Steelers was absolutely atrocious but they got lucky.  
Click to expand...
True...even the run at the end nearly cost them the game, since an overturn on review would have run off the rest of the clock (something Pittsburgh should know since they lost one last year that way).

If you are going to run, do it earlier, with more time on the clock.  You had a TO in hand!

 
Arodin said:
True...even the run at the end nearly cost them the game, since an overturn on review would have run off the rest of the clock (something Pittsburgh should know since they lost one last year that way).

If you are going to run, do it earlier, with more time on the clock.  You had a TO in hand!
Click to expand...
They should have run the ball on the play where Ben threw the int (that was fortunately called back because of the penalty).  

 
Ghost Rider said:
He has probably been ordered by Jerry Jones not to throw Hail Marys, since those could result in a cheap INT and hurt Dak's stats. 
Click to expand...
The Boys may be pleased right now but that team isn't winning when it matters with Dak at QB.  Or Jason Garrett as the head coach.

 
fred_1_15301 said:
The playcalling at the end of the game for the Steelers was absolutely atrocious but they got lucky.  
Click to expand...
What about the Jags? Had completely lost momentum at the end of the game,  i get that they don't trust Bortles but 3 runs with no attempt at anything creative and then just handing the ball back to Pitt with like 2 minutes left and up 3.  I mean they're like 3-6, have just an ounce of guts.

 
kittenmittens said:
Yep.  It also puts Detroit in a situation in which they pull out all the stops to get a field goal to win.  If you tie them they might take the game to OT if something goes slightly wrong, instead of go crazy for the FG.   It's the difference between going for it on 4th down and taking it to OT. 

Stupid call IMO.  You cant win if you convert there, but you lose if you don't. 

Maybe would be different if Carolina was the worse team and didn't feel confident about winning if it went to OT. 
Click to expand...
Watching it, I didn't think it was such a terrible call, but you make an excellent point, especially since Detroit had all three TOs. I will say as a Lions fan watching that live, I wasn't sure what I wanted them to do.

 
Arodin said:
True...even the run at the end nearly cost them the game, since an overturn on review would have run off the rest of the clock (something Pittsburgh should know since they lost one last year that way).

If you are going to run, do it earlier, with more time on the clock.  You had a TO in hand!
Click to expand...
If they had a TO left, couldn't they just use that to avoid the clock run off?

 
Heisenberg23 said:
Why? If det kicks a FG you lose anyways ... it was idiotic 
Click to expand...
If Detroit kicks a field goal you lose if you kick the PAT, too, so those possibilities cancel. Unless you think that Detroit is more likely to be successful driving for a FG while down 1 than when they’re tied.

Other than that, it degrades to the case of the 2-point conversion vs. OT. If your 2-point conversion is better than 50%, it’s probably the better call.

 
Arodin said:
True...even the run at the end nearly cost them the game, since an overturn on review would have run off the rest of the clock (something Pittsburgh should know since they lost one last year that way).

If you are going to run, do it earlier, with more time on the clock.  You had a TO in hand!
Click to expand...
Steelers could have used their remaining timeout to prevent the runoff

ARTICLE 4. REPLAY REVIEW AFTER TWO-MINUTE WARNING OF EITHER HALF. If a replay review after the two-minute warning of either half results in the on-field ruling being reversed and the correct ruling would not have stopped the game clock, then the officials will run 10 seconds off the game clock before permitting the ball to be put in play on the ready-for-play signal. The defense cannot decline the runoff, but either team can use a remaining timeout to prevent it.
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tool said:
What about the Jags? Had completely lost momentum at the end of the game,  i get that they don't trust Bortles but 3 runs with no attempt at anything creative and then just handing the ball back to Pitt with like 2 minutes left and up 3.  I mean they're like 3-6, have just an ounce of guts.
Click to expand...
Couldn’t agree more.  They gave that game away.

 
CalBear said:
If Detroit kicks a field goal you lose if you kick the PAT, too, so those possibilities cancel. Unless you think that Detroit is more likely to be successful driving for a FG while down 1 than when they’re tied.

Other than that, it degrades to the case of the 2-point conversion vs. OT. If your 2-point conversion is better than 50%, it’s probably the better call.
Click to expand...
I think there is a better chance they score down 1.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
CalBear said:
If Detroit kicks a field goal you lose if you kick the PAT, too, so those possibilities cancel. Unless you think that Detroit is more likely to be successful driving for a FG while down 1 than when they’re tied.

Other than that, it degrades to the case of the 2-point conversion vs. OT. If your 2-point conversion is better than 50%, it’s probably the better call.
Click to expand...
I think it's even a little better than your 2-point conversion play being better than 50% because if you miss it you can kick the onside kick as well.  So even if your 2-pointer is 50/50 then going for 2 may be the play because you get the bonus probability of recovering an onside kick on that side of the equation too.

Like you said the Detroit FG is mostly irrelevant because that ends the game either way.

 
Tool said:
What about the Jags? Had completely lost momentum at the end of the game,  i get that they don't trust Bortles but 3 runs with no attempt at anything creative and then just handing the ball back to Pitt with like 2 minutes left and up 3.  I mean they're like 3-6, have just an ounce of guts.
Click to expand...
Welcome to Doug Marrone.

 
kittenmittens said:
Sean Payton.

Putting Taysom Hill in at QB instead of Brees, ever.  Stop getting cute with this wildcat BS.  You have a QB in the conversation for GOAT.  Keep the ball in his hands. 
Click to expand...
Its so stupid. It fails more than it works. You would think he could see that by now. If he does that stupid #### in the playoffs against the good teams, he could cost them a win.

 
CalBear said:
Is there any evidence of that?
Click to expand...
Not that I can find, but I think it's a safe bet that teams are at least 10% more successful on drives in which they have to go for it on 4th down vs drives when they punt on 4th down. 

If I had to guess how much more likely it was to succeed on a drive where all 4 downs are in play vs 3 downs and punt I would say all 4 downs is probably 30% more likely to be successful - off the cuff of course.

 
Rivera was supposed to depend on his kicker, who had already badly shanked one extra point, to tie the game?  Good decision to go for it, and it's easy to slam him because it failed, but if Cam hits the open receiver, they take the lead and have a great chance to win (would have had to stop the Lions offense). 

 
Any time Larry Fitzgerald doesn’t have at least 10 targets, I just think there is bad coaching involved ?. 

Young QB should be “encouraged” to throw him the ball at every opportunity. 

 
Given that a decision like that ultimately boils down to a roughly 50/50 2PC vs. a roughly 50/50 shot in OT, I'm not sure you can ever call either decision "obviously stupid". Maybe there will be factors that nudge you in one direction or another, but it will always be a close call.

 
Ghost Rider said:
Rivera was supposed to depend on his kicker, who had already badly shanked one extra point, to tie the game?  Good decision to go for it, and it's easy to slam him because it failed, but if Cam hits the open receiver, they take the lead and have a great chance to win (would have had to stop the Lions offense). 
Click to expand...
Lions had over a minute and all 3 TOs....Plus Prater is capable from 60, 50 for sure. So I don`t think it was that bad of a call.   Bottom line is the play was there but Newton missed his wide open guy. Even if they made it Lions had a good chance of getting a FG attempt.

Watching NFL games why do teams always seem to be able to move the ball at will in the last 2 minutes?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Da Guru said:
Lions had over a minute and all 3 TOs....Plus Prater is capable from 60, 50 for sure. So I don`t think it was that bad of a call.   Bottom line is the play was there but Newton missed his wide open guy. Even if they made it Lions had a good chance of getting a FG attempt.

Watching NFL games why do teams always seem to be able to move the ball at will in the last 2 minutes?
Click to expand...
Anyone know what the probability is that an average team with 1:00 and all their TOs will drive down and kick a FG?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Da Guru said:
Lions had over a minute and all 3 TOs....Plus Prater is capable from 60, 50 for sure. So I don`t think it was that bad of a call.   Bottom line is the play was there but Newton missed his wide open guy. Even if they made it Lions had a good chance of getting a FG attempt.

Watching NFL games why do teams always seem to be able to move the ball at will in the last 2 minutes?
Click to expand...
Prater capable from 60,50 is an issue whether you go for 1 or 2, so that factor shouldn't affect the decision. 

NFL clock rules are such that the clock runs in many situations for most of the game but not during the last 5(?) minutes of each half.  Leads to a disproportionate number of plays run close to the end.  Plus, teams have more urgency and are less likely to milk the clock than they are early in the game.

 
As a Lion fan and watching the game.  With Newton being able to the QB draw and all the weapons they had I really thought the Panthers had about a 70% chance of getting the 2.

 
What was the math on the Bears going for 2 after scoring to go up 14? Worked out for them but it doesn't seem like it was the high-percentage move. Wouldn't you rather go up 15 and ensure the Vikes will need a 2PC to tie?

 
kittenmittens said:
Not that I can find, but I think it's a safe bet that teams are at least 10% more successful on drives in which they have to go for it on 4th down vs drives when they punt on 4th down. 

If I had to guess how much more likely it was to succeed on a drive where all 4 downs are in play vs 3 downs and punt I would say all 4 downs is probably 30% more likely to be successful - off the cuff of course.
Click to expand...
Since 1999, teams which received a kickoff down by 1 with less than 2 minutes remaining (n=99) scored 21 times (21.2%). Those which received a kickoff in a tie game (n=189) scored 56 times (29.6%).

 
CalBear said:
Since 1999, teams which received a kickoff down by 1 with less than 2 minutes remaining (n=99) scored 21 times (21.2%). Those which received a kickoff in a tie game (n=189) scored 56 times (29.6%).
Click to expand...
When I add in being down by 2 (which is tactically identical), n=140, with 31 scores (22.1%).

So the empirical evidence suggests being tied is, if anything, more likely to result in a score than being behind.

 
CalBear said:
When I add in being down by 2 (which is tactically identical), n=140, with 31 scores (22.1%).

So the empirical evidence suggests being tied is, if anything, more likely to result in a score than being behind.
Click to expand...
Can you think of any reason why that would be the case? I can't imagine strategy would be all that different. Maybe teams are more relaxed and feel less pressure when it's tied? I'm totally spitballing here.

BTW, the fact that the overall numbers say teams score less than 1/3 of the time in those situations suggests it would be wrong to overemphasize the Lions' subsequent drive when determining whether to go for two. The likelihood is they won't score, which means that going up 1 would greatly increase your chance of winning. That doesn't mean that going for two is necessarily the right call -- as I've said, I imagine it's pretty close to a wash -- just that your calculations shouldn't be all that different if there's one minute left or one second.

 
zftcg said:
Can you think of any reason why that would be the case? I can't imagine strategy would be all that different. Maybe teams are more relaxed and feel less pressure when it's tied? I'm totally spitballing here.

BTW, the fact that the overall numbers say teams score less than 1/3 of the time in those situations suggests it would be wrong to overemphasize the Lions' subsequent drive when determining whether to go for two. The likelihood is they won't score, which means that going up 1 would greatly increase your chance of winning. That doesn't mean that going for two is necessarily the right call -- as I've said, I imagine it's pretty close to a wash -- just that your calculations shouldn't be all that different if there's one minute left or one second.
Click to expand...
Here's a hypothesis: Teams succeed more often when the game is tied than when they're down one, because they underestimate the value of first downs. That is, the very phenomenon which people above have suggested should result in them scoring more often when trailing, actually results in their play calling being sub-optimal on first through third downs, because they're thinking "well, we have four downs to work with."

In 189 tied games, there has not been a single turnover on downs, which is pretty amazing if you ask me. There have been:

  • 47 punts (24.9%)
  • 54 made field goals (28.6%)
  • 19 missed field goals (10.1%)
  • 23.44 yards/drive
  • 4.2 plays/drive
  • Average start: Own 29.3 
  • Pass: 72.4%
  • Rush: 22.2%
In 147 games down by 1-2 points, there have been:

  • 22 turnovers on downs (15.0%)
  • 24 made field goals (16.3%)
  • 14 missed field goals (9.5%)
  • 20.36 yards/drive
  • 3.9 plays/drive
  • Average start: Own 27.3
  • Pass: 92.7% (!)
  • Rush: 7.5%
So, some things that stand out about that are:

  • Starting field position is non-trivially different (2 yards). Is that random variation, or something tactical about how teams approach the kickoff or the kickoff return?
  • Tied teams have more effective drives, on top of their better field position (combined difference +5 yards per drive)
  • The pass/run ratio when trailing by less than a FG is astonishing. 532/574 plays were passes. That's probably sub-optimal play calling when you just need a FG. 
Maybe the difference in results is that those who are playing for a tie game keep the offense more balanced, because they are willing to run time off the clock, and don't want their opponent to get a chance to score. Teams which are trailing are more likely to panic and abandon the run game even if there's plenty of time to use it.

That's the best I've got.

 
zftcg said:
What was the math on the Bears going for 2 after scoring to go up 14? Worked out for them but it doesn't seem like it was the high-percentage move. Wouldn't you rather go up 15 and ensure the Vikes will need a 2PC to tie?
Click to expand...
Ya I'm sure the old chart says to kick the xp.  But there was loads of time left and it has pretty much been proven mathwise that going for 2 is always the right call if you want to get more points by the end of the game (twice the odds of converting a 2pc this year is greater than the odds of hitting an xp)

 
Hot Sauce Guy said:
Q: Why let the resident troll control the narrative when you know that he constantly misrepresents people‘s posts? 

 I never said they should run Gurley into the line 3 times.  That would be equally preposterous to what they actually did too. 

 And what they did was  utterly ignore late game clock management. On three entire 4th quarter drives, they ran the ball once.    Twice, if you count the ridiculous trick play where they tried to get even more cute, and lost 6 yards on a Woods carry. Two of those drives resulted in quick punts and one resulted in scoring but took less than 2 minutes off of the clock. 

 As I clearly stated, I believe the Rams coaching staff to be one of the most creative and intelligent in the game. (so you can also disregard the troll’s statement to the contrary since I never said anything remotely like that) -  however, in that situation they failed to run any clock, and essentially let their opponent stay in the game by giving them extra possessions. 

 And considering the one running play they called for Todd Gurley he ran for 7 yards,  one could likely argue that the Rams could have taken four or five minutes off the clock with a more balanced approach  and a focus on extending the drive and burning the clock.  One could also argue there would’ve been greater value in a three and out, even if they’d run it into the line 3x, for the sole reason that the clock would continue to run as compared to the incomplete passes that they did “execute” which resulted in clock stoppage. 

 This is a coaching staff that has been criticized in the past for getting pass heavy. Thus, I am not the first to point it out. However, this is the first time I can recall that they got pass happy that late in a game while nursing a very small lead. And it almost cost them the game. 

 And so I still think that was kind of stupid. 
Click to expand...
Back Track Guy strikes again!   :hophead:  

 
CalBear said:
Here's a hypothesis: Teams succeed more often when the game is tied than when they're down one, because they underestimate the value of first downs. That is, the very phenomenon which people above have suggested should result in them scoring more often when trailing, actually results in their play calling being sub-optimal on first through third downs, because they're thinking "well, we have four downs to work with."

In 189 tied games, there has not been a single turnover on downs, which is pretty amazing if you ask me. There have been:

  • 47 punts (24.9%)
  • 54 made field goals (28.6%)
  • 19 missed field goals (10.1%)
  • 23.44 yards/drive
  • 4.2 plays/drive
  • Average start: Own 29.3 
  • Pass: 72.4%
  • Rush: 22.2%
In 147 games down by 1-2 points, there have been:

  • 22 turnovers on downs (15.0%)
  • 24 made field goals (16.3%)
  • 14 missed field goals (9.5%)
  • 20.36 yards/drive
  • 3.9 plays/drive
  • Average start: Own 27.3
  • Pass: 92.7% (!)
  • Rush: 7.5%
So, some things that stand out about that are:

  • Starting field position is non-trivially different (2 yards). Is that random variation, or something tactical about how teams approach the kickoff or the kickoff return?
  • Tied teams have more effective drives, on top of their better field position (combined difference +5 yards per drive)
  • The pass/run ratio when trailing by less than a FG is astonishing. 532/574 plays were passes. That's probably sub-optimal play calling when you just need a FG. 
Maybe the difference in results is that those who are playing for a tie game keep the offense more balanced, because they are willing to run time off the clock, and don't want their opponent to get a chance to score. Teams which are trailing are more likely to panic and abandon the run game even if there's plenty of time to use it.

That's the best I've got.
Click to expand...
Love the data. Can you share the query you ran? I literally can't come up with a rational explanation for this unless the 56/189 in tied games include those times the team scored in OT to win - which, while it obviously needs to be factored into the analysis, would completely skew the comparison on its face.

 
CalBear said:
Maybe the difference in results is that those who are playing for a tie game keep the offense more balanced, because they are willing to run time off the clock, and don't want their opponent to get a chance to score. Teams which are trailing are more likely to panic and abandon the run game even if there's plenty of time to use it.

That's the best I've got.
Click to expand...
That's such interesting data, and perhaps the best response to the question, "If it's become a passing league, and the average pass play gains much more than the average run, why do teams ever both running?" You need the running game to keep defenses guessing and make the passing game more effective. (Incidentally, that's also why I hate when teams at the goal line go shotgun/empty-backfield. Why are you giving up such a key leverage point?)

 
Ghost Rider said:
Rivera was supposed to depend on his kicker, who had already badly shanked one extra point, to tie the game?  Good decision to go for it, and it's easy to slam him because it failed, but if Cam hits the open receiver, they take the lead and have a great chance to win (would have had to stop the Lions offense). 
Click to expand...
I agree - again (who I started over Bryant because I wanted to be cautious with the guy returning from injury :doh: ) had not only shanked a PAT, but also missed a chippy FG off the upright. 

No way you trust a dude with an obvious case of the yips there. 

Since I started Cam, I would have much preferred OT, but Rivera did the right thing there. And they called a perfect 2PAT play. Cam just missed a wide open receiver. 

 
zftcg said:
Anyone know what the probability is that an average team with 1:00 and all their TOs will drive down and kick a FG?
Click to expand...
What I’d like to see is the breakdown for a team to do so while tied vs when they’re down 1 point.

Curious if pressure helps or hurts in that situation.  

My guess is that it’s probably statistically unremarkable Over a large sample size, but it seems like when a team is down they sometimes play with greater urgency.

of course there are way too many factors to make a definitive statement, especially strength of opponent’s defense. Against the Bucs it’ll be a lot easier than against the Steelers, for example.

 
CalBear said:
When I add in being down by 2 (which is tactically identical), n=140, with 31 scores (22.1%).

So the empirical evidence suggests being tied is, if anything, more likely to result in a score than being behind.
Click to expand...
Wow - well that answers my last question - guess I shoulda kept scrolling. lol

so pressure of being down causes teams to fail whereas in a tie, there’s only the pressure of making a stupid mistake causing you to lose since merely not scoring = overtime. 

Interesting. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Spin
Down 14 with under 5 minutes and you score, do you go for 2?
2
Replies
73
Views
2K
Brunell4MVP
B
Hot Sauce Guy
Post Here When FF Coaches (AKA, You) Do Something You Disagree with
Replies
15
Views
596
Chaka
Chaka
P
Fantasy football owners: When do you stop blaming the coaching staff and start blaming the player?
Replies
21
Views
656
Instinctive
Instinctive

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Top