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 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter GreenNGold
- Start date
The General
Footballguy
The General
Footballguy
That was the punter and that's supposed to be his thing that he practices. He just screwed up.
Pip's Invitation
Footballguy
The Seahawks’ play calling was atrocious.
apalmer
Footballguy
You don't think they discussed which way the guy kicking thought he'd have more control?
grateful zed
Footballguy
so, baltimore has home field advantage for a january playoff game.
they give the chargers the sideline that is bright and sunny all morning.
meanwhile, the ravens hunker around, freezing, in their coats in darkness watching as they make error after error.
mind boggling.
they give the chargers the sideline that is bright and sunny all morning.
meanwhile, the ravens hunker around, freezing, in their coats in darkness watching as they make error after error.
mind boggling.
Is that something teams choose before individual games? I thought it was kind of fixed for each stadium. I know the Dolphins always have the shady side at their home games.so, baltimore has home field advantage for a january playoff game.
they give the chargers the sideline that is bright and sunny all morning.
meanwhile, the ravens hunker around, freezing, in their coats in darkness watching as they make error after error.
mind boggling.
belljr
Footballguy
TheBottomLine
Footballguy
Thought the Bears should have hurried to the line and spiked it after the Robinson catch at the PHI 31 on that last drive. Instead they called a timeout with 30-some seconds left and never really were able to attack the middle of the field. Would have much rather had 20 seconds and that timeout. Just an initial thought, could be wrong, but was surprised they used it instead of saving it.
I had a similar thought. I can't say it's obviously stupid -- and trying not to view it with 20/20 hindsight after Parkey's miss -- but it does seem like that would have been a better strategy.
This wasn’t a factor. Coming out in a bunch of 3 and 4 wide sets again a team down LBs and their top defensive tackle was the biggest blunder of the day.so, baltimore has home field advantage for a january playoff game.
they give the chargers the sideline that is bright and sunny all morning.
meanwhile, the ravens hunker around, freezing, in their coats in darkness watching as they make error after error.
mind boggling.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
[scooter]
Footballguy
Calling a timeout does save 15-20 seconds. So the question is whether the Bears made good use of that extra time.
fred_1_15301
Footballguy
Bottom line is that Nagy ####ed up by not calling the first timeout immediately after the 2 minute warning. I don't know what the hell he was thinking.
Insein
Footballguy
Yea I didn't understand that at all. Would have stopped it at 1:50 or so and you knew the Eagles would throw eventually.
CaptainJT
Footballguy
Having any player on the team kick the ball. Anyone could have put the ball in play... you think that the punter would practice kicking fieldgoals and kickoff and a place kicker would practice a couple punts so if an injury happens the team can still perform at least adequately.
[scooter]
Footballguy
I don't think we can fairly judge the dropkick without knowing how much he has practiced doing onside kicks. Maybe he can do a super-cool dropkick that goes straight up in the air and lands exactly 10 yards from where he kicked it, but it only works 50% of the time?
Tanner9919
Footballguy
last 2 mins of 1st half, bears nailed deeeep in their own territory, on the 10 yards line, 2:29 left, 1st down goes nowhere, now 2nd and 9, stuuupid Eagles HC does NOT call a time out, stopping the clock, forcing the Bears to get a first down there. make 'em go 3-n-out, and kick.Eagles get ball at 50 yard line.two plays you're in FG range. I thought Pederson NOT using his timeouts there was a bad a coaching job as Andy Reid has ever done in these same spots. just atrocious.
They said during the broadcast that Dickson does practice onside kicks. This whole thing reminds me of when Boswell tried a rabona and everyone laughed at him, only then they found footage of him pulling it off in college. I think that's similar to what happened here. They had a plan that was their least-bad option available and Dickson just shanked it.
TheWinz
Footballguy
I think CaptainJT has a point here. Kickers and punters are very specialized, and get paid millions of dollars just to kick a football. If the punter can't attempt an onside kick the normal way off the tee, he simply hasn't practiced enough. Think of it this way - if kicking onside kicks was a full-time job that paid $100,000,000,000 a year, don't you think there would be plenty of people who become great at it?
Has anyone seen any quotes from Carroll or Dickson explaining what happened on that play? Without that, we're all just speculating. Still, I can't imagine the way it played out was anything close to what they had planned.
They mentioned on the broadcast right before the kick that, with the new kickoff rules in place this year, the success rate for onside kicks had dropped to 8% leaguewide this year. That definitely seems like the kind of situation where you try something different, even if there's a decent chance it blows up in your face. My guess -- and again, this is all speculation -- is that Dickson had a dropkick that they thought had a chance to work, and he got nervous or whatever and hit it way too hard.
ETA: Found this from the Seattle Times gamer:
They mentioned on the broadcast right before the kick that, with the new kickoff rules in place this year, the success rate for onside kicks had dropped to 8% leaguewide this year. That definitely seems like the kind of situation where you try something different, even if there's a decent chance it blows up in your face. My guess -- and again, this is all speculation -- is that Dickson had a dropkick that they thought had a chance to work, and he got nervous or whatever and hit it way too hard.
ETA: Found this from the Seattle Times gamer:
Here's the NFL.com writeup on the play.
Last edited by a moderator:
I wouldn't regard this as stupid, since I think they probably did the right thing, but since Saturday night I've found myself wondering about Dallas' clock management on their final drive.
Dak's 3rd and 14 scramble gave the Cowboys first and goal at the 1 with 2:20 left. Seattle had just taken its final timeout. Again, it's hard to fault what Dallas did next: Prescott snuck it in on first down, putting the Cowboys up 10 with about 2:15 left. Going up two scores is huge at that point, and indeed, the way the game played out validated their strategy: Seattle had plenty of time to score once, but couldn't get the ball back to get the second score.
Still, what if Dallas had tried to bleed the clock instead? Consider this scenario: Dak takes three kneeldowns (maybe pushes forward a bit to make sure they don't lose yardage). The first one takes them to the two-minute warning. The second one takes them to 1:20 and the third to 40 seconds. Then Dallas runs one more play on 4th down. If they score, the game is over. If not, Seattle has 35 seconds to go 99 yards with no timeouts (obviously, the Seahawks having no kicking game figures into this calculation, since they have to score a TD).
Yeah, I'm still not sure it makes sense. But what if Dallas had only been up by one? That means even if with a TD, it's still a one-score game. In that case, the calculus shifts more in favor of bleeding the clock (that's also the scenario where Seattle starts thinking about letting Dallas score). Alternatively, maybe you just take a knee on 1st down, to take away Seattle's last chance to stop the clock.
Dak's 3rd and 14 scramble gave the Cowboys first and goal at the 1 with 2:20 left. Seattle had just taken its final timeout. Again, it's hard to fault what Dallas did next: Prescott snuck it in on first down, putting the Cowboys up 10 with about 2:15 left. Going up two scores is huge at that point, and indeed, the way the game played out validated their strategy: Seattle had plenty of time to score once, but couldn't get the ball back to get the second score.
Still, what if Dallas had tried to bleed the clock instead? Consider this scenario: Dak takes three kneeldowns (maybe pushes forward a bit to make sure they don't lose yardage). The first one takes them to the two-minute warning. The second one takes them to 1:20 and the third to 40 seconds. Then Dallas runs one more play on 4th down. If they score, the game is over. If not, Seattle has 35 seconds to go 99 yards with no timeouts (obviously, the Seahawks having no kicking game figures into this calculation, since they have to score a TD).
Yeah, I'm still not sure it makes sense. But what if Dallas had only been up by one? That means even if with a TD, it's still a one-score game. In that case, the calculus shifts more in favor of bleeding the clock (that's also the scenario where Seattle starts thinking about letting Dallas score). Alternatively, maybe you just take a knee on 1st down, to take away Seattle's last chance to stop the clock.
fred_1_15301
Footballguy
I would definitely prefer to be up 2 scores with a little over 2 minutes left than to be up 1 score and a chance to lose the game on a couple fluky plays. With 35 seconds left it’s definitely conceivable that Seattle gets into Hail Mary range.
I think what it comes down to is that the ideal scenario is to run some time down and then score, but obviously doing the former lowers your chances of doing the latter. Anyway, I'm really not advocating anyone do this, most just noodling around on whether it would ever make sense. Generally, the idea is that you only forego a TD if you can be sure you'll be able to run the clock down all the way (eg, the infamous Westbrook non-TD).
Actually, the scenario where I think it would make sense is if they were up 6 or 7. In that case, you could run the clock down to 35 seconds and then kick the FG. Now you've chewed up a lot of time and you're up two scores. I think I'd rather be up 10 with 35 seconds left than 14 with 2:10. Again though, this is all unique to Saturday's game where Seattle doesn't have a kicker. Because if they do, then being up 14 carries a lot more value than being up 10.
fred_1_15301
Footballguy
It’s still somewhat of a risky move because field goals are not a sure thing. As unlikely as it is, there is a scenario where a blocked field goal could result in a TD the other way.
I mean, anything could happen on any play. For example, Dallas made the right decisions on Saturday, but if Seattle recovers that onside kick, they're in position to drive down and win the game.
Statistically speaking, though, I suspect being up 10 with 35 seconds left gives you a higher win probability than being up 14 with two minutes left. You could also split the baby by trying to run it in on 3rd down. If you score, you're up 14 with 1:10 left, and if not, you kick the FG.
grateful zed
Footballguy
yeah smart for the fins to be in the shade in florida.
so, you have a multimillion dollars staduim built for your franchise and cant even choose what sideline to stand on?
who does make these decisions?
Reported to mod for off-topic posting. Please move this to the "Post here when stadium engineers do something obviously stupid" thread.
Seriously, I wondered that as well. It seems pretty obvious that in the Northeast you're going to want the home team to be in the sunshine. Is Baltimore unusual in that respect?
CaptainJT
Footballguy
Along this same thought - how about Cowboys stadium where every afternoon game has the sun shining directly through the huge windows on one end of the stadium resulting in players looking directly into the sun for portions of the game. I thought stadiums (where sun comes in play) were supposed to be north/south to avoid this issue.Reported to mod for off-topic posting. Please move this to the "Post here when stadium engineers do something obviously stupid" thread.
Seriously, I wondered that as well. It seems pretty obvious that in the Northeast you're going to want the home team to be in the sunshine. Is Baltimore unusual in that respect?
I think the Colts' stadium is the same way. So stupid.
I also can't imagine that the home team can't choose which side of the field they want, whenever they want.
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Summer
Footballguy
Not a big fan of punting on 4th-and-1 when you're down by 17 in a playoff game on the road.
smbkrypt24
Footballguy
Joe Summer
Footballguy
From a statistical point of view, you are better off going for it on 4th-and-1 almost every time. (Obviously there are exceptions, such as when you're down by 1 at the end of the game and you're in chip-shot FG range.)
The Colts aren't playing to win. They are playing to not-get-blown-out. That's a fine strategy when you just want to keep your job for another week, but it's not a good plan when there is no game next week.
smbkrypt24
Footballguy
It's obvious, and you just admitted, that different scenarios call for you to punt it even down 17. They were on their own 30 down 17 in the 2nd quarter. I don't see this as a coach doing something obviously stupid.
Your argument about statistically you should go for it in most situations is a different conversation, unless the Colts were the only team that don't implement that.
Joe Summer
Footballguy
They were on their own 34.
And they shouldn't have punted.
The fact that they were bailed out by KC's special teams breakdown is irrelevant.
Every available statistic or study or gambling website will tell you that their chances of winning would be higher if they went for it in that specific scenario. Maybe the chances only increase from 5% to 7%, but it's an increase nonetheless.
If you want to disagree, that's fine. Not everyone wants to take the risk, I get it.
But describing that play as "stupid" is comparable to saying "It's stupid to hit on 16 when the dealer is showing a 7".
smbkrypt24
Footballguy
Il respond line by line.
1. I knew the area not the exact so not disagreeing with where they were on the field.
2. They absolutely should have punted. This is the point I am arguing.
3. I said nothing about KC's special team breakdown so I am not sure the relevance of this sentence.
4. This is where I think you are having a hard time understanding me. If the whole league was implementing gambling odds to make decisions beside the Colts then yes this would qualify as an obviously stupid decision by the Colts coaching staff, but they aren't.
5. I am taking no risks as I am not part of the Colts coaching staff nor in charge of Colts decisions, so I disagree for other reasons.
6. The analogy of blackjack is good to paint a picture to someone that is having trouble understanding the concept, but that isn't the case.
Overall, I would agreed that there should be some more statistical analysis on when teams should go for it verse punt. The Colts deciding to punt down 17 in teh 2nd quarter on their own 34 was not an obviously stupid coaching decision tonight.
Tanner9919
Footballguy
I'll nominate the entire Colts gameplan for this game they were flat, bad, poorly coached, uninspired, etc.
Chiefs let them hang around forever and they still couldnt score
Bill O-brien-esque from last week's beatdown by the Colts. I dont get how you have a whole week for a playoff gameplan and you get stifled like this. intolerable loss. you just can't be that bad with a quasi 'mvp' in Luck.
one thing is clear luck is not ready for primetime, talk of his 'mvp' has officially subisided, and he is still an also-ran QB nobody who has won nothing in what 7 years in the NFL now? at what point do you just see that he's an average joe , JAG of a QB?
certainly doesn't look like a #1 pick to me. that was a pathetic a showing as I've ever seen. and the Chiefs cannot play like that next week they'll get trounced. Reid had his typical conservative game, he tried to run and it worked.won't work vs. NE or L.A. , however..
Chiefs let them hang around forever and they still couldnt score
Bill O-brien-esque from last week's beatdown by the Colts. I dont get how you have a whole week for a playoff gameplan and you get stifled like this. intolerable loss. you just can't be that bad with a quasi 'mvp' in Luck.
one thing is clear luck is not ready for primetime, talk of his 'mvp' has officially subisided, and he is still an also-ran QB nobody who has won nothing in what 7 years in the NFL now? at what point do you just see that he's an average joe , JAG of a QB?
certainly doesn't look like a #1 pick to me. that was a pathetic a showing as I've ever seen. and the Chiefs cannot play like that next week they'll get trounced. Reid had his typical conservative game, he tried to run and it worked.won't work vs. NE or L.A. , however..
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Summer
Footballguy
Buddy, you are arguing against math, and you are losing.
The statistical analysis has already been done. And as this handy chart shows, a team facing 4th-and-1 should ALWAYS go for it.
This study is based on actual NFL data, not theoretical simulations. So it doesn't matter if "the whole league was implementing gambling odds" or not.
smbkrypt24
Footballguy
Alright I am going to go slower.
This thread is for coaches who do something obviously stupid. That is not the case here. You don't understand the thread.
You have a point that more teams should go for it on 4th down instead of punting. I am not arguing against the math. I am telling you that it is not obviously stupid what the Colts did. Your post doesn't belong in this thread for that reason. Maybe start a new thread about this math to make a point, but doesn't make sense in here.
Rodrigo Duterte
Footballguy
I go for two there. You have to get a two-point conversion, the sooner I know what we're up against, the better. The XP part is obvious.
Garrett is so conservative.
Garrett is so conservative.
You seem caught up on the phrase "obviously stupid". But if you read through the whole thread most of the discussions have been around decisions that were sub-optimal, ie that mathematically lowered a team's win probability. That is very different that saying most coaches or the average fan would recognize it as "obviously stupid".
The classic example is when you're down 14 in the fourth quarter and score a TD. Not only would the majority of coaches/fans not consider it obviously stupid to kick the XP there, it would literally never occur to them to do anything else. Before Pederson and Shurmur went for two in that situation earlier this year, it had basically never happened since the advent of the 2PC. Yet the math couldn't be clearer that it is sub-optimal decision making, shaving 10 points off your win probability. By the criteria most of its have been using throughout the thread, kicking the XP there is "obviously stupid". You can disagree, but at that point it's really a semantic discussion.
Every once in a while he shows flashes (including going for it on 4th down on the opening drive), but overall, I agree.
But while he definitely should have gone for two there, I'm not sure it's a function of conservatism. I think most coaches (and most people) genuinely don't understand the value of information in that scenario. In their minds it's axiomatic that you kick the XP.
Rodrigo Duterte
Footballguy
Short Corner
Footballguy
Hard to get more obvious than 100%. Especially when you haven't been able to get a stop and need to be hoarding as much EV as you can get.
Not defending him, just saying I don't think it was conservatism that led him to make the wrong decision.
Nope. Wrong. Not a coach in the league that goes for it the first time because if you don't get it, the game is over right there. May as well start packing up the equipment. You are not scoring another 9 points in 2 minutes. You save that for IF you get the ball back and score a 2nd time.
Short Corner
Footballguy
More information is better. If you miss the first one you know you need two more scores and can adjust your playcalling accordingly. This has been discussed ad nauseum.
Rodrigo Duterte
Footballguy
Insein
Footballguy
I agree to go for two first but I can concede that it wasn't obviously stupid with 2mins left. Not much time left so a coach would be scared they wouldn't have time for another score. If there was 4mins or more left then it is obviously stupid not to go.
Similar threads
