I mean, what was the alternative?Asking a rookie kicker to drop kick an onside kick???
I mean, what was the alternative?Asking a rookie kicker to drop kick an onside kick???
As opposed to?Asking a rookie kicker to drop kick an onside kick???
That was the punter and that's supposed to be his thing that he practices. He just screwed up.As opposed to a conventional way were you have maybe a little bit more control and wouldn't send a pop fly 30 yards down the field.
You don't think they discussed which way the guy kicking thought he'd have more control?As opposed to a conventional way were you have maybe a little bit more control and wouldn't send a pop fly 30 yards down the field.
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.
Yeah teams don't usually choose sides.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.
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.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.
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.
Calling a timeout does save 15-20 seconds. So the question is whether the Bears made good use of that extra time.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.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.
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.Calling a timeout does save 15-20 seconds. So the question is whether the Bears made good use of that extra time.
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.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.
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.I mean, what was the alternative?
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?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.I mean, what was the alternative?
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.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.
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?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.
Here's the NFL.com writeup on the play.Dickson, who had to handle any kicking duties the team needed after Sebastian Janikowski suffered a hamstring injury on a field goal attempt on the last play of the first half, then tried an onside drop kick.
Carroll said the plan was to place it in an open spot between Dallas’ front line and the second line.
But Dickson hit it a little too much and it went pretty much straight to Beasley.
“I wish Mikey could have found a better place to drop that kick,’’ Carroll said.
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 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.
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).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.
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 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.
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.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.
yeah smart for the fins to be in the shade in florida.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.
Reported to mod for off-topic posting. Please move this to the "Post here when stadium engineers do something obviously stupid" thread.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?
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.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.
Anywhere on the field and regardless of time left?Not a big fan of punting on 4th-and-1 when you're down by 17 in a playoff game on the road.
smbkrypt24 said:
Anywhere on the field and regardless of time left?
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.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 said:
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
Il respond line by line.1. They were on their own 34.
2. And they shouldn't have punted.
3. The fact that they were bailed out by KC's special teams breakdown is irrelevant.
4. 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.
5. If you want to disagree, that's fine. Not everyone wants to take the risk, I get it.
6. 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 said:
2. They absolutely should have punted. This is the point I am arguing.
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.
Alright I am going to go slower.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.
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".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.
Every once in a while he shows flashes (including going for it on 4th down on the opening drive), but overall, I agree.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.
Um, his job as Head Coach is to know better.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.
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.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.
Not defending him, just saying I don't think it was conservatism that led him to make the wrong decision.Um, his job as Head Coach is to know better.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.