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 (2 Viewers)

fred_1_15301 said:
Hindsight is 20/20 but it was still an indefensible decision.  
Click to expand...
Following the 3 and out, Tomlin and one of his assistants were high fiving like they just won the Super Bowl (and the assistant coach was grinning like he just lost his virginity).  I was like, do they think that defensive stop was the game?? 

 
Ghost Rider said:
Following the 3 and out, Tomlin and one of his assistants were high fiving like they just won the Super Bowl (and the assistant coach was grinning like he just lost his virginity).  I was like, do they think that defensive stop was the game?? 
Click to expand...
I just thought of something. If the team that wins the toss in OT wins if they score a touchdown, and the other team gets a chance if they only score a FG, does it not make sense that if the team that gets the ball first does not score anything on their first drive, the defensive team wins the game?

 
Bill Callahan taking the job of replacing Jay Gruden. Being HC in Washington is just doom. Callahan had a decent job there as O-line coach, and now accepts being bumped up to fail.

 
fatness said:
Bill Callahan taking the job of replacing Jay Gruden. Being HC in Washington is just doom. Callahan had a decent job there as O-line coach, and now accepts being bumped up to fail.
Click to expand...
All he has to do is win one game and he'll be seen as a miracle worker.

 
Joe Summer said:
Tomlin's decision wasn't terrible. Prior to yesterday, NFL teams were 8-7 when electing to kick off to start overtime. Including yesterday's game, the strategy has "worked" (in terms of getting the ball back) in 13 out of 16 games.
Click to expand...
Setting aside the kick/receive decision itself, it'd be interesting to know, under the current OT rules, how many games have been won by the team that got the ball first, and how many by the team that kicked off.

I think the logical assumption is that the team that gets the ball first wins more often than it loses (and that's why coaches usually elect to receive), but I wonder if the data would bear that out.

 
dhockster said:
I just thought of something. If the team that wins the toss in OT wins if they score a touchdown, and the other team gets a chance if they only score a FG, does it not make sense that if the team that gets the ball first does not score anything on their first drive, the defensive team wins the game?
Click to expand...
Don't give the NFL any ideas. They got everything jacked up enough already. "Tackling the QB, that's a 15 yard penalty and a 1st down on 3rd and 57."

 
Joe Summer said:
Tomlin's decision wasn't terrible. Prior to yesterday, NFL teams were 8-7 when electing to kick off to start overtime. Including yesterday's game, the strategy has "worked" (in terms of getting the ball back) in 13 out of 16 games.
Click to expand...
I actually thought it was the right decision.  His got an undrafted rookie at QB.  And one who was forced into the game due to injury.  So it's not like he took a lot of 1st team snaps this past week.  There was no chance Pitt would score a TD if the elected to receive...and a pretty good chance they'd be punting back to a team with an automatic kicker that ONLY needed a FG to win.  The benefit of kicking away for Pitt is that it gives them a chance to play field position AND possibly work with 4 downs (if Baltimore had scored a FG on the opening possession.  I don't think people really understand how much benefit it is to have an extra down (i.e. 33% more downs) to get a first down.

 
Interesting moment early in the 4th quarter of Colts-Chiefs, when the Colts faced 4th and 1 at the KC 27.  NBC showed a graphic that kicking the FG there actually lowered Indy's win probability, from 51% to 47%.  Thought that was pretty interesting and surely unusual.  Reich correctly chose to go for it (and made it).

Just to give the opposite of "obviously stupid" a little shout-out.

 
Walking Boot said:
Back before the rule change, the correct mathematical decision in OT was to defer then onside kick. A successful recovery starts 'sudden-death' mode near field goal range, and a failed recovery makes the other team more likely to play safe for the FG. Now that the onside kick has been ruined, though, not sure what the best move is.
Click to expand...
Onside kick?  Am I missing something?

 
fatness said:
Bill Callahan taking the job of replacing Jay Gruden. Being HC in Washington is just doom. Callahan had a decent job there as O-line coach, and now accepts being bumped up to fail.
Click to expand...
Bill Callahan will not make any changes to the Redskins defensive coaching staff per his press conference today. "I'll begin by doing nothing about the team's biggest problem."

 
Walking Boot said:
If you start OT with an onside kick, it counts as a possession opportunity for the receiving team, even if they don't actually possess the ball. So onside kick and recover, and it's sudden death, a field goal wins and you're already at midfield. Onside kick and don't get it, the other team starts at midfield and starts thinking "play it safe and secure the FG" instead of taking big shots downfield to move the ball. Hopefully they settle for a FG and you get the ball back with a chance to score anyway.

Edit: It only made sense when onsides were recovered at like 33-40% of the time. Now that it's below 5%, the math doesn't work.
Click to expand...
Gotcha

 
I forget what they were, but I believe I remember Ron Rivera doing one or two stupid things towards the end of the Panthers/Jags game.  Like passing up a FG or something with a 7-point lead.

 
zed2283 said:
I forget what they were, but I believe I remember Ron Rivera doing one or two stupid things towards the end of the Panthers/Jags game.  Like passing up a FG or something with a 7-point lead.
Click to expand...
I believe they were up by 4 and decided to go for it instead of trying to be up by 7.

 
Walking Boot said:
If you start OT with an onside kick, it counts as a possession opportunity for the receiving team, even if they don't actually possess the ball. So onside kick and recover, and it's sudden death, a field goal wins and you're already at midfield. Onside kick and don't get it, the other team starts at midfield and starts thinking "play it safe and secure the FG" instead of taking big shots downfield to move the ball. Hopefully they settle for a FG and you get the ball back with a chance to score anyway.

Edit: It only made sense when onsides were recovered at like 33-40% of the time. Now that it's below 5%, the math doesn't work.
Click to expand...
Except that onsides recoveries were NEVER 33%. They used to be like 8%, and are now more like 2%

 
The onside recovery rate was always much higher for "surprise" onsides, and very low for anticipated onsides, hence the various numbers.  The 30% figure is probably for the surprise ones.

And I must say, the first time someone loses the OT coin toss and opened with an onside kick, it would definitely have been a surprise.  On par with Cowher opening the second half of a Super Bowl with one.  I'd say the recovery rate would be decent until the league caught up.

 
Arodin said:
The onside recovery rate was always much higher for "surprise" onsides, and very low for anticipated onsides, hence the various numbers.  The 30% figure is probably for the surprise ones.

And I must say, the first time someone loses the OT coin toss and opened with an onside kick, it would definitely have been a surprise.  On par with Cowher opening the second half of a Super Bowl with one.  I'd say the recovery rate would be decent until the league caught up.
Click to expand...
Don't you mean Payton? Or did Cowher do that, too? 

 
Arodin said:
Memory turns out to be faulty.  Cowher did run an unexpected onside back in Super Bowl 30 but it wasn’t to open the half.  That was Payton.
Click to expand...
That's why I asked on my end. My memory is just as faulty and I barely remember Cowher's Super Bowl. I think it was 2006, and I'd just started grad/law school. 

 
kittenmittens said:
Shermer punts into the wind on 4th and 2, down 14 with 7 minutes remaining in the game. 

The punt went 30 yards. 
Click to expand...
I don't even flinch anymore when I see coaches do things this stupid.  It feels like it's so common in today's game.  If I'm an owner and I see that, I start immediately putting together a plan for a replacement.  I know that the odds were probably < 1% for the Giants to win that game but he instantly turned that into 0%.  

 
fred_1_15301 said:
I don't even flinch anymore when I see coaches do things this stupid.  It feels like it's so common in today's game.  If I'm an owner and I see that, I start immediately putting together a plan for a replacement.  I know that the odds were probably < 1% for the Giants to win that game but he instantly turned that into 0%.  
Click to expand...
And maybe they wanted 0% in what is by all accounts a rebuild year?

 
fred_1_15301 said:
I don't even flinch anymore when I see coaches do things this stupid.  It feels like it's so common in today's game.  If I'm an owner and I see that, I start immediately putting together a plan for a replacement.  I know that the odds were probably < 1% for the Giants to win that game but he instantly turned that into 0%.  
Click to expand...
Shurmur doesn't want to risk his career winning percentage getting anywhere near .333. With last night's loss he is at a robust .309

 
SayWhat? said:
And maybe they wanted 0% in what is by all accounts a rebuild year?
Click to expand...
Well this is a very good point.  But I can't imagine why a coach would be on board with tanking (unless there was some type of agreement with the owner that their job is completely safe).

 
ponchsox said:
Freddie Kitchens gets bonehead of the year award with the worst challenge in the history of the NFL.
Click to expand...
I actually think he scored there.

But much worse was at the end of the first half the browns were up 8 with 1st and goal at the Seahawks 9 with under 2 minutes left.  They ran once then did a hurry up snapping the ball with 20 seconds left and threw an INT.  

Hawks got the ball back with 1:30 left and went down to score a TD.  

Wow

 
Daryl Ruiter @RuiterWrongFAN

Freddie Kitchens wouldn't run Nick Chubb at the end of the first half and use timeouts because he thought the #Browns could score on a TD pass, use 3 timeouts, get the ball back & score again in 96 seconds. Let that sink in. Instead of going up 27-12, it was a 20-18 game at half

10:03 PM - Oct 13, 2019
Click to expand...

 
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
651
Instinctive
Instinctive

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top