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 (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter GreenNGold
- Start date
No, actually I don’t KNOW that the 10th flip is independent. That’s a common assumption based on most coins being relatively fair. And it’s that fact that the assunption can be called into question that changes the problem.
The chances of 9 tails in a row on a fair coin is 1 in 512. Not a huge number, but there are actually 3 possibilities:
1) Coin is fair, and I saw a rare event. In that case, both outcomes are equally likely, it doesn’t matter what I pick.
2) Coin is weighted to tails (or even has two tails and is a trick coin).
3) Coin is weighted to heads and I saw an even more rare event.
As a statistician attempting to predict the future, I increase my chance of successful prediction above the default 50% if I can assess the relative likelihood of case 2 and case 3. A run of 9 tails is enough to make 2 far more likely than 3, even if 1 is still by far the most common outcome.
So the correct answer is to guess tails, if you want to maximize the chance of correct prediction.
Don’t see where I taught the gambler’s fallacy. That would be advocating heads because it was due. I never did that.
Last edited by a moderator:
Catbird
Footballguy
If you aren't sticking to the coin and toss being fair, there are an infinite number of reasons the 10th flip might not be tails, including the weighted coin option, that the flipper is talented enough to influence the outcome by how he or she flips it, the coin landing with almost exact balance and coming to rest on in its edge, coin wedging into a crack, the flipper being accosted and robbed of the coin before flipping and nuclear holocaust obliterating the coin and participants. If the flipping isn't assumed as fair from the outset, the odds thereafter are incalculable. The fundamental assumption of the example is an assumption that the coin and toss are fair.
Notwithstanding, the odds slightly favored going for it and the coach's decision should have been (and probably was) based on whether he thought it more likely or less likely that they would get the 2 yards.
Notwithstanding, the odds slightly favored going for it and the coach's decision should have been (and probably was) based on whether he thought it more likely or less likely that they would get the 2 yards.
kittenmittens
Footballguy
I don't disagree with the logic in the right bet here, but I think it's mixing the situations.
If you ask a random student the odds of the 10th coin flip, they are going to say 50 percent because that is the correct answer. You didn't ask them what they would bet on. Even factoring in the tiny probability that the coin is not fair, it's so close to 50 percent that you can't blame them for not saying 50.0000001 percent. Everyone is going to assume a fair coin in that situation because by nature, coins are very reasonably assumed to be fair and that is a very common math problem in which we assume the coin is fair by default. I would need to see a lot more than 1 in 500 odds before I start wondering if that is a trick question.
It's the equivalent giving them a different common math problem like how fast a train arrives, and then saying oh that answer is wrong because you have to factor in the train could get derailed, trains never getting derailed is a common assumption.
The odds your coin isn't a normal coin seem to be more like 1 in millions rather than 1 in hundreds. I think there is a huge difference between when odds of the next event are independent and when they are not, and your scenario comes dangerously close to a false dependence on prior outcomes/gamblers fallacy in terms of people who lack the an understanding of the nuances you understand. They might not see the difference in how the sample size effects what you have illustrated. They might start applying this thinking after 2 or 3 coin flips, when IMO you would need a few more than 9 in a row before the possibility that the coin flips are in fact not independent enters the equation.
I was probably taking you more literally than you meant it as well. Sorry to jump down your throat, my reaction was a little strong. Thanks for explaining further.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
I’m assuming I’m late the the “what the hell was Payton thinking going for 2 in a 13-7 game?!” party?
Just ridiculous.
Just ridiculous.
TheBottomLine
Footballguy
Shanahan kicking a 43-yd FG on 4th & 1 to go up 5 with just under 2 mins left. One yard ends the game. Instead gave them the ball with plenty of time and I believe two timeouts. I might be wrong, but even as it was happening I was thinking how stupid it was to not try to end the game by getting one yard. Maybe I’m the stupid one, or maybe Harbaugh has rubbed off on me too much by going for it on 4th so many times.
He did the right think goin up 5. They had go 80 yards to score a TD. His D failed him miserably.
On the flipside. Saw a boot leg today. QB jogged into the endzone untouched. It was Tannehill coached by Vrabel who has been around long enough to know that the bootleg is a great play and an easy TD. Nothing tricky, just the play you roll out every once in a while because it works almost every time. These young punk so called offensive gurus probably don't even know that its called the bootleg let alone how to run it.
TheBottomLine
Footballguy
Considering a 43-yard FG is hardly even a sure thing, I would have tried to pick up a yard to end the game. He was 4 for 6 on the year from 40-49 yds, so I would also factor that in. I'm getting a yard there, but I guess I'm the moron.
Joe Summer
Footballguy
Punting when down 13 points with 3:40 remaining in the game.
I don't care where you are on the field, I don't care how many yards you need to gain to get the first down......DO NOT PUNT.
I don't care where you are on the field, I don't care how many yards you need to gain to get the first down......DO NOT PUNT.
Morton Muffley
Footballguy
I dont think he was trying to win the game at this point. I think he realized this game meant nothing and that he wanted to keep them from an embarrass loss. Problem was that the embarrassment had ALREADY occurred!
Meh. I think your post would’ve fit better in this thread had you simply said “Pretty much everything Zimmer did this evening.”
Playing 8 yards off an elite WR with a corner that’s giving up an 85% completion rate when he’s targeted, a WR pass to a QB with zero plus athletic traits on 3rd and 4 from the GB 42, followed by a deep pass on an out and up on 4th and 4, both of those plays occurring up 10-6 with just over two minutes left in the half. From there, GB easily nets a FG and only a FG because Adams dropped a sure TD. Then on 3rd and 3 to start the 4th, they run the most disjointed end around(?) to Adam Theilen that had about a 2% chance of success. I could go on, but the experience of that game was depressing enough. That punt was about 8th on the list of idiotic things that coaching staff did.
TheBottomLine
Footballguy
Zimmer did take a timeout at the start of the 4th after unsuccessfully trying to get GB to jump offsides on 4th & 1. They were at their own 45 yard line, would think a timeout in that situation is much more valuable than the 5 yards from taking a delay.
TheBottomLine said:
IHEARTFF said:And then PUNTED
The worst part was that they called time out with like 15 seconds left on the play clock. Time to run the punt team on the field or just take the delay because those 5 yds didn't matter on a punt. Just a terrible string of events.
rockaction
Footballguy
I was with them on the punt when they were down 13, 4th and 24, 3:45 left, nearly got their top-flight receiver killed on a seam pattern the play before, sixth seed clinched.
Time to get some rest.
But that series at the beginning of the quarter was an abomination.
Surprised there's been no discussion of the end of the Niners-Seahawks game. I thought there was plenty of dumb decision-making to go around, starting with Shanahan's decision to punt on 4th and 1 with 2:34 left in the game. Yes, it was from their own 30, but this was just one more example of what has become my biggest pet peeve: coaches who punt on 4th and short (or kick a FG that keeps it a one-score game) and willingly give the ball back to the other team with a chance to win the game, instead of getting that yard and putting the other team away. In fact, Shanahan had done the same thing two weeks earlier vs. Atlanta, and it cost them the game. In Sunday night's case, the numbers said the punt cost the Niners two percentage points of win probability. (More qualitatively, they were giving the ball back to Russel Wilson, and their defense had not looked all that impressive in recent weeks.)
But obviously, the main wearer of goat horns from that game has to be Pete Carroll. The Ringer had a good rundown of all the ways he screwed up that final drive:
But obviously, the main wearer of goat horns from that game has to be Pete Carroll. The Ringer had a good rundown of all the ways he screwed up that final drive:
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
[scooter]
Footballguy
32 Counter Pass
Footballguy
Shanny is absolutely brutal with his end of game management. Besides what you mentioned he should have been calling time outs right after the completion to Locket that moved the ball to the 11. By not doing so he left the team no time if the Seahawks scored. He did something similar in the Falcon game. He does seem to learn from his mistakes and continues to mismanage the end of games. But as Carroll showed it was contagious. Unbelievable. A billion dollar industry and these clowns can’t make the right decisions to give their teams the best chance to win.
We have a running joke in my family dating back to when we were kids. My mom would be stressed out, and she would list all the reasons: "Your father has to work late and the house is a mess and I don't have anything to make for dinner", etc. And then she would close with "... and I have a headache and my head hurts." As if those were two different things.
That game obviously evoked a lot of memories of Super Bowl XLIX. I know there's been a lot of debate as to whether Belichick screwed up by not calling his timeouts at the end of the game. I don't think we'll ever know for sure, but I tend to lean on the side that says he had a plan. He recognized the moment seemed too big for Carroll, and he determined the Pats' best chance of winning was stopping Seattle rather than conceding the points. The biggest piece of evidence in support of that (other than him staring across at the Seattle timeline with that Cheshire Cat grin as time ticked away) was him inserting Butler into the game, having drilled him earlier in the week on defending the exact play that Seattle ended up running. IMO, he was in Carroll's head, and he knew exactly what he was doing.
Obviously, Shanny has not earned the same benefit of the doubt, so in the case of last week's game I'm more inclined to say he got lucky. But obviously, the clock was a big factor in terms of discombobulating Seattle in that final sequence, as well as their inability to hand the ball off to Lynch (even if they had been able to get him on the field in time). Point is, it may be that the smart play in a situation like that is to let the clock work in your favor as long as you're still ahead. I'd be curious to see what the numbers say (your defense's odds of stopping a first-and-goal drive compared to your offense's odds of completing a long scoring drive), and also if there are factors that the numbers can't properly measure, like the level of confusion you can sow on the opposing sideline.
Same guy who single-handedly choked away a 25-point second-half Super Bowl lead with his "clock management."
Joe Summer
Footballguy
First down at the ~23 with 30 seconds left in the half, and 2 timeouts.
Rather than take a couple shots at the endzone, Buffalo decides waste 1st down on a run up the middle (no gain) and then they decide to waste 2nd down on a spike when there was still ~15 seconds left on the clock.
Rather than take a couple shots at the endzone, Buffalo decides waste 1st down on a run up the middle (no gain) and then they decide to waste 2nd down on a spike when there was still ~15 seconds left on the clock.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Bill's not trying a FG. 60 yards so what. 4th and 27 about impossible
Joe Summer
Footballguy
They screwed up the end of the first half by being too conservative, and they screwed up the end of the 2nd half by not being conservative enough.
Last edited by a moderator:
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
**Ahem**
take your pick
take your pick
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Disagree. 4th and 1 is a high-percentage play, and if they convert the game is over. Meanwhile, a 48-yard FG is no gimme. If they miss, Buffalo has great field position. Even if they hit it, Buffalo has a chance to score and win the game
doeseatplace
Footballguy
This was the right decision. Win the game with one yard instead of giving the bill back with 60+ seconds and a 6 pt lead.
The analytics do generally support going for it in that situation, but honestly, I think the qualitative case is as strong as the quantitative one. Absent a highly unlikely defensive score, the only way for Buffalo to win the game is to get the ball back. Basic logic suggests Houston shouldn't voluntarily hand it back to them with a chance to win, especially when a single yard ices it.
JamieMurphy
Footballguy
Vrabel punting on this 4th down is going to cost them the game. Can't play scared in the playoffs
JamieMurphy
Footballguy
No, I was agreeing with you. They presumably punted for the field position, but the fact that the Pats got the yardage back so quickly proves how pointless it was to make that a priority.
Joe Summer
Footballguy
Patriots not having a punt returner at the end of the game.
JamieMurphy
Footballguy
Didn't see that. But with 25 seconds (and the Pats not having much of a deep threat), going for the block probably gives NE their best (slim) chance to win.
JamieMurphy
Footballguy
Helped it was a beautiful punt, skittered right down to the goal line and took ten seconds off the clock. Guess Vrabel knows what he's doing after all!
Speaking of which, CBS studio crew talking about that punting sequence. I hadn't realized Vrabel managed to burn 1:46 off the clock with all those penalties, and he did it at the last moment possible, since inside of 5:00 the clock stops on a penalty. I still don't know if it was the right call, but it's possible he had a plan there.
fred_1_15301
Footballguy
I said it in the game thread at the time and I truly believe it wasn't a bad call by Vrabel given the game script up to that point. It was 4th and 4 which is no gimme and puts them in a passing situation against a good defense that was starting to get some heat. Why give the Pats (who were not able to move the ball at all) any hope? Pin them back with the best punter in the game and let the defense do their job against a weak offense. Even if the Titans covert on 4th down, there is no guarantee that the Pats don't get the ball back.
Last edited by a moderator:
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
NotSmart
Footballguy
Belichick using the "loophole" of running excessive time off the clock prior to the 5 minute mark, in a game where it was meaningless - up 33-0 against the Jets.
He showed his clever trick to the rest of the league, and ultimately had it used against him in last night's playoff loss.
https://sports.yahoo.com/mike-vrabel-bill-belichick-titans-patriots-delay-of-game-062657674.html
He showed his clever trick to the rest of the league, and ultimately had it used against him in last night's playoff loss.
https://sports.yahoo.com/mike-vrabel-bill-belichick-titans-patriots-delay-of-game-062657674.html
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Similar threads
