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)
- Thread starter GreenNGold
- Start date
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
JoeKappBudGrant
Footballguy
If Minnesota had taken a timeout after Seattle had first and goal, they would have had 25 more seconds for a last gasp FG.
Steeler
Footballguy
Going for 2 instead of kicking the extra point? Nah, going for 2 was the right call because if they convert they go up by 9 and "guarantee" the win.
Respectfully disagree. You take the automatic point, and “guarantee” that your opponent has to put the ball in the endzone twice just to tie up the game.
Good call. Rich Gannon eviscerated coach on that call (as well as "analytics"). It was great.
Steeler
Footballguy
I wasn't. I don't know the math off the top of my head, but I'm guessing going for 2 up by 7 with that amount of time left on the clock gave them the best chance to win the game.
ZWK
Footballguy
Bad clock management by Philly down 8. The advantage of scoring quick is that, if you miss the 2 pointer & fail at the onside kick, you still have a shot to get the ball back. The advantage of running clock is that if you make the 2 pointer then BAL doesn't have time to respond in regulation.
They get the worst of both worlds, scoring just after the 2 minute warning with 1 timeout left (2 for BAL). If they fail at the 2 pointer & the onside kick, then BAL can run the clock down under 30 seconds even without a first down, which gives them very little chance of scoring. If they make the 2 pointer, then BAL has nearly 2 minutes to score a FG with 2 timeouts, which is plenty of time to get into FG range.
They get the worst of both worlds, scoring just after the 2 minute warning with 1 timeout left (2 for BAL). If they fail at the 2 pointer & the onside kick, then BAL can run the clock down under 30 seconds even without a first down, which gives them very little chance of scoring. If they make the 2 pointer, then BAL has nearly 2 minutes to score a FG with 2 timeouts, which is plenty of time to get into FG range.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Agreed. Given the way the game played out, it's amazing to me that anybody is second-guessing Crennel's decision. His defense was completely incapable of stopping Tennessee, which just makes the decision to go for two look more and more like the right call. It's like people stopped watching the game after that play or something.
Ardbeg4ever
Footballguy
People forget the XP is only 95% not 100%. If you think you have a better than 47.5% chance of converting or less than a 50% chance of stopping Tenn on a 2 point conversion, then you go for 2. Either way, it's within 5%, I"m okay with a coach going with their gut if within 5%.
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
Exactly.IvanKaramazov said:
When your defense is playing poorly and your offense is playing well, go for 2 to go up 9 and put the game away.
If your defense is playing really well, then I would say kick the XP and go up 8.
CalBear
Footballguy
I think going for 2 there is statistically pretty much a wash. Obviously you win in both scenarios if you stop them from scoring a TD, so let's look at the rest of the scenarios.
Go for 2: Win if you make it (~50%). Lose in the case that they score a TD, kick the XP, win in OT (~50%), or in the case that they score a TD, go for 2 and make it (50%). You win ~75% of the cases either way.
Go for 1: Lose if they score a TD, go for 2 and make it (~50%) and win in OT (~50%) = ~75% either way.
There are edge cases (like missing the XP) but overall I think team and game dynamics are worth considering to tip the decision one way or the other.
Go for 2: Win if you make it (~50%). Lose in the case that they score a TD, kick the XP, win in OT (~50%), or in the case that they score a TD, go for 2 and make it (50%). You win ~75% of the cases either way.
Go for 1: Lose if they score a TD, go for 2 and make it (~50%) and win in OT (~50%) = ~75% either way.
There are edge cases (like missing the XP) but overall I think team and game dynamics are worth considering to tip the decision one way or the other.
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
Help me out. I thought XPAs are missed 1/20 (5%.) Which makes the edge case, as you refer to it, not ~50% but 47.5%.
Am I wrong?
CalBear
Footballguy
I'm using 50% for simplicity. Yes, XPs are less than 100%, and 2-point conversions are not exactly 50% (49.4% in 2019 for the whole league, but the offense/defense matters). 50% is close enough for the purposes of estimation. (Plus, if you miss the PAT you still have the possibility that they miss the PAT, or that you have enough time to kick a FG and win in regulation, or other cases which are probably greater than the difference between 47.5% and 49.4%).
dhockster
Footballguy
For those questioning Crennel, Houston has the second worst run defense in the league, Henry is one of the top running backs in the league and has now run for over 200 yards against the Texans in two straight games. If you watched how Henry scored from the 4 in OT, you would conclude that him scoring from the 2 on a 2 point conversion was fairly likely (say 75%). Also, Gostkowski missed a FG and had a FG blocked, so him making an extra point was not a given.
Ask yourself one question: If you're the Texans, would you rather rely on Deshaun Watson to win you the game (who's offense had already scored 36 points) or rely on the Texans defense to win the game (who had already given up 29 points and couldn't stop Derrick Henry to save their life)?
Analytics work best when you take historic data and factor in game time information. As someone said earlier, if the Texans had a really good defense, I would probably kick the extra point there. But since they didn't, and weren't performing well that day, I go with my strength and try to win it with my offense, and go for two points. And the play they called actually worked, Deshaun was throwing to a wide open receiver, he just didn't get the ball high enough and the d lineman made a nice play to knock the pass down.
Ask yourself one question: If you're the Texans, would you rather rely on Deshaun Watson to win you the game (who's offense had already scored 36 points) or rely on the Texans defense to win the game (who had already given up 29 points and couldn't stop Derrick Henry to save their life)?
Analytics work best when you take historic data and factor in game time information. As someone said earlier, if the Texans had a really good defense, I would probably kick the extra point there. But since they didn't, and weren't performing well that day, I go with my strength and try to win it with my offense, and go for two points. And the play they called actually worked, Deshaun was throwing to a wide open receiver, he just didn't get the ball high enough and the d lineman made a nice play to knock the pass down.
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
Rather curious Sean McDermott did not go for 2.
Guess he had faith in his defense that gave up 245 yards rushing today.
Guess he had faith in his defense that gave up 245 yards rushing today.
If you guys had me second-guessing the Zimmer call, the fact that you all support the Crennel call makes me feel much better that you don't have a clue.
Last edited by a moderator:
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
I thought he should have gone for 2 as well. Assume the Chiefs would get a FG and put the Bills in position to still tie with another TD.
dhockster
Footballguy
I totally agree with what you said here. Which is why if Romeo Crennel is factoring game situations/conditions into his decision, he should have gone for two.
Game situation/Conditions:
- Texans defense can't stop Derrick Henry. Therefore a successful 2 point conversion by the Titans more likely. Thus more likely that the game ends in a tie if the Texans kick the extra point and the Titans are able to score a touchdown
- Titans defense having trouble stopping Deshaun Watson and the Texans offense. Therefore a successful 2 point conversion by the Texans more likely. Thus more likely the Texans go up by two scores and win the game.
TVT 0 N S T A
Footballguy
Anyone pissed for McCarthy's timeout calling last night?
The garbage TD to Amari Cooper? Then bringing in Ben Dinucci to finish the game? No? Just me?
The garbage TD to Amari Cooper? Then bringing in Ben Dinucci to finish the game? No? Just me?
Once again with your false narrative. It was obviously dumb before the play was run, regardless of whether it was successful or not. I've said this every time.
Others have used numbers and logic to show this isn’t the case. Why don’t you try again to show why it’s dumb using those tools rather than just your unbacked opinion.
So I win in 75% of cases if I go for 1 or 2? Didn't someone say going for 2 is actually 47%? Don't you think that affects the math in scenario 1 (against me) and scenario 2 (against them)? If I'm following the math (which I'm not convinced is used appropriately) then it's 76.5% going for 1 and 73.5% going for 2. Right?
2 point% rate varies depending on time frame. Over the last 2 seasons its 49.4%. If you want to to take it back way further it’s lower. CalBear used ~50% likely to keep it simple. He also stated that to keep it simple he wasn’t including the possibly of the Texans or Titans missing the PAT which helps the math in your favor. By the numbers it’s pretty close to even. Close enough that nothing there was no obviously dumb as you claim.
barackdhouse
Footballguy
I'd like to make a point or raise a question here regarding the magnitude of importance of how bad a trailing team's defense is playing as it relates to the presumed methodologies a coach uses when making a decision to do a, b, or c.
Some sort of combination of broad analytics, instinct, and the application of it all in real time and in real response to what is happening on the field (like using instinct to bump your assessment that Henry is much more likely to convert the 2 pointer in that moment), HAS to include acknowledgement that if a team is down by X number of points with Y amount of time left, 100% of permutations of potential victories involve the trailing team's defense making a stop of some kind at some point. A special teams return could tilt it but that doesn't go into the decision making of when to kick a FG, go for 2, go for the onsides vs kicking away, etc.
If there are 0 winning paths that don't involve your defense making a stop (this would be prior to a game situation where onside kicks are unavoidable), then can it be said that a decision might be tilted one way or another, based on nothing more than faith?
Even if your defense is getting destroyed hard, can you really put on the Dr. Strange Timestone goggles and map out a single path to victory that *doesn't* involve making a stop? If I'm right then I think this kind of goofy faith, where a coach is basically saying "but we *have* to stop them", can explain quite a few decisions that make many of us scratch our heads.
I'm not convinced that analytics are any better than the definitions of the parameters involved. That's not a good or a bad thing it's just a natural limit. I'd be curious to learn how well these analytic models can adjust in real time to game flow context. Like injuries, subs, weather, situations that are anomalous. A coach is *rightfully going* to factor these things in. Hopefully. But the ideal would be to have access to dynamic analytic info in real time and use it, but I'm not convinced it's good enough yet. It's best use for a coach right now is not necessarily those margin calls as much as the ones that are significantly lopsided in favor of decision A vs B.
In poker if you're a 52-48% favorite on a given heads up hand based on starting hands (something like 77 vs AK), you will be infinitely profitable over a long enough timeline to play that everytime. But can you stay solvent long enough to do so? The answer is almost 100% no.
One analytic system says you'll be infinitely rich, and it's true (within the parameter definition). Another system says you'll go broke, and it is also true. What is the problem? The parameters are effed up and there are false presumptions built in. I am not convinced the football analytics folks are doing it right. I think they're really close though and that ultimately they have the right method, which refinement is central to.
Anyway rant over I need to sleep now.
Some sort of combination of broad analytics, instinct, and the application of it all in real time and in real response to what is happening on the field (like using instinct to bump your assessment that Henry is much more likely to convert the 2 pointer in that moment), HAS to include acknowledgement that if a team is down by X number of points with Y amount of time left, 100% of permutations of potential victories involve the trailing team's defense making a stop of some kind at some point. A special teams return could tilt it but that doesn't go into the decision making of when to kick a FG, go for 2, go for the onsides vs kicking away, etc.
If there are 0 winning paths that don't involve your defense making a stop (this would be prior to a game situation where onside kicks are unavoidable), then can it be said that a decision might be tilted one way or another, based on nothing more than faith?
Even if your defense is getting destroyed hard, can you really put on the Dr. Strange Timestone goggles and map out a single path to victory that *doesn't* involve making a stop? If I'm right then I think this kind of goofy faith, where a coach is basically saying "but we *have* to stop them", can explain quite a few decisions that make many of us scratch our heads.
I'm not convinced that analytics are any better than the definitions of the parameters involved. That's not a good or a bad thing it's just a natural limit. I'd be curious to learn how well these analytic models can adjust in real time to game flow context. Like injuries, subs, weather, situations that are anomalous. A coach is *rightfully going* to factor these things in. Hopefully. But the ideal would be to have access to dynamic analytic info in real time and use it, but I'm not convinced it's good enough yet. It's best use for a coach right now is not necessarily those margin calls as much as the ones that are significantly lopsided in favor of decision A vs B.
In poker if you're a 52-48% favorite on a given heads up hand based on starting hands (something like 77 vs AK), you will be infinitely profitable over a long enough timeline to play that everytime. But can you stay solvent long enough to do so? The answer is almost 100% no.
One analytic system says you'll be infinitely rich, and it's true (within the parameter definition). Another system says you'll go broke, and it is also true. What is the problem? The parameters are effed up and there are false presumptions built in. I am not convinced the football analytics folks are doing it right. I think they're really close though and that ultimately they have the right method, which refinement is central to.
Anyway rant over I need to sleep now.
barackdhouse
Footballguy
The TLDR version is who cares how bad your defense is playing when making a decision? If you have to make a stop at some point then wouldn't it be better to assume you will at some point?
In both of the scenarios being heavily discussed, no your defense doesn’t have to make a stop if the Vikings offense gains a few inches or the Texans offense gains 2 yards.
rockaction
Footballguy
I agree with barackdhouse's premise and general argument about the limits of analytics. Especially the poker/blackjack example (that's why people split pots with people not even playing the game -- to remain solvent long enough to absorb the very slim probabilistic margin). I do not agree with his premise applied to these situations, as Cobbler1 points out.
You wouldn't have had to stop them at all.
You keep saying that but you’ve yet to back it with anything other than....you saying it over and over again.
Sorry, I forgot the
And you keep saying that over and over. I'm pretty sure it's been covered. Didn't we just go over it?
I’ve quoted math to back my stance that’s what we went over. You weren’t even sure of the numbers you wanted to use that maybe would have showed a 3% edge one way.Sorry, I forgot the
And you keep saying that over and over. I'm pretty sure it's been covered. Didn't we just go over it?
I guess almost 40 years of watching football makes it intuitive for me. Don't worry, you'll get there someday, little buddy.
Now get off my lawn!
Ah you’re looking at things through the lens of not having the forward pass. Completely makes sense now.
barackdhouse
Footballguy
I wasn't clear about it but I should have said that I really wasn't trying to apply what I was saying to these recent situations specifically, even though I used examples from them, but rather just very generally.
Neil Beaufort Zod
Footballguy
Are we factoring in the team's reaction to the decision? Respecting a coach going for the jugular, or showing no confidence in their defense? They're playing for later in the year, and next year, the the right to finish their contract. Doesn't all that play into their decision to give the team an emotional boost (or play not to lose both the game and their job)?
Mr. Irrelevant
IBL Representative
I've never played organized football, but it's hardly a novel observation that it's an incredibly taxing, demanding sport.
Leaving aside the testosterone, or the confidence, or the "kill or be killed" attitude that defines NFL players in general ... if you gave 100 players the choice between going for 2 to win the game, or kicking an XP and facing up to 45 more (actual, real-life) minutes of slamming their bodies into their opponents and the turf, I bet 99 of them would tell you to keep the offense on the field.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Early 4th quarter. Falcons 4th and 5 at the 13. Up 1.
They go for it rather than kick a fg.
Wow
They go for it rather than kick a fg.
Wow
fred_1_15301
Footballguy
On a low scoring game.
Arthur Blank should have fired that interim HC right after the game and said 'who wants to be coach next? I'm done with stupid decisions. Make one and you'll be looking for a new job.'
ghostguy123
Footballguy
I understand coaches, especially interim coaches, being aggressive or even over aggressive. However, that was just stupid and completely unable to be rationally explained.
It might be worse than calling your last timeout after a play with about 2:42 on the clock when trailing.
Similar threads
