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
A couple thoughts:
1. I don't know the exact numbers (and am too lazy to figure them out), but if going for two boosts your win probability by 10%, that's a lot of wiggle room to play with. So even if the Giants are below league average in converting two-pointers, it still probably wouldn't change the calculation. And for every qualitative factor you cite, I could just as easily cite one arguing the opposite conclusion (for example, that "above average" Carolina defense had just choked away a 28-point lead).
2. What do you think is more likely? That Couglhin went through the thought process that you just described, balancing the quantitative case for going for two against various mitigating circumstances? Or that the entire Giants' coaching staff never gave even a moment's thought to going for two in that situation? Given that the historical number of teams that have gone for two in that scenario is basically zero, I'd say it's pretty clearly the latter.
To point one, I don't think he factors balance, but I also don't expect the coaches to update them in real time. They hadn't yet thrown away a 28-point lead, but even so, they likely came in with the expectation that it would be hard to run on a tough defense, and that this would not be a good week to gamble. If the game script changes that assessment I'll forgive them for not updating the plan on the fly with a running clock.
To point two, no of course I don't think Dinosaur Coughlin would have considered going for two there if he had the Pittsburgh offense facing the Cleveland defense. He isn't wired that way. Doesn't change anything as far as our objective dialogue as to whether it would or would not have been better in that specific circumstance to go for two. I still think, while acknowldging the general averages, that this was not a game close enough to the mean matchup to make those stats applicable.
To point two, no of course I don't think Dinosaur Coughlin would have considered going for two there if he had the Pittsburgh offense facing the Cleveland defense. He isn't wired that way. Doesn't change anything as far as our objective dialogue as to whether it would or would not have been better in that specific circumstance to go for two. I still think, while acknowldging the general averages, that this was not a game close enough to the mean matchup to make those stats applicable.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Of course I would. They had to throw it to avoid punting. Decisions shouldn't be based on anecdotal outcomes. What if Big Ben tore his ACL in the first quarter? Would you argue he should have benched that day because then he wouldn't have been injured?
The mistake was throwing a pick into a crowd. Period. 100% on Big Ben. Throwing the ball was the correct decision. Luckily for them Tomlin didn't pucker up and just run the ball on the next possession.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
I dont think you are understanding me.
I said it was ok because i don't believe in punting it away. If Pitt would have thrown ANOTHER pick, I still think calling the pass play is the correct play. The reason I pointed out that even after what happened they still had to throw to ice the game was to clarify that Pitt couldn't have just run out the clock.
They ran on first down and got zero yards. Denver called timeout. Then they threw the pick. Then Denver went 4 and out. Then Pitt ran 6 plays. That illustrates that there was an eternity left in this game. By Pitt continuing to go for it, their philosophy was that they want to close out the game. They didn't want to give the ball back to Denver. I support that philosophy when you have an offense like they do and a defense like they do. I can't imagine supporting putting the game in the hands of my defense when my defense sucks.
So pick whatever outcome you want. Big Ben getting sacked and fumbling, Big Ben throwing a pick, an incompletion, whatever you want. I support Pitt throwing the ball instead of just running it and then punting away.
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
Jack White
Footballguy
Mike McCarthy, kicking a FG on 4th and 1 at the MIN 10 when he's down 3-0.
Monumentally stupid and gutless.
Monumentally stupid and gutless.
CalBear
Footballguy
It was strange how the Chiefs' clock management was so similarly bad to the Eagles' situation in the Super Bowl. In that game, McNabb got a lot of criticism for huddling up when he should have been hurrying, needing two scores, but Smith did exactly the same thing. Not that Smith is a great 2-minute drill QB or anything like that, but I can't even think of a third example. The two prominent examples of an offense badly mis-managing the clock while down two scores in a critical game were both under Andy Reid.
Short Corner
Footballguy
Calling the TO in front of the two-minute-warning was a much worse call than the pass play.
CalBear
Footballguy
Why's that? It clearly saves more time when you call it in front. In fact it was an error to not call the second TO; they would have had an extra 5 seconds or so.
Short Corner
Footballguy
It allows the offense to open up the playbook as they are not penalized with a clock stoppage on an incomplete pass, ie forces the defense to be more susceptible to the run. The extra 5 seconds is meaningless if you can't get the stop.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Panthers punted with a little over 2 minutes left, down 14, in the Super Bowl.
Maybe it was more "giving up", bust still obviously stupid. It's a pretty low percentage to convert a 4th and 24, but just a tad lower to convert on a punt.
Maybe it was more "giving up", bust still obviously stupid. It's a pretty low percentage to convert a 4th and 24, but just a tad lower to convert on a punt.
Snorkelson
Footballguy
Maybe if he thought his qb would stand in and take the hit.....that's not fair, cam has been tough all year, the fumble play is what people will remember though.
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
Serious made me absolutely mental. Parkey was terrible all day, but sure, a 45-yard fg is a gimme.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
How about Jeff Fisher? The Rams scored a TD to go ahead by 11 with under 5 minutes to go, and rather than kick the PAT to make it a 12 point lead, they went for 2 (and didn't convert, but that's beside the point).
Steeler
Footballguy
I was just going to post this - I couldn't believe they went for two in that spot. If TB converted on their own 2 pt conversion after the Evans TD the game would have gone to OT and people would be making a much bigger deal about it. It's still really, really stupid - just buried a bit since it didn't cost them anything.
Steeler
Footballguy
C. Sims should have gone out of bounds at about the 15 yard line with about 35 seconds left but didn't. TB had 2 timeouts at that point and didn't use either of them... the game ended on 2nd down when time expired and TB still have 1 timeout left.
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
This one was just inexplicable. I wish the Bucs had converted their 2 so they could have tied with a FG at the end and it would actually be brought up.
No idea how a like 20 year head coach makes that screw up.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
Basic arithmetic. And IIRC they took a timeout after the TD so they had plenty of time to think about it. Inexplicable really is the right word. I had no rooting interest in the game but I was really hoping the Bucs would've made them pay for it.
On the topic of extra points, what does the book say on Indy/San Diego?
Indy scored with 1:28 remaining to go up 4. Rather than kick the extra point to go up 5, they went for two and failed. Is the thought there that if SD scores there is still hope if they then go on to miss their extra point? Seems to me praying for a missed extra point is a bit of a stretch. On the other hand, if Indy does give up a quick score they only need a field goal to win if you're down by 2 vs. only being able to tie if they're down by 3.
I'm sure I'm failing to see the obvious reason for going for two in that situation.
Indy scored with 1:28 remaining to go up 4. Rather than kick the extra point to go up 5, they went for two and failed. Is the thought there that if SD scores there is still hope if they then go on to miss their extra point? Seems to me praying for a missed extra point is a bit of a stretch. On the other hand, if Indy does give up a quick score they only need a field goal to win if you're down by 2 vs. only being able to tie if they're down by 3.
I'm sure I'm failing to see the obvious reason for going for two in that situation.
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
Eh, there was only a little over a minute left. Being up 4 there is as good as being up 5, so you go for 2 in the hopes that you get up 6 and maybe SD misses the longer XP if they do score a TD.
Far be it from me to ever defend Jeff Fischer, but that one was so inexplicable I have to wonder if the K tweaked something and they didn't feel confident. Didn't that happen with a team last year and it turned out the long snapper was injured or something?
Pipes
Footballguy
That was a 46 yarder too...not exactly a chip shot. Should've picked up a few yards to help the kicker out.
renesauz
IBL Representative
This.
Was the right call IMO. There's zero difference in a 4 or 5 point lead, but there was (albeit only very slightly) a difference in 4 to 6
renesauz
IBL Representative
Especially when the kicker was on on his couch two days ago, and had had virtually zero practice time with his holder and long-snapper. Kickers are traditionally less accurate when you swap out either the holder or snapper...Parkey had a tough job as it was and relying on him from that distance was beyond dumb
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Wait, did the Browns win the coin toss in OT and elect to kick?
avoiding injuries
Footballguy
Redskins running a play from about the 5yd line with :06 left on the clock and no timeouts in the first half. Of course time expired and they didn't have a chance for a FG.
Correction: they did have a timeout. Which makes it worse. After a long play to get to the 5, they saved the timeout and lost a lot of time lining up and spiking it.
Correction: they did have a timeout. Which makes it worse. After a long play to get to the 5, they saved the timeout and lost a lot of time lining up and spiking it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
That one was all on Cousins, I think. He has to know that he looks for the first read and if he's got nothing, throw it out of the end zone.
And I don't think they did have a timeout, or they could have called it after the sack, right?
Sorry, you are right, they did have the TO. Maybe that's why Cousins didn't get rid of it, but he still has to know how much time he has and call that TO right away.
Last edited by a moderator:
JaxBill
Footballguy
They had a timeout.
Cousins took too long. By the time he was sacked, clock was at zero.
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
Yep, that was all on Cousins.
avoiding injuries
Footballguy
Someone ( Gruden/Cousins) needed to call that timeout when they had the big play to Reed. At least 15 seconds came off the clock. Then they spiked, losing a down. Could have had an extra shot at the end zone AND had time for the FG.
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
Yeah, I went back and looked at the game log after and realized that. Cousins should have thrown it away or even just kneeled.
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
ghostguy123
Footballguy
So nobody else thinks it is stupid to win the coin toss in overtime and elect to kick?
Even worse considering your team has the worst D in the league.
Even worse considering your team has the worst D in the league.
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
Mostly on Cousins, I agree. He has to know the situation.
But you'd think it would be obvious for the coaches to be explicit in the play call. Here's the play, your first read is xxxxx, if he's not open just throw it over his head and we'll kick the FG.
Did they really just call in a play like it was any other down in the middle of the game?
Short Corner
Footballguy
Why would a team punt up 4 on the final play of regulation?Trailing by 4 on the final play of regulation, Mike McCoy decides not to return a punt.
Backed up in own territory, 4th down, more time on the game clock than the playclock, what else you going to do?
Punting is a whole lot safer than the old "run around to burn clock and go out of bounds back of endzone for safety" play. Not sure what else could even be considered?
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
[scooter]
Footballguy
I think there was too much time (around :07) to risk running around. If you trip and fall (or if the other team catches you), then they get the ball in your territory.Why would a team punt up 4 on the final play of regulation?Trailing by 4 on the final play of regulation, Mike McCoy decides not to return a punt.
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
I agree with you. In addition to the possible TD on first drive, there is a good combined chance either both teams kick a FG, or neither scores. This gives the receiving team 2 possessions to 1, with the added bonus of now just needing a FG. As it turned out they got a TD anyways on that 2nd possession.
Last edited by a moderator:
ghostguy123
Footballguy
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Forget the scoring part of it.
If you kick off the other team likely gets the ball around the 25. "IF" you stuff them on a 3 and out then they punt and likely net about 40 yards.
So you give up the first possession so that you can HOPEFULLY get the ball pretty close to the same place you would have gotten it if you simply elect to receive the kick.
Then of course you have to consider that the team might just score a TD and win on the first possession, or they kick a FG and now you have to score a TD to win or they get the ball back where a FG would win.
So, so stupid.
However, it might have just been strategy since they are tanking...................
Last edited by a moderator:
Ditka Butkus
Footballguy
90% of calls Sean Payton makes.
Similar threads
