Atomic Playboy
Lifer
- Feb 6, 2007
- 16,432
- 1
- 81
But you have to admit, he does look pretty sexy when he does his little turn on the catwalk.
But you have to admit, he does look pretty sexy when he does his little turn on the catwalk.
Imported
Lifer
- Sep 2, 2000
- 14,679
- 23
- 81
I think the last TE to attempt was Finley. They ended up signing a 2 year deal? Thus avoiding arbitration to see what position tag he should have been. Very similar situation though.. where Finley played more snaps at WR.
I kinda think he is the weakest link on the 49ers, but I never really questioned his character, especially after they did a bunch of stories on his upbringing last year. And I have to admit, that Beats by Dre commercial even has me thinking he's The Man.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ttsx5squWg
Even thought about buying some wireless Beats. The power of advertising! :biggrin: Anyways, cant wait for this Sunday! I just hope Seattle and SF dont beat each other up too much so they can roll the AFC winner in the Superbowl.
We really should just shelve this debate because you guys are missing the forest for the trees. Nobody is saying keep the TO in your back pocket until the final zeroes roll off. Even Atomic Playboy who broke it down to about a 2 second difference made your same mistake earlier and went to this straw man that it's dumb to let the game clock run off and save your TO for a 30 second drive. Of course that's dumb!
NOBODY here is advocating to not use the time out to stop the clock, just that strategically it's actually better to do so after the 2 minute warning instead of at exactly 2:02. mugs kind of iced the argument when he mentioned that calling it at 2:02 gives the Broncos more play calling options.
To be clear, the scenarios SSSnail is alluding to are if:
1. The Chargers miraculously strip the RB of the ball on 1st down, you now have well over a minute of game time with a valuable time out.
2. If the Broncos throw an incomplete pass on 1st down, that's a free clock stoppage and you still have a time out to spend after the next play is run.
Both are incredibly unlikely and #2 borders on criminally stupid of the play caller, but crazier things have happened.
The question of whether to call your last timeout at 1:54 right after a 1st down rushing play is a separate debate. SSSnail says he'd wait one more down and burn it at around 1:08 . Even if you reject that and use it right away, you've lost just 2 seconds vs calling it at 2:02.
The point is that there's almost no downside, but potentially a major upside. Even if 99.9% of the time you've lost the game no matter what you do, you should still be making optimal decisions in case the 0.1% transpires. And yes, optimal decisions includes burning all of your timeouts if you can ensure you get the ball back. The wrinkle here is that you actually have a choice in when exactly to do it.
Atomic Playboy
Lifer
- Feb 6, 2007
- 16,432
- 1
- 81
All of this is academic, but the Chargers didn't make the mistake when they called a timeout with 2:02 left, they made a mistake by NOT taking that same timeout with 2:50ish left. If you're going to take your timeouts early, you need to commit and take those timeouts, not call one, let Denver run a couple plays and run the clock down and then take your final. They should have taken that timeout immediately after Moreno's 1 yard run and played to force a punt right around the 2 minute warning (which was still dependent on preventing a first down which they simply couldn't do).
It still comes down to 2 secs being more valuable than hoping for the least likely scenario. You're probably already close to 99.99% with the extra 2 seconds. Without them, the likelihood is even less. And its not a given that a team would even attempt a pass at 2:02. More than likely teams run the ball in that scenario. These NFL teams have people that spend their lives looking at stats for down, distances, and time remaining. Thats why they all stick to the same script, because its established empirically what you do in these situations. Some team is gonna have to get burned in a big game for the thinking to change, but it hasnt happened for a reason.
Last edited:
foghorn67
Lifer
- Jan 3, 2006
- 11,883
- 63
- 91
They are also missing the forcing of a break on a 2nd down, rather than a first. That is a break in play giving your defense rest to stop one less down to force the 3 and out. Now, obviously, it didn't work, so it looks like a bad idea to all the armchair NFL coaches we got on this forum.
You know Denver is going to milk the clock and run. Forcing them to commit to a play before the 2 minute warning gives your defense some rest to stop the next two plays.
IAteYourMother
Lifer
- Nov 3, 2004
- 10,491
- 22
- 81
I was glad that Harbaugh ran out onto the field. Never trust the refs/booth to make the right decision. Hell, they let the clock wind down an extra 3 seconds which is the difference between getting another TD attempt. What's to stop the incompetent buffoons from just running out the entire clock?
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,994
- 31,557
- 146
which is why I don't get the "free pass" play argument being made at 2:02. Why would anyone expect Denver to pass, much less why would Denver pass?
Far more opportunity to create a turnover. The fact that the clock stops after that play is irrelevant. Everyone expects Denver to run the ball on any following play--clock management, yes, but also because of the increased likelihood of not turning the ball over.
That's a logical fallacy, if everybody else does it, it has to be correct. Most NFL coaches are conservative because being "bold" labels you a "riverboat gambler" and risks you losing your job. Not everybody is secure in their position like Belichick or even Harbaugh (either one) and can afford to take the non-standard play even if it's the better one. The reason is simple, let's say a particular situation has a positive outcome only 20% of the time. Do you want to be conventional when the outcome fails 80% of the time or do you want to look like a lunatic?
This is explained well in the book Scorecasting. I know it's an entirely different game, but there's a successful high school football coach who never punts and doesn't even keep a functional punter because he's looked at the probabilities and has decided punting is the sub-optimal decision. Now nobody in the NFL would ever do that particular play, but that doesn't mean established doctrine is always right.
Back to the game itself, with just one timeout, the Chargers absolutely had to force a turnover to get the snowball's chance of tying/winning the contest. Again, this is not the NBA. 2 seconds is just not that important because the clock hardly ever stops immediately on the whistle anyway. ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, if you miraculously get the ball back with enough time to run at least a few plays, every head coach will trade 2 seconds for a time out.
You need to tune out the noise that the Chargers were fucked anyway after blowing 3rd and 17, or that they couldn't stop the Broncos from moving the chains. Those are all irrelevant to the decision they had at 2:02.
Most teams won't pass because of the increased risk factor, but calling the TO at 2:02 allows the Broncos the chance to think about it. A few teams trust their QB enough that they'll entertain the thought (i.e. the teams that have Peyton, Tom Brady, or Aaron Rodgers). Didn't someone mention yesterday that the Broncos threw on 1st down at 2:02 in the actual game?
SSSnail
Lifer
- Nov 29, 2006
- 17,458
- 83
- 86
I hate myself for keeping this going, but what exactly do you mean by if they don't call that timeout, Denver runs out the clock? Even if you just look at it from clock stoppage perspective, what you said made no sense.
So in your scenario, if SD hadn't call that timeout, the game clock would have stopped at 2 minute mark. Once play resumes, the game clock is stopped (until the ball is hiked) while the play clock continued ticking, and SD still have one timeout... So I'm really confused with what you said.
So to you it makes more sense to do the thing that only has a positive outcome 10% of the time? 5% of the time? Its pretty simply...20% outcome is better than any value less that 20.
I haven't read anything in depth on this coach, just a couple of articles to understand the point you are trying to make. He almost never punts. He looked at the stats and figured when it made sense and when there was no benefit. He is basing it on numbers, not hoping something improbable might happen just because he is doing something different.
http://swtimes.com/columns-blogs/steve-brawner/commentary-pulaski-academys-coach-kelley-congress
Now the article didnt say what his teams 4th conversion rate was, but it must have higher than the difference of his teams 4th down success rate at various distances vs punting on 4th down on his goal line.
Sportscasting might imply that some of the stuff coaches do merely risk aversion, but that implies the coaches are doing the safest thing possible. The numbers are still in their favor. A couple of years ago in the playoffs the Patriots went for it on 4th down, in their own territory, and it didnt work out. It gave the Colts a shot field and then the game. USC did a similar thing in the BCS title game against Texas, and again, they failed, gave Texas a shorter field. Now I would think the Patriots could get a yard in that scenario, and the way Lendale White was running all game I would have thought they could get a yard as well. Even if you looked at stats, you could probably justify it, until you look at the game situation. But hindsight is always 100%. Those teams in those situations, you dont expect them to fail. And if the Patriots or USC (in their prime) couldnt do it, lesser teams would have a hard time justifying it.
Doing the "risky" play doesnt always work out, otherwise it wouldnt be risky. While I agree that coaches are somewhat protecting their careers, the way they protect themselves is by winning. No one saves their jobs by playing it safe and losing.
How are you saving this timeout? You need the ball back first, and the odds are the only way you do it is by forcing a punt. The odds of forcing a turnover are far less likely, because the other team knows this as well. 2nd down at 2:02 or first down at 2:00 still means you need to use a timeout to get the ball.
I'm not even sure why you are bringing this up. This was only discussed in the context of the failure of the Chargers in general to force a punt in the last 4 minutes, and that was their best opportunity.
The announcer doing the play by play described it in a surprised delivery, since it was unexpected. Whats funny is the only reason some people in the thread are saying take the timeout after the 2 min warning was because of Mannings pass. A 3 yard pass. If thats the only safe play Manning could do SD would give him that all day. It was the 6 and 5 yard runs after the pass that sealed the game.
Last edited:
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,994
- 31,557
- 146
I thought this pic that contrasts Russell Wilson and Kaep was funmy.
It's been posted before and shown to be terribly unfair to Kaep. I don't really like Kaep, but I do agree--he does a lot of stuff off the field for kids, as well, but it would be generally unfair to compare anyone to saint Wilson, obviously.
A play takes around 45-50 second off the game clock when the clock is moving. Denver was talking 45-46 sec off the clock per play. 2nd down at the 2 min mark means Denver will have to punt if they do not get a first down. 1st down at 2 min mark means Denver can run out the clock without needing to punt, so SD is going to have to use that timeout regardless.
As the game played out, Denver snapped 3rd down at 1:12. If they did not convert it, then would have had to punt at :36. Now, if its 1st down at the 2:00, third down is run at :30 or less. Then you run the play, stop them, then call timeout. You are left with less time than if you would have called the time out before the 2 min mark.
Once the ball is hiked, the game clock ticks. Play ends, then the play clock starts over when the refs signal to start the play clock, but now its moving at the same time as the game clock. The game clock doesnt stop when a play is over, unless when the play goes out of bounds, time out, defensive penalty (under 2 minutes), change of possession, etc.
forget it, this argument is pointless.
I don't see how an assertion to always make the optimal move even in dire circumstances is interpreted as a suggestion to take a risky play that decreases one's chances of a successful outcome. The point is simply to make the "better" play even if the overall chances of success are small regardless; and that your blanket suggestion that the standard play must be the right play is dubious.
In the absence of data, we can only make logical arguments on yesterday's actual game situation. It's been rehashed over and over, so I won't bother repeating.
Since you asked how you're saving the time out, it's very simple. If you force a fumble and recover it on the very next play, you've kept your time out. If you didn't gain possession on that play, you can burn the TO immediately and you're right where you were anyway (less 2 seconds). Just because forcing the fumble is highly improbable doesn't mean you can't strategically spend your final time out.
Glad you brought up two other "riverboat" examples though. It's arguable, but there was a statistician who computed that Belichick made the right call on that 4th and short play. If you believe the probabilities, BB picked the play that optimized their chances of winning.
I also think Pete Carroll made the right call as well; his 2005 team had a relatively weak defense and wasn't containing Vince Young. Two things went wrong on that play, first I'm pretty sure they went with Reggie Bush instead of LenDale White who's a better short yardage back. That's on the coach. The main thing that determined the outcome was Longhorns' safety Michael Huff made a ridiculous play to stuff the run.
edit: I remembered wrong, Huff stopped White.
I don't see how an assertion to always make the optimal move even in dire circumstances is interpreted as a suggestion to take a risky play that decreases one's chances of a successful outcome. The point is simply to make the "better" play even if the overall chances of success are small regardless; and that your blanket suggestion that the standard play must be the right play is dubious.
In the absence of data, we can only make logical arguments on yesterday's actual game situation. It's been rehashed over and over, so I won't bother repeating.
Since you asked how you're saving the time out, it's very simple. If you force a fumble and recover it on the very next play, you've kept your time out. If you didn't gain possession on that play, you can burn the TO immediately and you're right where you were anyway (less 2 seconds). Just because forcing the fumble is highly improbable doesn't mean you can't strategically spend your final time out.
Glad you brought up two other "riverboat" examples though. It's arguable, but there was a statistician who computed that Belichick made the right call on that 4th and short play. If you believe the probabilities, BB picked the play that optimized their chances of winning.
I also think Pete Carroll made the right call as well; his 2005 team had a relatively weak defense and wasn't containing Vince Young. Two things went wrong on that play, first I'm pretty sure they went with Reggie Bush instead of LenDale White who's a better short yardage back. That's on the coach. The main thing that determined the outcome was Longhorns' safety Michael Huff made a ridiculous play to stuff the run.
edit: I remembered wrong, Huff stopped White.
Last edited:
Fingolfin269
Lifer
- Feb 28, 2003
- 17,948
- 34
- 91
Yep, Denver is probably screwed now. Of course when they lose it will be Peyton's fault.
Imported
Lifer
- Sep 2, 2000
- 14,679
- 23
- 81
Not saying anything.. but Wilson is married. Not like he's a single, star athlete.
A couple of weeks after a penalty on the 49ers, followed by Harbaugh complaining the announcer goes "...and Jim Harbaugh firmly believes his team has never committed a penalty."
I'm saying its the play with the best chance, so yeah, the right play. But if we are arguing on what the actual optimal move is, there is nowhere to go with this.
Well, if you know for sure you are going to get a fumble, then sure, by all means, save the timeout! But thats essentially lottery style gambling. SD gambled earlier with the onside kick, which did pay off, but that probably has much higher odds of success than Denver running the ball under two minutes and simply fumbling.
I think he did as well, because he as Tom Brady. If Faulk didn't juggle the ball it probably would have worked. But the reason coaches dont do it is because the risk is too high. Its hard for a team to score from farther away with less time than it is to score from a shorter distance with the same amount of time. Its pretty simple.
I agree as well in this instance, considering USC did this kind of thing several times in their championship years. And White was averaging like 5+ yards a carry all game. If it wasnt USC, or a team with a big running QB like Vince Young or Cam Newton, I would say punt it. But the outcome is why most coaches would have punted. This kind of risk even bit Saban in the butt against Auburn. Long field goals have been run back for touchdowns in recent years, but he did it anyway. But then maybe one can argue that Auburn had unrealistic expectations of running it back, so why even bother. But thats what teams do now because it works every now and then. The odds might have been greater if they attempted a field goal block, but that also can result in an off sides call, or roughing the kicker. So I think they simply did the safest thing, and it paid off. It usually does. Most of these teams are so evenly matched, one mistake can be the difference in the game.
I dont know what the stats are on this, but for every time a 4th down is converted, I would think the number of times it failed is much higher. I think the basis for thinking its better to go on 4th down is because of the assumption that 4th downs are treated like 3rd downs, and it ignores the game situation. I think when this always go for it on 4th down talk started the stats said it was basically a coin flip. It would be interesting to see data on some other factors when it works and when it doesnt. Although I wouldnt doubt that it might be in favor in going for it, because the teams that likely to do it are good to great teams to begin with. Some teams like the 49ers, Patriots, Colts, Saints, Packers, etc would probably inflate the numbers, with most of the teams hardly ever trying it, and the ones that do, failing all the time. It would be interesting to see none the less.
Last edited:
KLin
Lifer
- Feb 29, 2000
- 30,932
- 1,060
- 126
I thought this pic that contrasts Russell Wilson and Kaep was funmy.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-s...comparison-is-totally-off-base-182213225.html
I don't see the Patriots moving from the run-base offense unless Denver stuffs a few 3 and out's in a row then you've got to start throwing, PM is playing at too high a level and he will start putting up points quickly, he had a determined look about him after the Chargers game AND it was played in very windy conditions and he threw it close to perfectly.
Capt Caveman
Lifer
- Jan 30, 2005
- 34,543
- 651
- 126
CB Harris is out for the rest of the playoffs with a torn ACL for Denver. I can see NE being more balanced 50/50 run/pass against Denver b/c of how depleted their secondary is.
I think the problem will be if NE can put any pressure on Manning. I think NE's secondary can match up with Denver. Talib on D.Thomas, Collins on J.Thomas, Dennard on Decker and Arringont/Logan on Welker with McCourty and Gregory free.
I think the Pats might be a bit more pass heavy until they get the lead. The, they are going to let Blount pound that. Turtle as hard as possible. Even if they get only field goals or punts, as long as they are taking 8+ minutes per drive from the clock.
Pats will keep the ball away from Manning as much as possible. Should be interesting.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter