Game Balls and Jockstraps: Atlanta at Dallas

[buddy_z34]

5 hours ago, Rtnldave said:

You have a better chance of seeing God.

Keep playing fast and loose, it will bite us sooner or later.

2 failed fake punts.

Failed 2 point conversion.

I suppose going for it on 4th down only losing by 3 and passing up the chipshot tying FG in game 1 was the "right choice?"

Imbecile!

3 out of those 5 plays would have worked if the players had executed the calls properly. Just because they didnt work doesnt mean they were bad calls. 

[Texas_OutLaw7]

8 hours ago, Nextyearfordaboyz said:

Well, it was nice talking to you when you weren’t name calling. 

Goodnight.

Knowing Dave, he was probably calling the coaching staff imbeciles. He get's worked up like this and his message lacks any sort of uniformity. It's why I call him irrational dave. For a teacher, he dives deep on conspiracy theories. 

[Rtnldave]

6 hours ago, buddy_z34 said:

3 out of those 5 plays would have worked if the players had executed the calls properly. Just because they didnt work doesnt mean they were bad calls. 

Right, and if I had wheels I'd be a wagon.

[Rtnldave]

26 minutes ago, Texas_OutLaw7 said:

Knowing Dave, he was probably calling the coaching staff imbeciles. He get's worked up like this and his message lacks any sort of uniformity. It's why I call him irrational dave. For a teacher, he dives deep on conspiracy theories. 

Thank you. Sorry if that was misinterpreted.

[Rtnldave]

54 minutes ago, Texas_OutLaw7 said:

Knowing Dave, he was probably calling the coaching staff imbeciles. He get's worked up like this and his message lacks any sort of uniformity. It's why I call him irrational dave. For a teacher, he dives deep on conspiracy theories. 

Although, this is not a conspiracy theory, rather it is a coach that is trying to hard to make an impression of "winning at any cost." 

Some of these play calls seemed desperate when there was plenty of time left in the game. Sometimes more than once.

 

[DaBoys]

1 hour ago, Rtnldave said:

Although, this is not a conspiracy theory, rather it is a coach that is trying to hard to make an impression of "winning at any cost." 

Some of these play calls seemed desperate when there was plenty of time left in the game. Sometimes more than once.

 

McCarthy's calls and whether I agreed with them at the time:

 

Going for it on 4th and 5 in the redzone down by 3 in the 4th quarter in week one: 
I did not agree. Really wanted to tie the game there.

 

Going for a fake punt down 17-0 in the first quarter of week two: 

I agreed. I thought it was a great call, and was surprised by it. Surprised the Falcons too and should have been executed.

 

Going for a 2nd fake punt in the same game: I did not agree. The surprise element from the first fake was gone, so the call made no sense. I would have rather let my offense try 4th and 5 if there is no surprise value in the fake.

 

Going for a 2pt instead of making it a one score game: Mostly indifferent. You knew you had to hit a 2pt conversion if you wanted to win. Whether we tried then or tried on our hypothetical next score didn’t really matter to me. It was going to have to be called. I lean towards taking the kick there, but like I said, it doesn’t really matter. I damn sure didn’t like spreading the defense out and running a pitch outside to Zeke on that play. Zeke had been running them over all day. I don’t know why we tried to finesse that one, but I don’t disagree with the decision to go for it.

 

 

Edited September 24, 2020 by DaBoys

[Nextyearfordaboyz]

9 hours ago, buddy_z34 said:

3 out of those 5 plays would have worked if the players had executed the calls properly. Just because they didnt work doesnt mean they were bad calls. 

I've used this analogy a bunch on here, but I'll say it again:

If you are playing blackjack and you hit on an 19, it doesn't matter whether a 2 comes up, you made the wrong decision. Over the long-run, the odds work themselves out and you will be worse off making decisions like that. Conversely, what if you don't hit on 19, then see that a 2 was, in fact, the next card? Well, that's ok! You made the right decision, and over the long haul, you'll be better off for it.

As a decision-maker, Mike McCarthy has to calculate the expected value of any given decision at the time he has to make that decision. (That may sound obvious, but apparently it isn't)

• The 2-point conversion was clear-cut. Our win probability was higher by going for it early.  
• The 4th & 3 in game 1 is quite a bit murkier from an analytics standpoint, but you can make a really strong argument that he made the right decision there. On the flip side, I think you could make a strong argument that the preceding 3rd down play, with the apparent goal of *getting to 4th down*, was foolish.
• The first fake punt, I certainly agree could fall into the "fast & loose" camp. But I don't hate them too much for trying to make something happen in a game where nothing is going well. But if that play wasn't your jam, I don't blame you (royal you).
• The second fake punt was certainly dumb, in my opinion. If you really want to go for it (which would have been a murky decision itself), let Dak have a shot at it.

[Nextyearfordaboyz]

10 minutes ago, DaBoys said:

Going for a 2pt instead of making it a one score game: Mostly indifferent. You knew you had to hit a 2pt conversion if you wanted to win. Whether we tried then or tried on our hypothetical next score didn’t really matter to me. It was going to have to be called. I lean towards taking the kick there, but like I said, it doesn’t really matter. I damn sure didn’t like spreading the defense out and running a pitch outside to Zeke on that play. Zeke had been running them over all day. I don’t know why we tried to finesse that one, but I don’t disagree with the decision to go for it.

Mostly indifferent is probably the right attitude on this one. The win probability change is a fraction of a %, probably. I've just gotten riled up because people are so passionately arguing against the side with that slightly higher win probability 🤣

I also very much agree with you on the play call. 

[Rtnldave]

4 minutes ago, Nextyearfordaboyz said:

I've used this analogy a bunch on here, but I'll say it again:

If you are playing blackjack and you hit on an 19, it doesn't matter whether a 2 comes up, you made the wrong decision. Over the long-run, the odds work themselves out and you will be worse off making decisions like that. Conversely, what if you don't hit on 19, then see that a 2 was, in fact, the next card? Well, that's ok! You made the right decision, and over the long haul, you'll be better off for it.

As a decision-maker, Mike McCarthy has to calculate the expected value of any given decision at the time he has to make that decision. (That may sound obvious, but apparently it isn't)

• The 2-point conversion was clear-cut. Our win probability was higher by going for it early.  
• The 4th & 3 in game 1 is quite a bit murkier from an analytics standpoint, but you can make a really strong argument that he made the right decision there. On the flip side, I think you could make a strong argument that the preceding 3rd down play, with the apparent goal of *getting to 4th down*, was foolish.
• The first fake punt, I certainly agree could fall into the "fast & loose" camp. But I don't hate them too much for trying to make something happen in a game where nothing is going well. But if that play wasn't your jam, I don't blame you (royal you).
• The second fake punt was certainly dumb, in my opinion. If you really want to go for it (which would have been a murky decision itself), let Dak have a shot at it.

Good breakdown of your POV. 

And I can see where the 1st fake punt was favorable in that it did catch Atl off guard. 

Down 17 and giving them another short if it failed would have been enough for me to kick it away. Most of their points to that point have come off short fields if I'm not mistaken. I wouldn't risk another, but that's me.

My fear is that McCarthy is taking a page from Pederson's book and going for it on almost every 4th down, being overly aggressive in almost every situation and in Doug's 5 years that paid off once. It has also led to an 0 and 2 start in Philly and damn near here.

We could very well be 2-0 had we kicked the tying FG in LA. 

Then we wouldn't have to rely on officials bad calls or desperate bombs late in the game. That often leads to injuries because of the hurried nature of the plays and players in panic mode.

 

[Nextyearfordaboyz]

11 minutes ago, Rtnldave said:

And I can see where the 1st fake punt was favorable in that it did catch Atl off guard. 

Down 17 and giving them another short if it failed would have been enough for me to kick it away. Most of their points to that point have come off short fields if I'm not mistaken. I wouldn't risk another, but that's me.

I think this is fair.

12 minutes ago, Rtnldave said:

My fear is that McCarthy is taking a page from Pederson's book and going for it on almost every 4th down, being overly aggressive in almost every situation and in Doug's 5 years that paid off once. It has also led to an 0 and 2 start in Philly and damn near here.

Philosophically speaking, it's going to be a rare occurrence where an NFL coach is willing to go for it on a 4th down and I disagree with it. In my opinion, the NFL is *way* too conservative on this. So, honestly, I hope McCarthy is like Doug Pederson.

I realize I'm not going to convince you on this. But just like in my blackjack analogy, you can lose making the right decision and win making the wrong one. But at the end of the day, the only reason you can/should be mad at yourself is if you don't maximize your chances to be successful. And there is a ton of reason to believe that expected value of going for it on 4th down (and short) is greater than the EV of kicking.

19 minutes ago, Rtnldave said:

We could very well be 2-0 had we kicked the tying FG in LA. 

And had we waited until the 2nd TD to go for 2, we very well could be 0-2. Again, making the right decision is not about guaranteeing success, it is about maximizing your potential for success.

[TheGame316]

5 minutes ago, Nextyearfordaboyz said:

I think this is fair.

Philosophically speaking, it's going to be a rare occurrence where an NFL coach is willing to go for it on a 4th down and I disagree with it. In my opinion, the NFL is *way* too conservative on this. So, honestly, I hope McCarthy is like Doug Pederson.

I realize I'm not going to convince you on this. But just like in my blackjack analogy, you can lose making the right decision and win making the wrong one. But at the end of the day, the only reason you can/should be mad at yourself is if you don't maximize your chances to be successful. And there is a ton of reason to believe that expected value of going for it on 4th down (and short) is greater than the EV of kicking.

And had we waited until the 2nd TD to go for 2, we very well could be 0-2. Again, making the right decision is not about guaranteeing success, it is about maximizing your potential for success.

The way I look at it, If you could go into a game knowing exactly how many points you needed to score to win, would that be an advantage?

At kickoff if you knew you had 60 minutes to score 40 points, would you potentially call the game differently than if you knew you had 60 minutes and all you needed was 13 points to win?

Of course it would be an advantage, you could taylor your offensive game to take more or less risks knowing what you needed to produce. Now, in reality, you shouldn't, you should always play to score the maximum amount of points regardless, but knowing you needed 40 would probably lead you to being more aggressive than if you only needed 13, you'd likely be way more conservative and play it safe

Down 15, you need 2 TD's an XP and a 2 point convert to tie. You miss the 2 point convert and now you need an onside kick recovery and a FG, regardless of which order. Given we missed the 2 point, from an analytical standpoint take that out of the equation and assume that down 15 we were going to need 2 TDs 1 XP and a FG to win

How you play that final 5 minutes is going to be vastly different if you know you need another TD and an XP vs needing a TD an XP and a FG, So it's better to get your answer on the 2 point convert out of the way as soon as possible

Here's a question

Assume you score a TD with 0:00 time on the clock and need an XP to tie the game and go to Overtime, but a 2 point conversion has a 55% success rate, Do you go for the win or do you kick the XP and play for overtime?

 

[Nextyearfordaboyz]

1 hour ago, TheGame316 said:

Assume you score a TD with 0:00 time on the clock and need an XP to tie the game and go to Overtime, but a 2 point conversion has a 55% success rate, Do you go for the win or do you kick the XP and play for overtime?

This is a more complicated question. 

There can be legitimate variability in your chances of winning in overtime. It's not necessarily accurate to say you have a 50/50 shot. Like, if you were a heavy favorite going into the game, are the home team, and haven't suffered any major injuries, I would guess you have a better than 55% chance of winning the game in OT.

Also, I don't think there is a lot of data to show that you actually have a 55% of converting a 2 point attempt.

That said, if you calculate that your chances of winning in OT are lower than the chances of converting the 2-point attempt, going for it is an easy choice. But as a decision maker, you need to make sure that you are honest with yourself about what the real percentages are.

[quiller]

DaBoys and Nextyear have really hit the nail on the head as far as I am concerned.
 

I would add on point about decision making in terms of going for it on 4th down and playing for overtime or the win.  Some of these decisions are based on the point is it a surprise or not and what I consider what happens if you fail versus if you succeed.   I understand you never want to give the ball on your side of the field but if your D has “little” chance of stopping the other offense then it matters little if you give them the ball on the 50 or their 20.   This same idea goes to overtime the new rules change things a little but if you have zero trust in you D or your ability to kick FG’s overtime might not be a good idea.   That is one reason why I felt going for it the first time made some sense.  The second one IMO was iffy and the call didn’t match the situation and defensive alignment.  For the record Liked then going for two but the play call was on if the few the whole game that left me saying  are you kidding you called that

Edited September 24, 2020 by quiller

[Rtnldave]

10 hours ago, TheGame316 said:

The way I look at it, If you could go into a game knowing exactly how many points you needed to score to win, would that be an advantage?

At kickoff if you knew you had 60 minutes to score 40 points, would you potentially call the game differently than if you knew you had 60 minutes and all you needed was 13 points to win?

Of course it would be an advantage, you could taylor your offensive game to take more or less risks knowing what you needed to produce. Now, in reality, you shouldn't, you should always play to score the maximum amount of points regardless, but knowing you needed 40 would probably lead you to being more aggressive than if you only needed 13, you'd likely be way more conservative and play it safe

Down 15, you need 2 TD's an XP and a 2 point convert to tie. You miss the 2 point convert and now you need an onside kick recovery and a FG, regardless of which order. Given we missed the 2 point, from an analytical standpoint take that out of the equation and assume that down 15 we were going to need 2 TDs 1 XP and a FG to win

How you play that final 5 minutes is going to be vastly different if you know you need another TD and an XP vs needing a TD an XP and a FG, So it's better to get your answer on the 2 point convert out of the way as soon as possible

Here's a question

Assume you score a TD with 0:00 time on the clock and need an XP to tie the game and go to Overtime, but a 2 point conversion has a 55% success rate, Do you go for the win or do you kick the XP and play for overtime?

 

I finally see the argument. You are arguing that you need the points so get them asap. Regardless of the fact that if you miss, you STILL have to score another TD and then try the OSK.

My argument is about increasing your opportunities at the end of the game from 1 to 2.

In a nutshell, the first approach is aggressive and may pay off. It didn't in LA and cost us the game.

It almost did here but because they pulled a miracle out of their ***, it gives your argument credibility.

Okay, I will play along, but if these "aggresive" play calls continue to cost us games, don't blame the officials or Prescott or the tooth fairy, know that giving your opponent short fields or having to rely on a prayer of an onside kick to have a chance to win is the price you pay for being this aggresive.

This is going to be fun!