Bad Timeouts and Questionable Strategic Decision Making

I thought it might be nice to create a catch-all thread to discuss coaching decisions of a good, bad or questionable nature as the NFL season goes along.
 
My prompt for doing this was a timeout Dan Quinn took for the Falcons against the Giants on Sunday. It's always interesting to see how first-time head coaches adapt to clock management responsibilities, and Quinn did something...well, I'm not sure it was bad, but it certainly struck me as unusual. You'll probably recall that the Giants took a terrible delay of game penalty coming out of Atlanta's second timeout with 3:27 to go: at that point the Giants led 20-17, and after the penalty the Giants had 3rd and 12 from their own 34. On the resulting play, Eli Manning completed a short five-yard pass to Geremy Davis, after which Quinn immediately called the Falcons final timeout with 3:23 to go. After the resulting punt and return, Atlanta had the ball at their own 30 with 3:12 to go and no timeouts; had they not called the timeout, they probably would have had the ball at their own 30 with maybe 2:30 to go and one timeout. (For decision-making purposes, you'd probably have to assume slightly worse field position; the Giants averaged 38.6 net punting yards in 2014 and 42.0 net punting yards so far in 2015, so let's say you'd expect the Falcons would start at their own 20 instead of the 30.)
 
I felt at the time like that timeout call was a mistake, and in retrospect I feel even more strongly about that. Realistically, the Falcons are going to get only one possession to try and tie or win the game either way, and for a QB like Matt Ryan who is very capable in the two-minute drill, either scenario leaves him loads of time. But not calling the timeout lets you keep more control over the clock yourself: that's not so important if you're struggling to move the ball, but it could have been hugely important after a quick Falcons touchdown. Indeed, Ryan promptly started marching the Falcons down the field, and his long pass to Julio Jones on the first play after the two-minute warning was initially ruled a touchdown, which would have left Eli Manning 1:53 and all three timeouts to drive in the other direction. Luckily for the Falcons, that ruling was overturned; even more luckily for the Falcons, Tom Coughlin then failed to immediately call the Giants' first timeout, so after two running plays by Devonta Freeman led to a touchdown, the Giants were left needing to go 80 yards with only 1:14 and two timeouts, a challenge Manning ultimately failed to complete.
 
Is that fair analysis, or does anyone think Quinn's decision to call the final timeout either was good or had little overall impact?
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,058
Hingham, MA
Agree with you on this one. Usually coaches are too late to call time outs in my opinion, but in this case, they would still have been getting the ball back before the 2 minute warning and as you said the ability to control when you could stop the clock is more important in that situation than the 40 seconds they saved with the early timeout. 2:30 and 3:10 are both an eternity in the NFL, with or without timeouts.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
Perhaps this was discussed in the game thread or somewhere else regarding the Bills game.
 
Mea culpa, if so.
 
But did others wonder why the Pats did not attempt to draw the Bills offside on the 4th down before Ghost kicked the FG to put them up by 8?  I thought that Brady would hard count and they would call time out if the Bills did not bite.  To me, that a TO that should have been used.  If the Bills had jumped off side, I believe that the Pats could have either killed the clock and if not, they would have come very close to that.
 
What am I missing?
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
I like that idea but wouldn't bother to use the timeout, FG is 30 yards post delay of game.
 
That decision doesn't belong in a coaching mistakes thread as it wont hold a candle to the atrocities committed on a weekly basis in the NFL. 
 
Quinn timeout seemed marginal, I see arguments both ways.
 
Looking at the play by play, Coughlin didn't fail to call TO anywhere.  Play-by-play shows a declined defensive holding against the Giants on the Jones play so the clock  should have stopped.
 
Thought Pagano not calling TO with 45 seconds left and three timeouts already down 10 to the Jets was dumb.  That's basically throwing away a possession in a game you are already losing.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
5,597
02130
Rex trying to challenge an unchallengeable call that would have changed a 4th and 15 to a 4th and 9 was pretty great..
 

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
I forget which game it was now (it had to be Sunday night or Monday night) but it was the coach challenging a play where the runner was ruled down by contact just short of the goal line instead of a fumble.

I have to think the coach is relying on someone upstairs watching the replays to tell him to challenge. If so, they should be fired.

The stupid part of the challenge was that the alternative result of the play could only be a TD. The ball wasn't stripped until at the very end of the play when he was stretching over the goal line.

So no matter what, you are either losing a timeout (huge pile of people so no definitive view would exist) or the ball would have broken the plane before the fumble and you gave your opponent a TD using your challenge. Congratulations!!!
 

Dogman

Yukon Cornelius
Moderator
SoSH Member
Mar 19, 2004
15,181
Missoula, MT
Toe Nash said:
Rex trying to challenge an unchallengeable call that would have changed a 4th and 15 to a 4th and 9 was pretty great..
 
As it turns out, he was correct.  Moreover, in that situation, 1Q, up 7 or tied at home with a very loud crowd, field position is very important.  I thought it was a great challenge and one BB would have challenged as well.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
5,597
02130
Dogman2 said:
 
As it turns out, he was correct.  Moreover, in that situation, 1Q, up 7 or tied at home with a very loud crowd, field position is very important.  I thought it was a great challenge and one BB would have challenged as well.
No way.
 
He probably was right. But he'd use one of his two challenges to gain 6 yards of field position. They were at their own 23 so it's not like it would get them out of the end zone either, nor would it be likely to help them pin the Pats against their own end zone. The ensuing punt ended up going to the NE 28 and Amendola returned it for 10 yards...and the first play was a 16-yard pass to Dobson which erased any field position difference. NE was likely starting somewhere around their own 25-35 regardless. It was a useless challenge.
 
Plus, it wasn't reviewable...
 

Dogman

Yukon Cornelius
Moderator
SoSH Member
Mar 19, 2004
15,181
Missoula, MT
Toe Nash said:
No way.
 
He probably was right. But he'd use one of his two challenges to gain 6 yards of field position. They were at their own 23 so it's not like it would get them out of the end zone either, nor would it be likely to help them pin the Pats against their own end zone. The ensuing punt ended up going to the NE 28 and Amendola returned it for 10 yards...and the first play was a 16-yard pass to Dobson which erased any field position difference. NE was likely starting somewhere around their own 25-35 regardless. It was a useless challenge.
 
Plus, it wasn't reviewable...
 
 
What happened after the punt or where you think NE would have started with the ball is immaterial here, it had not happened yet. When Rex questioned the spot he was absolutely correct.  If you are found to be correct on two challenges, you are awarded a third.  So, if found to be correct, he would have been half way there. Either way, it wasn't a poor choice to try and challenge it.  
 
Situational and complementary football. Two staples of BB coaching.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
That was a terrible challenge even if he wins it 100% of the time.
 
Its not as bad now that so many plays are automatically reviewed, but its still bad given the change of possession and where it is on the field.
 
More amusing than anything thought, affect on win equity is pretty small.
 

amarshal2

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2005
4,913
Dogman2 said:
 
 
What happened after the punt or where you think NE would have started with the ball is immaterial here, it had not happened yet. When Rex questioned the spot he was absolutely correct.  If you are found to be correct on two challenges, you are awarded a third.  So, if found to be correct, he would have been half way there. Either way, it wasn't a poor choice to try and challenge it.  
 
Situational and complementary football. Two staples of BB coaching.
 
But it was way too close of a play to know he was going to win before the challenge.  You are analyzing this with the hindsight of knowing he was going to win.  In reality, he was risking a challenge and a time out for a 50% (?) chance at 6 yards that did not affect possession.  It was silly.
 

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
edmunddantes said:
I forget which game it was now (it had to be Sunday night or Monday night) but it was the coach challenging a play where the runner was ruled down by contact just short of the goal line instead of a fumble.

I have to think the coach is relying on someone upstairs watching the replays to tell him to challenge. If so, they should be fired.

The stupid part of the challenge was that the alternative result of the play could only be a TD. The ball wasn't stripped until at the very end of the play when he was stretching over the goal line.

So no matter what, you are either losing a timeout (huge pile of people so no definitive view would exist) or the ball would have broken the plane before the fumble and you gave your opponent a TD using your challenge. Congratulations!!!
I found it.
 
It was the Jets game. 
 
 
 


  • 1st and Goal at NYJ 3
    (6:34) (Shotgun) J.Robinson up the middle to NYJ 1 for 2 yards (D.Harris, C.Pryor). New York Jets challenged the runner was down by contact ruling, and the play was Upheld. The ruling on the field stands. (Timeout #1.)


  • 2nd and Goal at NYJ 1
    (6:02) (Run formation) J.Reitz and D.Parry reported in as eligible. F.Gore up the middle to NYJ 1 for no gain (D.Davis).


  • 3rd and Goal at NYJ 1
    (5:21) (Run formation) J.Reitz and D.Parry reported in as eligible. F.Gore left end to NYJ 1 for no gain. FUMBLES, RECOVERED by NYJ-D.Revis at NYJ 1. D.Revis to NYJ 1 for no gain (J.Doyle). The Replay Official reviewed the loose ball recovery ruling, and the play was REVERSED. (Run formation) J.Reitz and D.Parry reported in as eligible. F.Gore left end to NYJ 1 for no gain. FUMBLES, RECOVERED by NYJ-D.Revis at NYJ 0. Touchback. PENALTY on NYJ-D.Davis, Unsportsmanlike Conduct, 10 
Forgot it preceded the fumble by Gore, so the outcome would have been even worse.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
Stich01, I agree that as mistakes go, Bill's regarding the failure to try to draw the Bills offside was relatively minor.  But at the time, no one I was watching the game with could understand why they didn't try that.  Success would have effectively ended the game.  And I would have called a time out and saved the 5 yards if Buffalo did not jump, as there was not much of a reason to preserve time outs there, and why make the kick harder for no reason?
 
And if we stay on Bill's decisions, I thought the 4th and 1 pass play to Edelman late in the game was pretty questionable.  If it works, it looks brilliant, but Brady is almost automatic on sneaks and on that particular play, the Bills's front was not as packed in pre-snap as I would have expected.  Even with the quality big guys they have, and even with the Pats' rookies at center and guard, I would have liked Tom's chances of picking up the necessary distance.  And even if they didn't want to try that for whatever reason, a shorter pass would have made a lot more sense. 
 
I grant you that Bill's "mistakes" almost always pale when compared to the gaffes of others.  Still, both decisions surprised me a lot given how great Belichick is.   
 

amarshal2

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2005
4,913
TheoShmeo said:
Stich01, I agree that as mistakes go, Bill's regarding the failure to try to draw the Bills offside was relatively minor.  But at the time, no one I was watching the game with could understand why they didn't try that.  Success would have effectively ended the game.  And I would have called a time out and saved the 5 yards if Buffalo did not jump, as there was not much of a reason to preserve time outs there, and why make the kick harder for no reason?
 
And if we stay on Bill's decisions, I thought the 4th and 1 pass play to Edelman late in the game was pretty questionable.  If it works, it looks brilliant, but Brady is almost automatic on sneaks and on that particular play, the Bills's front was not as packed in pre-snap as I would have expected.  Even with the quality big guys they have, and even with the Pats' rookies at center and guard, I would have liked Tom's chances of picking up the necessary distance.  And even if they didn't want to try that for whatever reason, a shorter pass would have made a lot more sense. 
 
I grant you that Bill's "mistakes" almost always pale when compared to the gaffes of others.  Still, both decisions surprised me a lot given how great Belichick is.   
 
I actually wondered if he did it to put it on tape and have it in the backs of the minds of NFL coaches later in the season when more was on the line.  Such is the state of BB's genius that even his potential mistakes are thought to be brilliant moves of a man thinking many steps ahead.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
Yep, that occurred to me as well and allows me to make some sense of it.  Dan Koppen said something similar on the Comcast post-game show.  "Another thing for opposing coaches to think about." 
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
amarshal2 said:
 
I actually wondered if he did it to put it on tape and have it in the backs of the minds of NFL coaches later in the season when more was on the line.  Such is the state of BB's genius that even his potential mistakes are thought to be brilliant moves of a man thinking many steps ahead.
Crossed my mind too.  Theoretically you want to throw deep there some percentage of the time and that's almost the perfect game spot to do it.  Not like it was a forced throw or anything either, it was open for a TD they just didnt connect
 
TheoShmeo said:
Stich01, I agree that as mistakes go, Bill's regarding the failure to try to draw the Bills offside was relatively minor.  But at the time, no one I was watching the game with could understand why they didn't try that.  Success would have effectively ended the game.  And I would have called a time out and saved the 5 yards if Buffalo did not jump, as there was not much of a reason to preserve time outs there, and why make the kick harder for no reason?
 
And if we stay on Bill's decisions, I thought the 4th and 1 pass play to Edelman late in the game was pretty questionable.  If it works, it looks brilliant, but Brady is almost automatic on sneaks and on that particular play, the Bills's front was not as packed in pre-snap as I would have expected.  Even with the quality big guys they have, and even with the Pats' rookies at center and guard, I would have liked Tom's chances of picking up the necessary distance.  And even if they didn't want to try that for whatever reason, a shorter pass would have made a lot more sense. 
 
I grant you that Bill's "mistakes" almost always pale when compared to the gaffes of others.  Still, both decisions surprised me a lot given how great Belichick is.   
 
Id have tried it.  The only downside is that if you false start while trying to draw them off you stop the clock.  I just wouldnt have called the timeout afterwards and eaten the false start. Difference in chances between Ghost making a 25 and 30 yard FG isnt as valuable as a timeout.  Buffalo could score quickly and BB often uses timeouts on defense after he sees offensive looks on those drives.
 
Marginal spot all around. I dont think there was much difference between kicking a FG and going for it, Id have leaned slightly towards going for it up 4 rather than 5. 
 
EDIT: ran some numbers with what I think are reasonable assumptions and got kicking slightly better up 5 and going for it more clearly correct than I expected up 4.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,345
Philadelphia
TheoShmeo said:
And if we stay on Bill's decisions, I thought the 4th and 1 pass play to Edelman late in the game was pretty questionable.  If it works, it looks brilliant, but Brady is almost automatic on sneaks and on that particular play, the Bills's front was not as packed in pre-snap as I would have expected.  Even with the quality big guys they have, and even with the Pats' rookies at center and guard, I would have liked Tom's chances of picking up the necessary distance.  And even if they didn't want to try that for whatever reason, a shorter pass would have made a lot more sense.
 
I think a lot of times that Brady pulls the QB sneak, its not a set play called in from the sideline but a choice that he can audible to at the line based on what he sees from the defense.   I don't know whether or not he had that choice in this particular instance.  But its not completely clear to me that passing in that situation was entirely on BB.
 

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
I thought it's been covered in interviews that on that play Brady was designed to look for underneath stuff particularly Lewis, and the Bills had all of it covered up. Thus Brady went long because that was what was available to him.
 
I can see the argument for QB sneak over the play they did run, but I don't see it as egregious. The Pats had been doing fairly good all game tearing the Bills up on short stuff, and it just didn't work so Brady went for the open guy. 
 

Jettisoned

Member
SoSH Member
May 6, 2008
1,059
If someone has the all-22 they can look it up but I recall at least a few 3rd/4th and short plays where the Bills really crammed their D-Linemen into the middle, making a sneak pretty much impossible.
 

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
And it's not a truly egregious call strategically. There's a good argument for running the play they did, and it had a bad outcome. Which is not that same thing as a call that is doomed to failure from the start.
 
A good example be challenging a play where the only outcome is a lost timeout & challenge or an overturn that results in a TD for the other team.
 
Or 
 
choosing a pass play where every route is designed to go 3 yards and stop, when you are on 4th and 10.
 
Or 
 
not forcing your team into hurry up mode with 4 minutes left and down by 2 scores. 
 
Stitch01 said:
Quinn timeout seemed marginal, I see arguments both ways.
 
Looking at the play by play, Coughlin didn't fail to call TO anywhere.  Play-by-play shows a declined defensive holding against the Giants on the Jones play so the clock  should have stopped.
 
Just to quickly revisit this, I'm not quite sure what happened between the long catch by Jones and the two running plays by Freeman - Jones' catch ended with 1:48 on the clock, while the play-by-play says Freeman's first-down run started with 1:32 left and his touchdown run started with 1:20 left. I'm pretty sure (having watched the game live) that the clock started after the video review ended and Jones was ruled as being down short of the goal line; if that's the case, that was a refereeing error, right? Maybe they forgot about the declined defensive penalty, which might explain why Coughlin didn't call a timeout - he might have thought they didn't need to.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
edmunddantes said:
I thought it's been covered in interviews that on that play Brady was designed to look for underneath stuff particularly Lewis, and the Bills had all of it covered up. Thus Brady went long because that was what was available to him.
 
I can see the argument for QB sneak over the play they did run, but I don't see it as egregious. The Pats had been doing fairly good all game tearing the Bills up on short stuff, and it just didn't work so Brady went for the open gu
Different play, I think people are talking about the second one that looked like a designed bomb
 
Just to quickly revisit this, I'm not quite sure what happened between the long catch by Jones and the two running plays by Freeman - Jones' catch ended with 1:48 on the clock, while the play-by-play says Freeman's first-down run started with 1:32 left and his touchdown run started with 1:20 left. I'm pretty sure (having watched the game live) that the clock started after the video review ended and Jones was ruled as being down short of the goal line; if that's the case, that was a refereeing error, right? Maybe they forgot about the declined defensive penalty, which might explain why Coughlin didn't call a timeout - he might have thought they didn't need to.
 
Yup, it did run watching the replay and I think that's a referee error unless there is a challenge based clock rule.
 
EDIT: I do vaguely remember some odd clock rule based on a booth review, like it ended the game or something inside 10 seconds left, so maybe there is something that overrides the foul?
 

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
soxfan121 said:
How does this thread title not reference Andy Reid?
When I first clicked on it I just assumed it was the Chiefs thread. 
 
Edit:Dept of Redundancy Dept
 

GeorgeCostanza

tiger king
SoSH Member
May 16, 2009
7,286
Found in central mass
Toe Nash said:
No way.
 
He probably was right. But he'd use one of his two challenges to gain 6 yards of field position. They were at their own 23 so it's not like it would get them out of the end zone either, nor would it be likely to help them pin the Pats against their own end zone. The ensuing punt ended up going to the NE 28 and Amendola returned it for 10 yards...and the first play was a 16-yard pass to Dobson which erased any field position difference. NE was likely starting somewhere around their own 25-35 regardless. It was a useless challenge.
 
Plus, it wasn't reviewable...
I tried to articulate this in the game ball thread but you did it much better thank you. The play not being reviewable saved him from himself. He was absolutely right that t-mobile (that's really a thing for him I guess?) released the ball before stepping out but he was so wrong to waste one of his challenges so early for a meaningless 5 yards on 4th down.
 
At the end of the first half last night, it was interesting to see Mike Tomlin not call the Steelers' last timeout after a short first-down pass play was completed in the middle of the field at the Ravens' 22 yard-line with 16 seconds left. Many coaches would call the timeout and take several shots at the end zone, but on the balance I think Tomlin got this one right - if only because Vick had already taken one questionable sack in the first half and probably couldn't be trusted, so the risk of not getting 3 points was probably higher than the reward of getting 7 points.
 
Perhaps more curious from last night's game: if you're Mike Tomlin and had won the toss at the start of overtime, is taking the ball first really a no-brainer when you've been struggling to move the ball, you'll have to go into the wind, and your kicker just missed two field goals into that same wind? I think I'd have taken the wind at my back.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
Everything Tomlin did last night starting with three minutes left was a hot mess.

Empty backfield sweep on 4th and 2 when Bell exists was the worst
 

themuddychicken

New Member
Mar 26, 2014
80
Waiting to call the timeout at the end of the first half (and eschewing a couple shots at a touchdown) was absolutely the right call. Vick had no situational awareness last night and had already cost them one FG attempt earlier in the half by taking a sack, and in general seemed allergic to throwing the ball away. When you're handcuffed by a terrible QB you need to be aware of it and Tomlin was, to his credit.
 
Similarly, attempting the FG with a minute left made no sense to me. Considering the wind, terrible kicker, clock, and already having a lead (if it is tied I do kick there) I saw no reason to kick there. If you make it all you gain is forcing Baltimore to get a TD instead of a FG. If you miss then you give Baltimore great field position with plenty of time to move 30 yards for a FG. The same thinking that dictated the FG at the end of the 1st half (you can't trust Vick to not take a sack) should have dictated a punt with a minute left in the 2nd (you can't trust Scobee in Heinz with that wind).
 
The 4 calls on 3rd and 4th and short where they didn't hand off the Bell is low-hanging fruit so I won't spend too much time on it. I just want to say that Vick was looking terrible and Bell was looking amazing last night. When you're handcuffed by a terrible QB and have one of the top 3 RBs in the league you don't give the QB the ball 4/4 times in short yardage situations. That's just unforgivably bad coaching.
 

twothousandone

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 18, 2001
3,976
When you have a cannon you fire it, no?

That's not new-fangled thinking. That's Paul Brown, when he had Jim Brown in the backfield.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
5,597
02130
Dogman2 said:
 
 
What happened after the punt or where you think NE would have started with the ball is immaterial here, it had not happened yet. When Rex questioned the spot he was absolutely correct.  If you are found to be correct on two challenges, you are awarded a third.  So, if found to be correct, he would have been half way there. Either way, it wasn't a poor choice to try and challenge it.  
 
Situational and complementary football. Two staples of BB coaching.
Late to this response, but even if you are 100% sure you are correct it was not worth using a challenge. Yes, if you're correct on the second challenge, you get a third, but if you're NOT correct, then you have none. Whereas, if you hadn't wasted your challenge on the out of bounds call, you could be wrong on a later challenge and still have one challenge left. The extra 6 yards was not worth it.
 
Scenario one: Challenge Tyrod out of bounds and win = gain negligible field position and punt
leads to
A. Challenge later in the game and WIN = Third challenge received
or
B. Challenge later and LOSE = out of challenges
 
Scenario two: Don't challenge Tyrod out of bounds = punt
leads to
A. Challenge later in the game and WIN = one challenge left, could win another and get a third
or
B. Challenge later in the game and LOSE = one challenge left, can't get a third
 
This is not complicated.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,281
AZ
With 7:21 left in the game, the Lions had the ball with the clock running at the 24 yard line, with 7:21 left on the clock. Two running plays, or screen passes, would have run the clock down to about 5:30, or it would have required the Packers to burn two time outs (which is basically worth 1:30 to 1:40 later in the game), and I remember thinking that getting the clock down to just over 5:00 minutes and then kicking the field goal probably creates a situation where the opposing team is going to have to execute an onside kick to beat you. Lions tried two passing plays, both were incomplete, and kicked a field goal with 7:11 left on the clock.

I'm not sure this goes in the crappy decision thread -- there were definitely judgment calls to be made here. A first down would have been great, and if you think the chance of getting one by passing vastly exceed running, that's not an indefensible judgment. The thing is that the Lions had really become quite conservative, and got caught in the switches just a bit. Also, they only had room to get one more first down before the touch down, and as silly as it sounds, the marginal difference between a touchdown and a field goal in that circumstance is not enormous. Yes, a situation where the other team needs 14 points to beat you is preferable to one where they need 9 points to beat you, but either way, they need two long drives, and 1:30 to 1:40 of game clock is pretty valuable. This is very hindsighty, but as I said I was thinking about it in real time as well.
 
I think this was referenced in the game thread, but the Rams made what I thought was a very odd decision (to say the least) in going for 2 after scoring a touchdown to go up by 11 points with 4:38 remaining yesterday. I guess the argument in favor is that extra points aren't automatic - Tampa Bay already having missed one - and getting to 13 means you have a chance to survive two touchdowns - but surely that's dwarfed by the possibility of failing and leaving your opponent needing TD + 2pt + FG to tie, isn't it?
 

jablo1312

New Member
Sep 20, 2005
970
Yea, I thought that was very weird as well, especially b/c the chances of getting a missed XP are what, like 5-7%? If you give up 2 TDs, you're almost definitely going to lose. But you still have to make your opponent score 2 TDs instead of being able to get to OT with a FG. I have to imagine the the decrease in expected win probability from being up 11 instead of 12 is greater than the increase in win probability gained by being up 13 instead of 12.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
5,597
02130
This was from the Dolphins game, but since this thread was bumped...

Fairly minor but it could have ended up mattering. With around 11 minutes left, up by 14 the Patriots punted, except they did so with over 20 seconds left on the play clock. At the end of the game the Dolphins ended up getting the ball after the Ghost missed FG with 1:07 left; this theoretically would have been less than 50 seconds to go 71 yards if they had run the clock down before punting.

The only advantage I can see of punting "early" is that maybe the Dolphins aren't totally ready and you have less chance of a blocked punt. But they did end up only punting 28 yards -- Allen's worst punt of the day. Seemed like a rare strategic miscue for the Pats.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
BOB right before the half of the Pats-Texans game. Calls timeouts when he doesn't have enough of them to force a punt even if they stop the Pats, reverse freerolls himself.

Bill Belichick runs a draw play on 1st and 10 from the 29 yard line with 1:05 left even though he can kneel out the clock if he chooses (and he chooses to do so on second down after a successful first down run) reverse freerolling himself
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
5,597
02130
Oh, there was a good one in the Jets debacle yesterday too.

Jets down 17-3 in the second quarter. KC receives the ball at the two minute warning and brings it to the 16. They throw a pass for 11 yards and a first down. Then, going no-huddle, they run a play that goes out of bounds for no gain. Then, they run up the middle for two yards. Seems like since they're in their own territory, have the lead, are coached by Andy Reid, and don't exactly have a threatening vertical passing attack, they are content going into the half. They'd be facing a 3rd and 8. But Bowles lets them run the clock all the way down to 45 seconds and KC ends up taking the timeout!

Then, an encroachment and a quick pass give KC a new set of downs. The next few plays:
  1. 1-10-KC 40:)40) (Shotgun) 11-A.Smith pass incomplete deep right to 19-J.Maclin (32-J.Burris).
  2. 2-10-KC 40:)34) (Shotgun) 11-A.Smith pass incomplete deep middle to 19-J.Maclin [96-M.Wilkerson].
  3. 3-10-KC 40:)29) (Shotgun) 11-A.Smith sacked at KC 32 for -8 yards (sack split by 91-S.Richardson and 92-L.Williams).
But New York DOESN'T CALL A TIMEOUT HERE EITHER and lets the half run out. Total mismanagement by the Jets to not at least get the shot to block or return the punt when you're down by two scores on the road.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
Im constantly perplexed by the way teams throw away possessions. The Pats have moved more conservative in the last possession of a half, and there's an ongoing metadebate about that (Im pretty clearly on the too conservative side), but the ones that really baffle me are situations like that where a team is already trailing by multiple scores, is probably the inferior team (given this game was in KC) and just nah waves away a possession. You are already probably going to lose! You want more variance! You need possessions! Roll the dice!
 

loshjott

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2004
14,943
Silver Spring, MD
I think circumstances always dictate BB's decisions in this matter. With Brissett at QB, or last yr in Denver, or when Brady was missing so many weapons toward the end of the season, the Pats went conservative in those situations. But I don't see it as a wholesale shift in philosophy.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,058
Hingham, MA
Another mistake by O'Brien in that game was his challenge on the fumble on the kickoff. He challenged that the runner was down - and he won - which gained him what like 8 yards of field position in the 2nd quarter. It was sooooo dumb.
 

JohnnyK

Member
SoSH Member
May 8, 2007
1,941
Wolfern, Austria
The Redskins had six seconds left before the end of the half against the Giants and were well within field-goal range. They were down by five so no need to panic yet. They decide to give Cousins another shot at the end zone but apparently failed to tell him that he needs to get rid of the ball quickly, or he decided to do what he wants. Unsurprisingly, instead of making sure they had time for the field-goal he scrambles around, gets sacked by JPP and fumbles. So no points for the Redskins.

It didn't matter in the end, but it was still a really dumb play.
 

singaporesoxfan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2004
11,882
Washington, DC
I think this was referenced in the game thread, but the Rams made what I thought was a very odd decision (to say the least) in going for 2 after scoring a touchdown to go up by 11 points with 4:38 remaining yesterday. I guess the argument in favor is that extra points aren't automatic - Tampa Bay already having missed one - and getting to 13 means you have a chance to survive two touchdowns - but surely that's dwarfed by the possibility of failing and leaving your opponent needing TD + 2pt + FG to tie, isn't it?
I may be doing the math wrong, but the win probabilities are almost identical for the two decisions according to Pro Football Reference:

Tampa's win probabilities:
4th Quarter, 4:38 remaining, trailing by 11, ball at team 25 (assume a touchback), 1st down & 10 to go: 5.47%
4th Quarter, 4:38 remaining, trailing by 12, ball at team 25 (assume a touchback), 1st down & 10 to go: 4.87%
4th Quarter, 4:38 remaining, trailing by 13, ball at team 25 (assume a touchback), 1st down & 10 to go: 4.32%
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/win_prob.cgi

So win probabilities for Rams:

Go for it (based on success rate of 2-point conversions in 2013-2015 seasons)
= Chance of success * (100%-4.32%) + Chance of failure * (100%-5.47%)
= 47.7% * 95.68 + (1-47.7%) * 94.53
= 95.1%

Kick the point (based on success rate in 2015 under new rules)
= Chance of success * (100%-4.87%) + Chance of failure * (100%-5.47%)
= 94.2% * 95.13 + (1-94.2%) * 94.53
= 95.1%

Also, the difference in decisions doesn't vary significantly based on time left in the game. Even if you have all 60 minutes left, kicking the point is worth maybe a 1% increase in win probability:

Trailing by 11, ball at team 25 (assume a touchback), 1st down & 10 to go: 20.7%
Trailing by 12, ball at team 25 (assume a touchback), 1st down & 10 to go: 18.6%
Trailing by 13, ball at team 25 (assume a touchback), 1st down & 10 to go: 16.7%

Go for it (based on success rate of 2-point conversions in 2013-2015 seasons)
= Chance of success * (100%-16.7%) + Chance of failure * (100%-20.7%)
= 47.7% * 83.3 + (1-47.7%) * 79.3
= 81.2%

Kick the point (based on success rate in 2015 under new rules)
= Chance of success * (100%-18.6%) + Chance of failure * (100%-20.7%)
= 94.2% * 82.4 + (1-94.2%) * 79.3
= 82.2%
 
Thanks - really interesting (not to mention counterintuitive) math lesson. Clearly the X factor is the variability in missing extra points; with the old 20-yard XP, the math would favor not going for it, particularly with so little time left, but the longer XP makes makes things less automatic.