Anyone find it gross that coaches used to get ridiculed for going for it on 4th and short?

[FanofJerry]

Anyone find it gross that coaches used to get ridiculed for going for it on 4th and short...

Whats gross about it is...those coaches had a feeling that made sense...some times it worked sometimes it didnt....like everything

Whats is very suspect and disgusting about it is...it wasnt until analytics came along that proved its a good risk to take.

Why? Thats a trash World when feelings get attacked until you prove something math wise.

Personally, think its pathetic. And there are a few other instances like this.

My opinion, its never been a big deal to go for it. You have to prove its calculated risk or get attacked by lame bots. Lousy to say the least.

Looks like a scam to make a coach do more work to prove something trivial is worth taking a risk on, when the Coach had it right all along. Why make him prove it? Well, why attack the coach until you disprove him first? Lame gaslighting by a trash world

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The NFL is an old conservative institution. It came into it's own in the aftermath of WW2 and many of the ethics of that generation got imported to the game.

It's not that they were unwilling to embrace stats. The actions of Davis and Shramm belie that idea. Instead they were conservative in their strategic doctrine. Throw in a certain reverence for what was an extremely successful generation and you get intractability.

That being said, things are changing and empiricism shows it's continued efficacy. I don't see the problem.

 

[Cowboys5217]

Analyitcs are a fad that will come and go as coaches realize they have been conned. The analytics are blind stats that do not take into account the context of the game or situation. It does not factor in momentum nor players that may be playing below their usual, or above it. Likewise it does not take into account if your best players for that moment are injured or playing. Coaches just need to go back to relying on their experience and feel for the game. Conservative coaching is much better long term.

 

[FanofJerry]

Analyitcs are a fad that will come and go as coaches realize they have been conned. The analytics are blind stats that do not take into account the context of the game or situation. It does not factor in momentum nor players that may be playing below their usual, or above it. Likewise it does not take into account if your best players for that moment are injured or playing. Coaches just need to go back to relying on their experience and feel for the game. Conservative coaching is much better long term.

The big convo a few years ago was about when to go for the 2 point conversion...

It was a huge topic...and analytics seemed to solve the problem...

BUT....

there was an issue that no one wanted to discuss because it conflicts with math...NO ONE WANTED TO EVEN CONSIDER LISTENING TO MY TAKE...lame

Scenario...down two touchdowns(15 points) late in 4th....you score a TD...do you go for 2 points on first TD or Second one if you get there?

Analytics guys say it doesnt matter or that you should go for 2 on first TD.

I say no...why? Because of momentum and energy. Think how pumped the team is that came from behind two touchdowns and now only has a 2 point conversion to make....dont you think they would be pumped and morale high and energy high?

I dont see how that cant play into it. But...these guys insisted that you go for it immediately so you have better info going forward if you miss the first 2 point conversion. But they dont want to talk about missing the first 2 point conversion means its a 2 more possession game and you have to get an onside kick and less time on clock.

Losers.

 

[FanofJerry]

Analyitcs are a fad that will come and go as coaches realize they have been conned. The analytics are blind stats that do not take into account the context of the game or situation. It does not factor in momentum nor players that may be playing below their usual, or above it. Likewise it does not take into account if your best players for that moment are injured or playing. Coaches just need to go back to relying on their experience and feel for the game. Conservative coaching is much better long term.

Dont get me wrong...I appreciate the math guys for solving the 4th and short issue...football is way more fun when played how Dan Campbell plays. His team is stacked....but the style is fun for fans and players.

 

[Birch_Wood]

...says Dan (Gamble) Campbell

 

[DuncanIso]

What would Landry Do?

 

[Cowboys5217]

Analytics would tell you to go ahead and play Russian Roulette because the long term numbers show that most people survive.

With that in mind, would you put that gun to your head and pull the trigger?

Of course not, because you would be a Darwin Award candidate waiting to happen.

NFL Analytics are similar.

 

[cowboyed]

Analyticals came into play. Football may change at a turtle pace but nevertheless it changes.

 

[Coogiguy03]

BREAKING NEWS: The TUSH PUSH has changed everything!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Coogiguy03]

...says Dan (Gamble) Campbell

Until it bites him in the butt and causes them to lose a big one

 

[Loso86]

Anyone find it gross that coaches used to get ridiculed for going for it on 4th and short...

Whats gross about it is...those coaches had a feeling that made sense...some times it worked sometimes it didnt....like everything

Whats is very suspect and disgusting about it is...it wasnt until analytics came along that proved its a good risk to take.

Why? Thats a trash World when feelings get attacked until you prove something math wise.

Personally, think its pathetic. And there are a few other instances like this.

My opinion, its never been a big deal to go for it. You have to prove its calculated risk or get attacked by lame bots. Lousy to say the least.

Looks like a scam to make a coach do more work to prove something trivial is worth taking a risk on, when the Coach had it right all along. Why make him prove it? Well, why attack the coach until you disprove him first? Lame gaslighting by a trash world

Gross probably isn't the right term

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Analytics would tell you to go ahead and play Russian Roulette because the long term numbers show that most people survive.

With that in mind, would you put that gun to your head and pull the trigger?

Of course not, because you would be a Darwin Award candidate waiting to happen.

NFL Analytics are similar.

No, it would not. You can weigh variables differently. Right off the top, death is a massive downside and hearing a click has no upside. If you have to pull the trigger until someone fires, you have a 50-50 shot given two people playing the game. That says you have an even chance to die.

Analysis shows that in similar football situations, you avoid giving the opponent a chance to win while giving yourself the most chances to win. It is called stacking probability. Not the same thing at all.

You have no idea what you are talking about and should just stop.

 

[FanofJerry]

No, it would not. You can weigh variables differently. Right off the top, death is a massive downside and hearing a click has no upside. If you have to pull the trigger until someone fires, you have a 50-50 shot given two people playing the game. That says you have an even chance to die.

Analysis shows that in similar football situations, you avoid giving the opponent a chance to win while giving yourself the most chances to win. It is called stacking probability. Not the same thing at all.

You have no idea what you are talking about and should just stop.

If you're an analytics guy...

Can you provide your assessment of the 2 point conversion situation I provided above and if my take is off base at all? This was a huge deal on here and in nfl forums a few years ago.

If you're in a analytics gang that can't sway from company line, I understand.

Just doesn't seem like going for 2 point conversion first makes sense to me. I get the "because it provides better information to go forward with" ...but I don't think that trumps my above take with time crunched.

Not only that....you go for 2...miss it....your team morale is down instead of flying high like in my example.

Please clarify

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If you're an analytics guy...

Can you provide your assessment of the 2 point conversion situation I provided above and if my take is off base at all? This was a huge deal on here and in nfl forums a few years ago.

If you're in a analytics gang that can't sway from company line, I understand.

Just doesn't seem like going for 2 point conversion first makes sense to me. I get the "because it provides better information to go forward with" ...but I don't think that trumps my above take with time crunched.

Not only that....you go for 2...miss it....your team morale is down instead of flying high like in my example.

Please clarify

if you know how to model momentum you could make a lot of money. I see no point in modeling an arbitrary situation.

you are looking for mechanics when they are talking about probabilities given situation.

 

[gtb1943]

if you know how to model momentum you could make a lot of money. I see no point in modeling an arbitrary situation.

you are looking for mechanics when they are talking about probabilities given situation.

the best football coaches did this decades before analytics came into being

what it does do is help out the mediocre to above average coaches

 

[FanofJerry]

if you know how to model momentum you could make a lot of money. I see no point in modeling an arbitrary situation.

you are looking for mechanics when they are talking about probabilities given situation.

in the above situation with like 2 minutes left?

everyone knows the possible outcomes and what has to happen...you dont need better information. maybe if it was early 4th quarter.

i dont think you do what you say you are advocating for in my above situation.

missing that 2 pointer turns it into another 2 possession game and makes things way harder with the onside kick. makes no sense and I dont think even many coaches would agree with analytics in a crunched situation.

youre using smart words to make it sound gospel. how is better information in that situation beneficial? I dont think good info, which usually rules, trumps the scenario I provided.

your talking modeling momentum and getting scienc-y, im talking I have 2 minutes here and I dont want to have to make a 2 possession game a 3 possession game with an onside kick...in 2 minutes just to tie.

I dont think youre doing it just to sound like a smart guy on the podium and say "well, it didnt work, but analytics has my back so I dont care what you all think"

Youre turning a large mole hill to climb into a mountain in a 2 minute situation because you chose analytics.

 

[RonWashington]

On 4th and one three and change left in Wash Game a little bit in Commanders territory MM punts the ball instead of going for it. No playoffs involved for either team what the heck Is this stiff punting the ball back to Mariotta and Wash . Of course the D could not get the stop / win.

 

[gtb1943]

those who rely on statistics will always fall short

 

[gtb1943]

when dealing with human beings, cold hard numbers will always trip you up