Garrett: we don’t use those numbers during a game

[Aviano90]

Not everyone. The analytics folks loved it (or at least many did), because they knew it was a good decision.

Yes, I'm sure there were some people. I used "everyone" to mimick the post I responded to. The fact is, Bill was raked over the coals by the overwhelming majority of people.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

You're citing statistics as if they're indicative of the future. You're dismissing all other variables and dying at the feet of statistics. It doesn't make your position any more valid.

What these crybabies won’t tell you is that if Garrett said “yes I do get the win probability stats play by play, this is the decision I made.” they would still be crying. They don’t care, they’re just looking for something to complain about.

 

[CB61]

On 105.3 the fan. Jason Garret was asked about the odds of winning a game, based on analytics, between kicking the last FG or going for it on 4th.

Garret said “we don’t use those numbers during the game”.


I am not the type of person that believes analytics are everything and they are the end all be all. I don’t think you always go with the analytics numbers, because opponent and flow of the game are just as important.

That being said, they don’t use them at all during the game? They don’t at least factor those things in when making the decisions?


That is asinine.

I have the more feature words but I can't use them here

 

[Reverend Conehead]

On 105.3 the fan. Jason Garret was asked about the odds of winning a game, based on analytics, between kicking the last FG or going for it on 4th.

Garret said “we don’t use those numbers during the game”.


I am not the type of person that believes analytics are everything and they are the end all be all. I don’t think you always go with the analytics numbers, because opponent and flow of the game are just as important.

That being said, they don’t use them at all during the game? They don’t at least factor those things in when making the decisions?


That is asinine.

That's disturbing that he doesn't even consider that. I have no problem with Garrett as a human being. He's a good guy. I just don't think he has any business coaching an NFL team. IMO if he gets fired, he won't even get hired with any other NFL team, not as the HC or even as an assistant coach. The rest of the league knows what Jerry has been denying for several seasons now: Garrett isn't cut out for this job. He could probably do okay as a sportscaster or an analyst, but he's just not good at making quick decisions that give his team the best chance to win. That doesn't make him a moron. It just means he's not good at coaching.

 

[Haimerej]

You’re clueless and any further argument is pointless.

Run along. Didn't mean to harsh your vibe.

Let me know when you understand what a fact is.
You’re the one using your gut to determine the correct call.

As if you checking a handbook to do your thinking is better.

Perhaps a coach should factor in all data when making a call. Just maybe.

Perhaps your factual data is merely an aggregation of what has happened with no actual predictive value.

 

[Haimerej]

It still gave them the best chance to win. Belichek was correct

So your adherence to that philosophy is more important than it's predictive value? Looks like you're getting into the realm of religion.

 

[Aviano90]

So your adherence to that philosophy is more important than it's predictive value? Looks like you're getting into the realm of religion.

Well, hindsight tells us the best chance of winning that game was to kick the FGs.

 

[Hennessy_King]

So your adherence to that philosophy is more important than it's predictive value? Looks like you're getting into the realm of religion.

Men lie, women lie, numbers don't.

 

[Haimerej]

Men lie, women lie, numbers don't.

Lies, damned lies, then statistics.

 

[Hennessy_King]

Lies, damned lies, then statistics.

statistics can be skewed. analytics in terms of win % are pretty straight forward. Hence why the NBA has gone more toward 3 pt shooting. Analytics show the more 3pt fgs made give you a higher chance of winning. Which I feel they should move the 3pt line further back.

 

[tm1119]

I think this whole, "should have gone for the TD," thing is a perfect example of lemmings jumping on a narrative.

It was 4th and 7. The WRs and QB had multiple issues with handling the ball. There was nearly 7 minutes left in the game and but for good field position from turnovers and a blocked punt NE hadn't done much offensively all game. They in fact got points and the ball back with an opportunity for the lead. That situation was played fine.

That entire sequence was screwed up. As usual the cowboys played it safe and were content with settling for a FG. The 2 play calls before the decision to kick the FG were awful, we should have been trying to gain yardage to make it 4 down territory. That was the best drive we had all game and the cowboys own decisions making put a stop to it. That was mistake 1.

The next mistake was kicking the ball to make it so that the team STILL HAD TO SCORE A TD regardless. As you said, the Pats couldn’t move the ball all game. Worst case scenario we don’t get the 1st down and they were pinned back further than our crappy special teams could get them. What’s the difference??

And if your response is it gave us a better chance to win: what’s easier? Getting a 2 point conversion from 6 feet away? Or stopping the pats and then scoring a td (which we hadn’t done all game) all in under 7 mins? But of course 2 wouldn’t have even been an option because our coach has 0 fortitude to him.

 

[Haimerej]

statistics can be skewed. analytics in terms of win % are pretty straight forward. Hence why the NBA has gone more toward 3 pt shooting. Analytics show the more 3pt fgs made give you a higher chance of winning. Which I feel they should move the 3pt line further back.

The problem with those statistics is they're an aggregation of everyone and none of them are predictive.

 

[Haimerej]

The 2 play calls before the decision to kick the FG were awful, we should have been trying to gain yardage to make it 4 down territory.

Who's to say they weren't? Their inability to execute on 2nd and 3rd doesn't mean they weren't trying to move the ball. Did every receiver go to the end zone?

I don't see how you guys can be so certain they had a better chance if they went for it.

 

[Ranched]

I'm so sick of Garrett and ALL of his excuses. His conservativness in play calling has cost this team not only many games, but also from reaching the Superbowl.

 

[Haimerej]

Well, hindsight tells us the best chance of winning that game was to kick the FGs.

I think the main issue here is I have no problem admitting that this is my personal opinion. Apparently the, "analysts," can't admit that their opinions aren't any more valid. For all the talk about probabilities, I don't think any of them approach 100%.

 

[zrinkill]

Is that you @zrinkill??

Nope

 

[JayFord]

I was ok when he said “the feel of the game”

Garretts flaw is just that...he has no feel for the game

 

[tm1119]

Who's to say they weren't? Their inability to execute on 2nd and 3rd doesn't mean they weren't trying to move the ball. Did every receiver go to the end zone?

I don't see how you guys can be so certain they had a better chance if they went for it.

Well both throws were into the end zone...so either it was bad play calling or it was bad communication with the QB. Either way it’s on the coach.

But in the end it’s about TRYING to win the game. We were staring at an opportunity to at worst tie the game and we kicked the ball away not knowing if the opportunity would be there again. It was a cowards move and Garrett got what he deserved. Hopefully it costs him his job

 

[Haimerej]

Well both throws were into the end zone...so either it was bad play calling or it was bad communication with the QB. Either way it’s on the coach.

Quarterbacks make reads and decide where to go with the ball. He could've checked down, for example.

But in the end it’s about TRYING to win the game. We were staring at an opportunity to at worst tie the game and we kicked the ball away not knowing if the opportunity would be there again. It was a cowards move and Garrett got what he deserved. Hopefully it costs him his job

It would've been an epic collapse by the defense to not get the ball back with almost 7 minutes left. There were only 6 drives of 40 or more yards and DAL had 4 of them, including the only drives longer than 50.

 

[OmerV]

Conservative bum coaches would have gone for the tie. If you go by the win % numbers you go for 2. And it's not even close. Yes I corrected my post it was the 25. So we start at the 23 instead of the 8. In a game where yards are hard to come by it's a big deal.

The absolute norm is for the coach to go for the tie in that situation. It happens in games every week. That's a lot of why OT's happen at all. The low odds of a 2 point conversion are why teams don't go for it frequently.

And the odds were dramatically worse in this game. Keep in mind that the 2 teams combined were 5-27 on 3rd down, and 0-2 on 4th down. That's 17%. That's an 83% chance the opponent will stop you. It puts the odds dramatically in favor of the opposing team.

But that's not all … not only would the Cowboys have needed to make that conversion, and end up scoring the TD, they then would have to rely on yet another conversion to get the 2 points. What do you think the odds of getting both those conversions were? Maybe 7-8%? That's really taking that odds away from the Cowboys and putting them overwhelmingly with the Patriots.

Now, let's look at kicking the FG. The FG had a dramatically higher chance of success, then when they got the ball back, if they score the TD the game wouldn't have to hinge on that incredible low likelihood of a 2 point conversion.