More McCarthy Mismanagement?

DOUBLE WING

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,670
Reaction score
5,228
Yeah because any coordinator etc can't communicate with the HC at any point during a game, they just have the headset on for ONE player. Hell, I've seen them run up and talk face to face. It happens.

Of course, the coordinators have input. Nobody is denying that. But the head coach is the final decision-maker in these late game situations. That's why he's the head coach.

What exactly is McCarthy doing in the final minute of the game if not focusing on clock/timeout management?
 

CarolinaFathead

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,887
Reaction score
2,334
Not as comical as your blind loyalty to MM.

Dak loves Kellen, Cowboys would do well to keep their MVP and leader happy.
Blind loyalty lmao?

What name do you want to call your strawman?

If it comes to losing KM versus keeping MM, I’ll keep KM. I hope it doesn’t come to that.
 

My3Sons

Well-Known Member
Messages
726
Reaction score
1,297
Blind loyalty lmao?

What name do you want to call your strawman?

If it comes to losing KM versus keeping MM, I’ll keep KM. I hope it doesn’t come to that.
It is not if, it is when. JJ needs to get out in front of this or we can all watch the replay of Sean Peyton.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BAT

Mannix

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,685
Reaction score
10,810
Go to 1:15.....clock management history and "what does he do?"

 
  • Like
Reactions: BAT

G2

Taco Engineer
Messages
24,444
Reaction score
26,197
Of course, the coordinators have input. Nobody is denying that. But the head coach is the final decision-maker in these late game situations. That's why he's the head coach.

What exactly is McCarthy doing in the final minute of the game if not focusing on clock/timeout management?
You responded: "What other coaches are involved? Who besides the head coach has the authority to decide when to call timeout?"

I answered with facts and now you agree? Ok, good.
 

nobody

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,438
Reaction score
18,554
Sometimes I wonder if this is how McCarthy makes in-game decisions:

signs_point.jpg
 

JJHLH1

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,312
Reaction score
14,627
He has been a HC at the highest level for how long? And he needs a clock management guru? WoW....99% of the arm chair QB's yelling at the TV knew what was going on, and he gets a pass??? Again, WoW!

Big Mike doesn’t get a pass from me.

That’s why I suggested he work with a time-management guru during the bye week. He can use that time to improve an obvious weakness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BAT

BAT

Mr. Fixit
Messages
19,443
Reaction score
15,607
MM was wanted by several teams. We had 2 act. Right now Jville, the Gents and Philly come to mind. The man is a good hc. Has skins on the wall and rings. I'll side with Fat Mike for now.

LOL
 

DOUBLE WING

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,670
Reaction score
5,228
You responded: "What other coaches are involved? Who besides the head coach has the authority to decide when to call timeout?"

I answered with facts and now you agree? Ok, good.

I agree that coordinators have input. Input is not authority. Kellen can communicate to Mike and say "hey Mike, if we complete this pass let's let some clock run before we call timeout."

But ultimately, the head coach makes the call.

What part of this is confusing for you? And why do you keep ignoring the question of what the head coach should be focused on in the final minute of the game?
 

Frosty

Bigdog24
Messages
3,919
Reaction score
2,227
Sometimes I wonder if this is how McCarthy makes in-game decisions:

signs_point.jpg


Hint

McCarthy and the NGS Decision Guide were in full agreement on all four of the Cowboys' fourth-down situations against the Patriots in the first half, three of which were strong go-for-it recommendations, according to our model. The second half, however, was a different story.


FIRST QUARTER: With 12:04 remaining, the Cowboys (tied 0-0) faced a fourth-and-1 from their own 34-yard line. Ezekiel Elliott was stuffed for no gain, and the Patriots took over.


We care more about the process than outcome when it comes to evaluating fourth-down decisions. In this case, McCarthy was right to go for it, despite the offense not converting on the play. The NGS Decision Guide recommended Dallas go for it instead of punt by a difference of 2.6 percentage points in win probability value. This was driven heavily by the Cowboys' chances of converting if they went for it (73.9 percent), which increases even more if they called a run play (77.2 percent).


FIRST QUARTER: With 2:30 remaining, the Cowboys (trailing 14-7) faced a fourth-and-1 from their own 47-yard line and successfully converted on an Elliott run that bounced outside the tackles.


Another fourth-and-short, another Elliott run call. With offensive lineman Connor McGovern lined up as a fullback, Elliott took the handoff and cut sharply to the left edge to pick up 3 yards and earn a new set of downs. We had that play as a 5.7 percent decision in favor of going for it.


SECOND QUARTER: With 1:32 remaining and the Cowboys (trailing 14-10) facing a fourth-and-goal from the Patriots' 1-yard line, Dak Prescott fumbles prior to crossing the goal line on a QB sneak attempt.


After failing to score on three previous tries from the 1-yard line, McCarthy once again opted to go for it. Our model strongly supported this decision, with a 10.4 percentage-point difference in win probability value. Although the decision meshed with the analytics, the failed attempt did result in a loss of 24 percentage points in expected win probability value.


FOURTH QUARTER: With 2:47 remaining and the Cowboys (trailing 21-20) facing a fourth-and-2 from the Patriots' 33-yard line, Dallas’ Greg Zuerlein misses a 51-yard field-goal attempt.


McCarthy's fourth-down aggressiveness hit an abrupt wall as the game reached its final moments. Per the NGS Decision Guide, going for it here would've yielded 4.6 percentage points in win probability value. Part of the model’s recommendation accounted for the conversion probabilities of going for it (59%) versus kicking a field goal (55%). Furthermore, Dallas’ win probability would have increased to 70 percent with a successful conversion. A conversion also would have allowed Dallas to burn more clock to set up a potential game-winning field goal with significantly less time remaining.


FOURTH QUARTER: With 24 seconds remaining and the Cowboys (trailing 29-26) facing a fourth-and-1 from the Patriots' 31-yard line, Zuerlein makes a 49-yard field goal.


Let's ignore the fact that McCarthy oddly called one of his two remaining timeouts to kick a field goal with 24 seconds left instead of letting the clock wind down to sub-5 seconds first. Given the situation, and the timeout, the optimal call was to go for it by 16 percentage points of win probability value.


The NGS Decision Guide estimates the Cowboys had a 74 percent probability of converting the fourth-and-1, compared to a 62 percent probability of making the 49-yard field-goal try. Ultimately, Zuerlein effectively sent the game into overtime, though it was still a risky decision, given that the guide pegged a make as giving the Cowboys -- with one timeout left -- a 58 percent chance (roughly the chances of winning in overtime) to win. If the Cowboys had converted on the fourth-and-1, however, they would have been able to either take their chances at the end zone or try a closer, more high-percentage field goal.
 

Brooksey

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,921
Reaction score
7,204
Going for it on 4th down at our own 35 was dumb, not going for it on 4th and 1 from our our own 35 and kicking the fg was questionable. The time mgmt is off.

We’re winning so he’s doing something right but at some point the competition will be better and the game will mean more. McCarthy needs to clean up his act.
 

RonWashington

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,025
Reaction score
6,438
Why are double QB sneaks not good strategy? It's a very high percentage play, one of the highest there is. And of course, it was successful, except for the little-known rule that an opposing QB in Foxboro must have his entire body in the end zone to score.


Why is it bad strategy ? Really . You have two backs having solid seasons 2 tight ends you can target a load of talented speed but we plow Dak into the line not once but twice and it isn’t the last time anyone will see a QB try to stick the ball over the line just to lose it or have it batted out of his hands.
 

JD_KaPow

jimnabby
Messages
11,045
Reaction score
10,810
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Why is it bad strategy ? Really . You have two backs having solid seasons 2 tight ends you can target a load of talented speed but we plow Dak into the line not once but twice and it isn’t the last time anyone will see a QB try to stick the ball over the line just to lose it or have it batted out of his hands.
You didn't answer the question. The QB sneak is one of the highest percentage plays in football. Why is it bad strategy to use it?
 

CalPolyTechnique

Well-Known Member
Messages
27,320
Reaction score
44,072
Hint

McCarthy and the NGS Decision Guide were in full agreement on all four of the Cowboys' fourth-down situations against the Patriots in the first half, three of which were strong go-for-it recommendations, according to our model. The second half, however, was a different story.


FIRST QUARTER: With 12:04 remaining, the Cowboys (tied 0-0) faced a fourth-and-1 from their own 34-yard line. Ezekiel Elliott was stuffed for no gain, and the Patriots took over.


We care more about the process than outcome when it comes to evaluating fourth-down decisions. In this case, McCarthy was right to go for it, despite the offense not converting on the play. The NGS Decision Guide recommended Dallas go for it instead of punt by a difference of 2.6 percentage points in win probability value. This was driven heavily by the Cowboys' chances of converting if they went for it (73.9 percent), which increases even more if they called a run play (77.2 percent).


FIRST QUARTER: With 2:30 remaining, the Cowboys (trailing 14-7) faced a fourth-and-1 from their own 47-yard line and successfully converted on an Elliott run that bounced outside the tackles.


Another fourth-and-short, another Elliott run call. With offensive lineman Connor McGovern lined up as a fullback, Elliott took the handoff and cut sharply to the left edge to pick up 3 yards and earn a new set of downs. We had that play as a 5.7 percent decision in favor of going for it.


SECOND QUARTER: With 1:32 remaining and the Cowboys (trailing 14-10) facing a fourth-and-goal from the Patriots' 1-yard line, Dak Prescott fumbles prior to crossing the goal line on a QB sneak attempt.


After failing to score on three previous tries from the 1-yard line, McCarthy once again opted to go for it. Our model strongly supported this decision, with a 10.4 percentage-point difference in win probability value. Although the decision meshed with the analytics, the failed attempt did result in a loss of 24 percentage points in expected win probability value.


FOURTH QUARTER: With 2:47 remaining and the Cowboys (trailing 21-20) facing a fourth-and-2 from the Patriots' 33-yard line, Dallas’ Greg Zuerlein misses a 51-yard field-goal attempt.


McCarthy's fourth-down aggressiveness hit an abrupt wall as the game reached its final moments. Per the NGS Decision Guide, going for it here would've yielded 4.6 percentage points in win probability value. Part of the model’s recommendation accounted for the conversion probabilities of going for it (59%) versus kicking a field goal (55%). Furthermore, Dallas’ win probability would have increased to 70 percent with a successful conversion. A conversion also would have allowed Dallas to burn more clock to set up a potential game-winning field goal with significantly less time remaining.


FOURTH QUARTER: With 24 seconds remaining and the Cowboys (trailing 29-26) facing a fourth-and-1 from the Patriots' 31-yard line, Zuerlein makes a 49-yard field goal.


Let's ignore the fact that McCarthy oddly called one of his two remaining timeouts to kick a field goal with 24 seconds left instead of letting the clock wind down to sub-5 seconds first. Given the situation, and the timeout, the optimal call was to go for it by 16 percentage points of win probability value.


The NGS Decision Guide estimates the Cowboys had a 74 percent probability of converting the fourth-and-1, compared to a 62 percent probability of making the 49-yard field-goal try. Ultimately, Zuerlein effectively sent the game into overtime, though it was still a risky decision, given that the guide pegged a make as giving the Cowboys -- with one timeout left -- a 58 percent chance (roughly the chances of winning in overtime) to win. If the Cowboys had converted on the fourth-and-1, however, they would have been able to either take their chances at the end zone or try a closer, more high-percentage field goal.

Hey guys, the Nintendo GameStop Decision Guide says McCarthy was right.

/thread
 

RonWashington

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,025
Reaction score
6,438
You didn't answer the question. The QB sneak is one of the highest percentage plays in football. Why is it bad strategy to use it?


I most certainly answered the question read the answer. Moore has a lot of tricks double QB sneaks not one of them . If you want to argue look elsewhere
 

RonWashington

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,025
Reaction score
6,438
I most certainly answered the question read the answer. Moore has a lot of tricks double QB sneaks not one of them . If you want to argue look elsewhere


He got nowhere near scoring on either play on the first one the refs can review it until Thanksgiving under all those bodies they are not going to over rule themselves . “ Inconclusive “ is what they call it . The ruling on the field stands
 

JD_KaPow

jimnabby
Messages
11,045
Reaction score
10,810
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan

RonWashington

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,025
Reaction score
6,438
Okay whatever. Your answer was that there are lots of other options. You didn't explain why those are better options than the QB sneak, which is by far the most effective short-yardage play in the game.

https://sports.sites.yale.edu/success-short-yardage-play-types-fourth-down


It just failed so you come right back to it and not only that they got nothing . “ highly effective “ though


We disagree on the double QB sneak . What about not trusting the offense to pick up a yard and instead trying a 51 yarder ?
 

JD_KaPow

jimnabby
Messages
11,045
Reaction score
10,810
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
It just failed so you come right back to it and not only that they got nothing . “ highly effective “ though
Yeah, I figured your argument ultimately boiled down to, "it didn't work."
We disagree on the double QB sneak . What about not trusting the offense to pick up a yard and instead trying a 51 yarder ?
We agree on that one. It was a terrible decision. That's the only 4th-down decision I had a problem with, though, IIRC. In this game. Timeouts, on the other hand...
 
Top