Reid and Vrabel
- Thread starter Bkmtnittany1
- Start date
Reid's decision - if you mean the one at the end of the half - would have been, strongly, supported by any form of analytics. Not even close. It wasn't executed, but the decision was an obvious - and correct - one. IF one was truly being "analytical".
Vrable? Not sure if you were referring to the 4th-1 decision (which would have definitely been a decision completely in line with "analytics" - though not overwhelmingly so, depending on how much confidence Tennessee had in their kicker), or the clock management at the end of the game - which did leave a lot to be desired (of course, the interception kind of made it moot - but doesn't erase that the clock management was more than a bit suspect).
Most truly bad "analytic" decisions never get talked about. Just one example, from Penn State recent football history:
2017, at Columbus. Penn State up 28-17 with a minute and a half left in the first half. 4th and 4 at the Ohio State 30-35 yard line +/- - and CJF decides to punt.
For all the gnashing of teeth, even years later, regarding Penn State's inability to hold that 4th quarter lead - that decision in the first half, which was a horrendous one, may very well have cost Penn State the game. But, even that day, it was barely noticed or discussed.
Vrable? Not sure if you were referring to the 4th-1 decision (which would have definitely been a decision completely in line with "analytics" - though not overwhelmingly so, depending on how much confidence Tennessee had in their kicker), or the clock management at the end of the game - which did leave a lot to be desired (of course, the interception kind of made it moot - but doesn't erase that the clock management was more than a bit suspect).
Most truly bad "analytic" decisions never get talked about. Just one example, from Penn State recent football history:
2017, at Columbus. Penn State up 28-17 with a minute and a half left in the first half. 4th and 4 at the Ohio State 30-35 yard line +/- - and CJF decides to punt.
For all the gnashing of teeth, even years later, regarding Penn State's inability to hold that 4th quarter lead - that decision in the first half, which was a horrendous one, may very well have cost Penn State the game. But, even that day, it was barely noticed or discussed.
Disagree....and these 2 guys will be watching the game instead of coaching in it. ANAL-TICS Suck! You don't chase points in the first half..
The problem was that Mahomes forgot that they were out of time outs and went for a play that needed a time out if it didn’t work.
Mahomes is an amazing QB. He’s headed toward being a first ballot hall of famer.
But I believe his unlimited ability is his biggest enemy. Because he’s escaped and made unreal plays, he feels that’s the norm and takes risks he shouldn’t.
Witness this sequence before the half and the awful sack he took at the end of regulation. That sack made a gimme FG a real tester. Butker still made it.
Not really, not if done correctly. Is it a panacea? No, obviously.
Obviously, making optimal analytical decisions doesn't mean you win every game - if it did, everyone could hire a Princeton Statistician and go undefeated every year. But there are a hundred different aspects to each game - having nothing to do with "analytics" - that will affect the outcome. A random team that makes every decision perfectly - maybe will win 55% of their games (instead of 50%). But that still means they lose 45% of the time (and every time they do, someone will say they did something "stupid"). And those teams with significantly better players - even if they do a lot of stupid stuff - are still going to win a lot of games, and vis versa.
But, if done correctly, it certainly will lead to more wins over time, than if done incorrectly.
Yeah, those 2 should look to message boards for help with coaching that sport. 
No such thing as a perfect coach, but they aren't exactly morons either.
No such thing as a perfect coach, but they aren't exactly morons either.
Yeah I remember this coach who ALWAYS kicked a FG unless and until he had to go for it on 4th down, especially in the first half and even on 4th and goal from the 1 yard line. His name is Tom Landry, but hey what did he know about football any way, right? Maybe some of these analytics nerds can tell me how many games the San Diego head coach blew this year going for it on 4th down because of analytics.
Well, I assume you mean the LOS ANGELES Chargers, in which case:
They would not have won their game against KC without going for, and converting a fourth down on their winning TD drive
Or beaten the Browns if they had not converted all 3 fourth downs, 2 on one drive, that gave them 14 points in a 3 point win
Or the 4th down conversion that led to their game winning FG against Philadelphia
Or the SIX fourth down conversions that got them into OT against the Raiders - yeah, they lost that game anyway though
But, yeah, there was that one game where they probably could have used the 3 points they might have gotten, if they hadn't gone for it on 4th in the first half of the second game vs the Chiefs. That they lost in OT.
So, just in one year, winning three games they would not have won, and maybe losing one they could have won, a team that would have been 7-9 and out of the playoffs, was 9-7 and went to the post-season. All because of those bone head decisions to do the right thing
Is that the point you were trying to make?
28-3 is a much tougher hill to climb in the second half than 21-3.
24-3 is as well.
The analytics may say to go for it there, but the analytics certainly didn't say to throw a pass behind the LoS to your smallest WR with zero momentum to get into the end zone.
Hindsight is 20/20.
24-3 is as well.
The analytics may say to go for it there, but the analytics certainly didn't say to throw a pass behind the LoS to your smallest WR with zero momentum to get into the end zone.
Hindsight is 20/20.
Vrabel chose the scenario that he thought would gain him more points in the long run. He's not "chasing points". You can't judge an outcome by one event. That is shortsighted. You aren't considering games in the past where decisions like this helped him win the game.
A good example is Doug Pederson going for it on 4th down the year the Eagles won the super bowl. Pretty good argument that those decisions were instrumental in winning the super bowl.
And before anyone says it, NO, I'm not saying that you follow blindly analytics. They should be used as a tool.
Vrabel took points off the board in the first qtr...7-7 game, take the point off the board to go for 2. And then not get it....that to me is the definition of chasing points. KC takes the gimme 3 at the end of the half and be up 24-10, plus get the ball to start the 2nd half. They get nothing. Again...chasing points. You are entitled to your opinion, not gonna change my mind
Again, fully denouncing the use of analytics because of one high profile situation is not a good way to judge something. You have to look at numerous decisions like this and see how often if paid off. Vrabel has made some pretty unconventional calls in the past that have won games.
I understand the reluctance of some to consider the utility of analytics, but I urge you to at least have an open mind. It can't hurt. Here is a good article to check out. https://www.forbes.com/sites/liamfo...yst-of-a-super-bowl-champion/?sh=11142694424e
PS. The Chiefs call wasn't analytics. The call should have been throw to EZ or into the ground and then kick a FG. 5 secs was plenty of time for a play.
Bingo.
Analytics (which is just a buzzword for "making the game management decision that gives you the best chance to win") and Execution (for lack of a better term) are two completely different things.
Why anyone would ever think "making game decisions that give you the best chance to win" is a bad thing? I don't know.
And making decisions - conventional or unconventional - that lower your chances of winning are NOT "analytics", they are just bad decisions (for some reason, every time someone makes an unconventional decision - which may or may NOT have been the right decision - they want to scream "Analytics Suck!".)
I don't understand (Well, I think I do. But I shake my head)
Yep.
One bone to throw to the anti-analytics folks. I do notice that NFL coaches are starting to over use some of the analytics concepts, like going for it on 4th. Sometimes, the best move may be to kick the FG, but I think some guys are getting programmed into going for it. Brandon Staley has crossed that line a few times I think.
Exactly what he was supposed to do, he knew that what he was supposed to do, and he still f'ed it up. Stuff happens. He even said this in the post game presser. Reid allowed one additional play because the previous one took less than 8 seconds. The problem was that the initial read wasn't open so instead of throwing it away, he tried to make a play. If it worked, wouldn't be having this conversation. At end of day, KC had multiple opportunities to win the game, but didn't.
It was Mahomes responsibility to make sure KC got at least 3 on that drive.
Yeah, those 2 should look to message boards for help with coaching that sport.
Wait…. So you’re saying THE foremost expert in NFL analytics ISN’T in this thread??? That’s what I was lead to believe via the posts here. Now I’m just confused. Who do I believe????
The previous play went off at 0:09 and the incomplete pass stopped the clock at 0:05. (I remember because I had been amazed that this took only four seconds.) After the pass to Hill, the final play of the half, you could see Mahomes calling for a time out when KC had no time outs remaining. It appears to me that Mahomes “tried to make a play” because he thought that he had a timeout in hand. I may be wrong here, but that’s my understanding of what transpired.
Get unlimited access today.