Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2019 11:08:49 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by dytmook on Nov 22, 2019 11:29:37 GMT -6
I think high school and college change things a bit. I also think I needed a bit more information on the situations and my team to make the best decision. I only got 2 right but since I'm thinking about it using my teams make up, there are variables not accounted for.
|
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Nov 22, 2019 12:07:07 GMT -6
Just got them all correct.
|
|
|
|
Post by Defcord on Nov 22, 2019 12:15:30 GMT -6
I missed the going for two questions. I am probably too heavily influenced by personal bias. My senior year in high school, we beat our rivals for the first time in over a decade by scoring on the last play of the game and going for two. It was an awesome experience. Now I am in a big go for 2 guy. We were a wing-t team that 3 thousand plus yard backs so there was never any questions that we were going for it. We just huddled up and waited for the play call.
I think the metric analysis is really dangerous for coaches because eventually at the higher levels coaches are going to be over criticized based on the math, but the math is so short term that it may not be entirely accurate.
|
|
|
|
Post by mkuempel on Nov 22, 2019 12:18:35 GMT -6
The question about running or passing for the two point play seemed a little vague, what if I roll out my QB, give him 1 read and tell him to run, would that be called a PRO?
|
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Nov 22, 2019 12:33:22 GMT -6
This must be the kinda crap all those visor wearing geniuses put on those huge placards
|
|
|
|
Post by nicku on Nov 22, 2019 12:37:27 GMT -6
That was a fun article. I only missed one and I think it was the first one.
But I think answering these from a college coach perspective is a little closer to being in a vacuum than a high school coach.
Your kicker and punter, hell special teams overall, affect a lot of these decisions. 4th and less than 5 from the 50 and in, I'm going for it every time unless time is almost out in the half or its to tie/win the game. Saw a game this year where Team A was up 4 with 1:50 or so left. They were on the +25, 4th and 1. Team A kicks the FG, makes it, now up 7. Team A squibs it on the kickoff, Team B returns it to the -40 or so. Team B scores on 4 plays, makes the extra point, wins the toss, selects defense, stuffs Team A, scores on 2 plays to win. Sure. "hats off" to Team B for sticking with it and pulling out a close one...but worst case scenario for going for that 4th down is getting stopped and now they have to go 75 yards to win it. Medium case scenario is you extend the game one drive and kick the FG anyway, best case you get the 1st and score and Team B has no shot.
|
|
|
|
Post by pvogel on Nov 22, 2019 13:01:07 GMT -6
Biggest 2 differences between HS and College:
1. The games are longer. Significantly longer. 12 minutes longer. A whole extra HS quarter longer. And the clock stops a lot.
2. Kicking game in college is so much more better and consistent. When your punter punts the ball over 40 yards EVERY time rather than 30 yards and your kicker can CONSISTENTLY hit a FG once you're in the Redzone instead of it being a coin flip. This manifests itself even more in states where soccer is a fall sport instead of a winter sport. The kicking games up here in NJ are SIGNIFICANTLY worse than they are in Florida and California.
|
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Nov 22, 2019 13:18:38 GMT -6
There is far too little information given for most of these questions (example- should you run or pass? You don't know the makeup of my team and the opposition, so how can you tell me I am right or wrong for making my choice).
Also, the first question has little to do with situational football, it is essentially making the point that going for two is mathematically a better choice. But once again it is predicated off of Generic Team vs Generic Team, not enough information or too many variables that are not answered.
|
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Nov 23, 2019 12:25:48 GMT -6
There is far too little information given for most of these questions (example- should you run or pass? You don't know the makeup of my team and the opposition, so how can you tell me I am right or wrong for making my choice). Also, the first question has little to do with situational football, it is essentially making the point that going for two is mathematically a better choice. But once again it is predicated off of Generic Team vs Generic Team, not enough information or too many variables that are not answered. Yeah, what does "..in the final minutes" mean? 3:45 is a lot different than 2:02. How many time outs left? What's been working for you vs. what's been working for them? |
|
|
|
Post by funkfriss on Nov 23, 2019 12:52:33 GMT -6
There is far too little information given for most of these questions (example- should you run or pass? You don't know the makeup of my team and the opposition, so how can you tell me I am right or wrong for making my choice). Also, the first question has little to do with situational football, it is essentially making the point that going for two is mathematically a better choice. But once again it is predicated off of Generic Team vs Generic Team, not enough information or too many variables that are not answered. I actually just read an article saying the same thing. Football, more so than any other sport, has so many factors that renders analytics to be less relevant. Not irrelevant, but less relevant. 4th and 4 on the -40 when we’re down 6:00-4:00 left in the 4thQ? We’re punting every time this season and not thinking twice. Our offense was not very good and we didn’t have the type of QB that we could trust to get this most of the time. We had a great punter (and align in offensive formation for quick kick ensuring no return), good defense and difference making returners. Much better chance for us to get the ball back and gain field position. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a fun exercise and fun read, but I hope coaches aren’t using this to make future decisions. |
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Nov 23, 2019 14:30:35 GMT -6
There is far too little information given for most of these questions (example- should you run or pass? You don't know the makeup of my team and the opposition, so how can you tell me I am right or wrong for making my choice). Also, the first question has little to do with situational football, it is essentially making the point that going for two is mathematically a better choice. But once again it is predicated off of Generic Team vs Generic Team, not enough information or too many variables that are not answered. I actually just read an article saying the same thing. Football, more so than any other sport, has so many factors that renders analytics to be less relevant. Not irrelevant, but less relevant. 4th and 4 on the -40 when we’re down 6:00-4:00 left in the 4thQ? We’re punting every time this season and not thinking twice. Our offense was not very good and we didn’t have the type of QB that we could trust to get this most of the time. We had a great punter (and align in offensive formation for quick kick ensuring no return), good defense and difference making returners. Much better chance for us to get the ball back and gain field position. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a fun exercise and fun read, but I hope coaches aren’t using this to make future decisions. Agree. But the main purpose is think and think beforehand. Analytics are not always an exact science in major league baseball either. For instance, it used to be that you bunted no matter what with man on 1st and 2nd and no outs. Analytics showed that did not maximize runs. So teams don't really do that anymore. But, it still can be the right decision. If your pitcher is up, you should still bunt. If it is the last inning and you are down 1, you still should bunt even though it doesn't "maximize runs" that inning, it still gives you the best chance to tie or win the game. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Nov 23, 2019 14:54:04 GMT -6
I actually just read an article saying the same thing. Football, more so than any other sport, has so many factors that renders analytics to be less relevant. Not irrelevant, but less relevant. 4th and 4 on the -40 when we’re down 6:00-4:00 left in the 4thQ? We’re punting every time this season and not thinking twice. Our offense was not very good and we didn’t have the type of QB that we could trust to get this most of the time. We had a great punter (and align in offensive formation for quick kick ensuring no return), good defense and difference making returners. Much better chance for us to get the ball back and gain field position. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a fun exercise and fun read, but I hope coaches aren’t using this to make future decisions. Agree. But the main purpose is think and think beforehand. Analytics are not always an exact science in major league baseball either. For instance, it used to be that you bunted no matter what with man on 1st and 2nd and no outs. Analytics showed that did not maximize runs. So teams don't really do that anymore. But, it still can be the right decision. If your pitcher is up, you should still bunt. If it is the last inning and you are down 1, you still should bunt even though it doesn't "maximize runs" that inning, it still gives you the best chance to tie or win the game. Also, to continue your baseball commentary, it is important to recognize that games are finite events, the data from which many of the decisions using analytics are based is not. While not an intuitive statement, the goal of athletic events such as football, baseball etc is to win games, not maximize runs/points. They are related, but not the same. As an example, the 6-4 Dallas cowboys have more Net Points (Points scored minus points given up) than the 8-2 Packers and 8-2 Saints combined. The 6-4 3rd place in their Division LA Rams have more than double the net points than their second place nemesis 8-2 Seahawks. The 6-4 Raiders have a NEGATIVE 25 point differential yet sit several games ahead of the Chargers who have a positive net point value. |
|
|
|
Post by vicvinegar on Nov 24, 2019 9:39:25 GMT -6
I don't care what ESPN says, if we are down 14 in the 4th and score a TD, we're kicking the extra point. Also we had a D1 kicker this year... I trust him enough to send him out as oppose to going for it on 4th and 4.
|
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Nov 24, 2019 10:04:08 GMT -6
I don't care what ESPN says, if we are down 14 in the 4th and score a TD, we're kicking the extra point. Also we had a D1 kicker this year... I trust him enough to send him out as oppose to going for it on 4th and 4. I don’t think anyone would say the is a “bad” call. But, you have to realize that means you are playing for overtime. Which, again, is not a “bad”, it just doesn’t maximize your chances of winning that particular game. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2019 11:08:21 GMT -6
I don't care what ESPN says, if we are down 14 in the 4th and score a TD, we're kicking the extra point. Also we had a D1 kicker this year... I trust him enough to send him out as oppose to going for it on 4th and 4. that is 4 letter network pushing the robots, imo. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2019 6:16:11 GMT -6
I don't care what ESPN says, if we are down 14 in the 4th and score a TD, we're kicking the extra point. Also we had a D1 kicker this year... I trust him enough to send him out as oppose to going for it on 4th and 4. I don’t think anyone would say the is a “bad” call. But, you have to realize that means you are playing for overtime. Which, again, is not a “bad”, it just doesn’t maximize your chances of winning that particular game. How many of you factor in playing for OT vs. the win when at home vs. when on the road? I think on the road you are more aggressive, vs. at home, but that's just been my preference over the years. I also think you are more aggressive when you're the underdog too. Duece |
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Dec 2, 2019 6:58:58 GMT -6
I don’t think anyone would say the is a “bad” call. But, you have to realize that means you are playing for overtime. Which, again, is not a “bad”, it just doesn’t maximize your chances of winning that particular game. How many of you factor in playing for OT vs. the win when at home vs. when on the road? I think on the road you are more aggressive, vs. at home, but that's just been my preference over the years. I also think you are more aggressive when you're the underdog too. Duece Agree. Especially being the underdog. |
|
|
|
Post by cwaltsmith on Dec 2, 2019 9:44:12 GMT -6
Its hard to argue with numbers, but I don't feel that numbers can always relate to high school... bc most of the time the talent level isnt even on the HS field. This skews the numbers a ton...
|
|
|
|
Post by funkfriss on Dec 2, 2019 10:52:27 GMT -6
I don’t think anyone would say the is a “bad” call. But, you have to realize that means you are playing for overtime. Which, again, is not a “bad”, it just doesn’t maximize your chances of winning that particular game. How many of you factor in playing for OT vs. the win when at home vs. when on the road? I think on the road you are more aggressive, vs. at home, but that's just been my preference over the years. I also think you are more aggressive when you're the underdog too. Duece At least where I'm at, I don't feel like there is much of a home field advantage most weeks, so I don't go into a game thinking that way. I 100% agree with the underdog theory though and if you have a an opportunity to tie or take the lead late in regulation we're most likely going for the win. To me, you're taking what essentially amounts to about a 50/50 shot to win vs. a team you a much less than 50% chance of beating. When you think about it that way, I think most would take the 50/50 opportunity. Overtime, however, depends on whether we get the ball first. If we score first, assuming we have a good kicking game, we're taking the PAT and forcing our opponent to match us. It we score second, and assuming they converted their PAT, we're going for two for the reason stated above. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 2, 2019 18:02:53 GMT -6
I have never understood the "go for win on road, tie at home" philosophy, especially at the HS level. I absolutely understand that concept when you feel you are the underdog/inferior team.
|
|
