CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPORTS, GAMES & LEISURE › Sports › Rant re: Moronic Coaching Decisions in Football
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rant re: Moronic Coaching Decisions in Football - Page 2

post #51 of 86
11/23/05 at 7:24pm
But if we're going to complain about coaching moves, how about coaches caring about a kick being in the middle of the field. In the pros, the hashmarks are about a yard apart from each other. Not that putting the ball in the field has ever cost anyone a game, but it just seems useless to me.
Reply
post #52 of 86
11/23/05 at 7:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Allen
Maybe you guys are playing Madden too much.
To paraphrase a famous coach:"(These coaches) have forgotten more about the game of Football than any of you know."

Some videogame strategies don't work in sports. My buddy, an avid Madden player, told me when I asked him about that play, that his first thought was "why didn't they let him score," instantly followed by "no, I would just do that in Madden."

The examples Overlord gave were about last minute touchdowns, but were they followed by an allowed score? Did the defense just up and allow the TD prior?

Again, I don't think I've ever seen a TD allowed. And that's because it's not football sense.
Reply
post #53 of 86
11/23/05 at 7:29pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guttenberg Fan Club
But if we're going to complain about coaching moves, how about coaches caring about a kick being in the middle of the field. In the pros, the hashmarks are about a yard apart from each other. Not that putting the ball in the field has ever cost anyone a game, but it just seems useless to me.
I don't know how kickers make anything, anyway. I tried a few times and didn't even come close from right on the goal line.
Reply
post #54 of 86
11/23/05 at 7:32pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Allen
Again, I don't think I've ever seen a TD allowed. And that's because it's not football sense.
I have. Several times in college, and once by Dick Vermeil (I'm relatively certain) a few years back.

The Vermeil one, the RB went up the middle, was untouched, and scored on a 70 yard run or so. His team was up by 8 after the tD. It took the announcers a few seconds to realize what had happened, and I remember thinking that it was the most brilliant coaching I had ever seen (the other team could have run the clock down to about ten seconds).

It would probably be remembered more if the Chiefs had gone on to force OT and win.
Reply
post #55 of 86
11/23/05 at 7:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Allen
Again, I don't think I've ever seen a TD allowed. And that's because it's not football sense.
I think the Packers did it in their Super Bowl against the Broncos.

As for kicking, I'm with you, Overlord. Except, one day I took my brother to the high school to throw the ball around. Before we left, we tried kicking extra points. I hit about 8 in a row. I'd never hit one before. So I moved back & just kept hitting. I kicked a 45 yarder. It was unbelievable. Then I lost my footing on a kick, and it was gone. I couldn't get it 10 feet after that. It was like Jim Carrey in The Cable Guy losing his slur for just a moment, only to have it irreversibly come back.
Reply
post #56 of 86
11/23/05 at 7:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overlord
I have. Several times in college, and once by Dick Vermeil (I'm relatively certain) a few years back.

The Vermeil one, the RB went up the middle, was untouched, and scored on a 70 yard run or so. His team was up by 8 after the tD. It took the announcers a few seconds to realize what had happened, and I remember thinking that it was the most brilliant coaching I had ever seen (the other team could have run the clock down to about ten seconds).

It would probably be remembered more if the Chiefs had gone on to force OT and win.
Why didn't they try to strip the ball?
Reply
post #57 of 86
11/23/05 at 9:22pm
I thought I would chime in with my thoughts. In my opinion I would let the other team score. My reasoning being when the vikes kicked off after their TD 9 time out of 10 times they squib kick it to avoid risking the big kickoff return. So now the packers have the ball on about thier own 35 with about 50 seconds left with 2 timeout. Whats gonna happen then is the vikes will go into prevent because they need to stop a TD not a field goal. So with 2 time outs left from their own 35 and 50 seconds left on the clock thats plenty of time for the packers to pick up big yardage over the middle which is always open in the prevent defense. So at worst you have green bay pretty deep in the vikes territory maybe around 20-25 yard line with possibly 15-20 secs left on the clock. Now I would take my chances of giving Farve 2 cracks from the vikes 25 at getting a TD before I would take the chance that my defense could block a 25 yard feild goal which I would say happens roughly ever 100-150 kicks at that distance. The thing is you most likely lose in either scenario but you chances are far greater down 7 from their 25 than a tie game with 10 seconds left praying for a completly flukey play to save your ass.
Reply
post #58 of 86
11/23/05 at 9:58pm
Thread Starter 
I like the way you think Wease.
Reply
post #59 of 86
11/23/05 at 10:55pm
We're not in the 90's, anymore. The prevent defense isn't exactly in vogue. I think you're taking for granted the fact that they'll play a defense that coordinators get fired for playing. Yes, I'm sure the Vikes would've just let GB march down the field uncontested, much like the GB would've done to get in this position. At this point, the best defense is no defense, apparently.
Reply
post #60 of 86
11/24/05 at 1:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guttenberg Fan Club
We're not in the 90's, anymore. The prevent defense isn't exactly in vogue. I think you're taking for granted the fact that they'll play a defense that coordinators get fired for playing. Yes, I'm sure the Vikes would've just let GB march down the field uncontested, much like the GB would've done to get in this position. At this point, the best defense is no defense, apparently.
Teams still play a form of the prevent, by forcing receivers in and giving a cushion.

Obviously the team would want to strip the ball, but the second they come near the runner he should fall down, so as to protect the ball. But GFC, you've avoided my question. Given the stats I put up before, (1.2% chance of missing an extra point, make it 2% to factor the distance, risk of fumbling the snap and turning it over, etc.) would you rather take the 1 in 50 shot of the missed field goal/turnover from the 8 yard line or have one minute and two time outs to score a TD?
Reply
post #61 of 86
11/24/05 at 5:21am
In the NFL I agree with allowing the opponent to score in order to get the ball back. The odds of successfully orchestrating a final minute TD drive have to be better than blocking a field goal under 30 yards.

In college I would always try to force the opponent to make the kick, as college kickers are notoriously inconsistent, if not downright awful.

The thing is that coaching in the NFL (with rare exceptions) is very conservative. Some things simply aren't done traditionally, so no one will risk them.

Let's flip the situation around. You are trailing by 6 points, and have a first down on your opponents 1 yard line with under 2 minutes to play. Your opponent is out of timeouts, but they have a killer passing game that has been unstoppable all day (such as Manning/Harrison). Do you try to actually score on first down, or do you have the back fall down at the line of scrimmage once or twice to burn off the clock?
Reply
post #62 of 86
11/24/05 at 6:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson
That's a little bit of a reach there, they do it mainly for the reasons Guttenberg said.
how so? he's giving a sole reason when there's obviously more reasons then one to take a knee.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Desslar
In college I would always try to force the opponent to make the kick, as college kickers are notoriously inconsistent, if not downright awful.
i agree with this for the most parts. college kickers tend to really suck.
Reply
post #63 of 86
11/24/05 at 9:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by heLL pAso
how so? he's giving a sole reason when there's obviously more reasons then one to take a knee.
Thus my use of the word "mainly."
Reply
post #64 of 86
11/24/05 at 1:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overlord
I wouldn't go for two, make the other team have to go for two instead.

The prevent defense is not designed to prevent the team from scoring, it's only designed to prevent the team from scoring quickly. It can be a good idea if time is more precious than points, but if you are ahead by eight points or fewer, or if there is more than a few minutes left, it is a bone-head defense to play.
I disagree on that. If I score two I can finish the game. If I just kick the extra point I am giving the other team a chance to demoralize us before overtime. At best I win the game, at worst we go to overtime just like we would have if they had scored a touchdown within 2:00.

On the prevent defense, of course if your up by 40 then go ahead and play prevent. I'm talking more about the first Patriot's superbowl win when the Rams basicly handed New England the victory by playing prevent with 2:00 minutes left in a tie game.

Edited to add: I put it at #2 of all time stupid moments in coaching. Stupid moment #1 Houston vs KC in the playoffs. After succesfully blitzing Montana for first half the coach decides to never blitz again in the second. Result KC win.
Reply
post #65 of 86
11/25/05 at 10:15am
Undoubtedly the worst coaching decision of all time happened last night. Seriously, unless I completed misunderstood the situation of what happened, no one can touch this Wanny classic:

UWV is leading Pitt 14-13 in the 2nd. Pitt has the ball near midfield & it's 3rd and 13. On the insuing play, they gain ten yards, the ball is around the 42 of UWV, but three yards short of a first. However, UWV was offsides on the play. Wanny, in all his glory, DECLINES THE PENALTY and decides to punt, apparently to play the field position game.

During the going into halftime interview, Wanny was asked what his team needs to do better. He rambled for a couple moments, then let loose with one of the great coaching gems I've ever heard - "Our guys just need to run faster". Awesome, Wanny. Just awesome.
Reply
post #66 of 86
11/25/05 at 12:04pm
Now you know how I felt as a Dolphins Fan for the four years Wannstadt somehow hung around. They had the pieces to win the Superbowl....similar schematic to the Ravens...and he botched it.
Reply
post #67 of 86
11/25/05 at 12:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guttenberg Fan Club
Undoubtedly the worst coaching decision of all time happened last night. Seriously, unless I completed misunderstood the situation of what happened, no one can touch this Wanny classic:

UWV is leading Pitt 14-13 in the 2nd. Pitt has the ball near midfield & it's 3rd and 13. On the insuing play, they gain ten yards, the ball is around the 42 of UWV, but three yards short of a first. However, UWV was offsides on the play. Wanny, in all his glory, DECLINES THE PENALTY and decides to punt, apparently to play the field position game.

During the going into halftime interview, Wanny was asked what his team needs to do better. He rambled for a couple moments, then let loose with one of the great coaching gems I've ever heard - "Our guys just need to run faster". Awesome, Wanny. Just awesome.
Wow that is the new number 1. Declining a penalty to kick the ball, wow.
Reply
post #68 of 86
11/25/05 at 1:08pm
No, the greatest of all time was Leeman Bennett with the Bucs electing to kick off after winning the coin toss.

In overtime.

His reasoning was that the wind was bad and he would have rather forced the opposition to kick into the wind.
Reply
post #69 of 86
11/25/05 at 4:44pm
I'd like to add Parcells' decison not to go for it on 4th and 1 with a little over two minutes left in the game. (score tied, ball on the 50) I was expecting having to go for a wild card, but I thought, surely, if any team left on their schedule could hand Denver a loss, it would be the Cowboys.

Fuck.
Reply
post #70 of 86
11/26/05 at 12:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson
No, the greatest of all time was Leeman Bennett with the Bucs electing to kick off after winning the coin toss.

In overtime.

His reasoning was that the wind was bad and he would have rather forced the opposition to kick into the wind.
Wasn't that detroit or is this another guy. I recall the detroit coach (before the guy who is now there) doing the same for the same reasons.
Reply
post #71 of 86
10/10/06 at 3:49pm
Thread Starter 
This thread is back from the graveyard. Why, you ask? Because this week we saw the OPPOSITE scenario of why I originally created the thread.

Scenario: DeShaun Foster ran for a first down with less than two minutes left, with the opposing team having no time-outs, and with his own team (Carolina) in the lead.

Once he achieved the first down, he either was allowed or was able (I couldn't tell whether the Defense let him through on purpose or not, but I suspect they did) to score on a long TD run. The entire time I was screaming at the television "Just fall down you idiot, and your team wins the game!" I literally couldn't believe it when he went ahead and scored the TD. If he had fallen down and refused to score a TD, he would have GUARANTEED his team a victory. The QB could have taken three snaps, allowed the clock to run out, and Carolina would have won.

What happened? The other team marches down the field and scores, and then has a chance to recover an on-side kick with a decent amount of time left to try and win the game. Carolina does recover the on-side kick, so it worked out okay, but I once again have to shake my head at the institution-wide failure of NFL coaches to prepare players for common end-game scenarios.

What is the CHUD consensus on this situation? I was in a bar environment where there was no sound, so I couldn't tell if the commentators talked about this. For anyone watching the game, was this a topic of debate after the play?
Reply
post #72 of 86
10/10/06 at 3:55pm
My roommate and I got into a discussion about this last night. As a person who wholeheartedly believes in a "Play to Win" spirit (fairly, obviously), I agree with you. To me, it sounds like a player elevating his own stats, even though it could be a detriment to the team. Maybe it's not as sinister as that, maybe it's just too hard to shut off the instinct of "Get in the endzone!!!"
My roommate, on the other hand, would disagree with you. He gets mad when teams take a knee 30 seconds before halftime, or even at the end of a 41-0 blowout game. In his opinion, you should be forced to run a play at every given opportunity, or else not even be on a field. I guess he's more of a purist?
Reply
post #73 of 86
10/10/06 at 3:58pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Miller
My roommate and I got into a discussion about this last night. As a person who wholeheartedly believes in a "Play to Win" spirit (fairly, obviously), I agree with you. To me, it sounds like a player elevating his own stats, even though it could be a detriment to the team. Maybe it's not as sinister as that, maybe it's just too hard to shut off the instinct of "Get in the endzone!!!"
My roommate, on the other hand, would disagree with you. He gets mad when teams take a knee 30 seconds before halftime, or even at the end of a 41-0 blowout game. In his opinion, you should be forced to run a play at every given opportunity, or else not even be on a field. I guess he's more of a purist?
I do not blame the player UNLESS his coach has actually instructed him as to what to do regarding that situation. That's why we have coaches. You can't expect an RB who is constantly taught how to score to suddenly figure out a complicated end-game scenario: this is where the assistant/head coach/QB has to step up and tell the team "when you are 100% sure you have the first down, just fall down and we win!".

If the player ignores that instruction, I blame him. Otherwise, it's on the coaches.
Reply
post #74 of 86
10/10/06 at 4:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overlord
This thread is back from the graveyard. Why, you ask? Because this week we saw the OPPOSITE scenario of why I originally created the thread.

Scenario: DeShaun Foster ran for a first down with less than two minutes left, with the opposing team having no time-outs, and with his own team (Carolina) in the lead.

Once he achieved the first down, he either was allowed or was able (I couldn't tell whether the Defense let him through on purpose or not, but I suspect they did) to score on a long TD run. The entire time I was screaming at the television "Just fall down you idiot, and your team wins the game!" I literally couldn't believe it when he went ahead and scored the TD. If he had fallen down and refused to score a TD, he would have GUARANTEED his team a victory. The QB could have taken three snaps, allowed the clock to run out, and Carolina would have won.

What happened? The other team marches down the field and scores, and then has a chance to recover an on-side kick with a decent amount of time left to try and win the game. Carolina does recover the on-side kick, so it worked out okay, but I once again have to shake my head at the institution-wide failure of NFL coaches to prepare players for common end-game scenarios.

What is the CHUD consensus on this situation? I was in a bar environment where there was no sound, so I couldn't tell if the commentators talked about this. For anyone watching the game, was this a topic of debate after the play?
This was versus the Saints, and Sean Payton told the Defense (and I saw the tape of this) "If he gets the first down and is still standing, let them score". It was the only way the Saints could have won the game, and it almost worked out.

I can't say if Deshaun was just being a "me me me" guy, or if he was just caught up in the moment. I know it wasn't that smart.
Reply
post #75 of 86
10/10/06 at 4:10pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Sutton
This was versus the Saints, and Sean Payton told the Defense (and I saw the tape of this) "If he gets the first down and is still standing, let them score". It was the only way the Saints could have won the game, and it almost worked out.

I can't say if Deshaun was just being a "me me me" guy, or if he was just caught up in the moment. I know it wasn't that smart.
Sean Payton apparently read this thread from beginning to end and came to his senses.
Reply
post #76 of 86
10/10/06 at 4:23pm
I think the Tuesday Morning Quarterback on ESPN said exactly the same thing, and chalked it up to a professional athlete in a competitive situation simply not being able to shut down his competitive drive and not score. When the adrenaline is rushing and you see nothing between you and that goal line, it's hard to think about running down the clock as opposed to giving your team more points.

Your logic is sound, but at that moment, Foster was on autopilot.
Reply
post #77 of 86
10/10/06 at 4:30pm
I would tend to agree with Dickson here. Though, I didn't see the game, so you might have to help me out a bit. Was there ample opportunity for the coach to tell Foster to fall down?
Reply
post #78 of 86
10/10/06 at 4:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overlord
This thread is back from the graveyard. Why, you ask? Because this week we saw the OPPOSITE scenario of why I originally created the thread.
This isn't an example of the opposite reason of why you started the thread. The Saints were already behind, not tied.
Reply
post #79 of 86
10/10/06 at 5:42pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guttenberg Fan Club
This isn't an example of the opposite reason of why you started the thread. The Saints were already behind, not tied.
Thank you for your analysis. Here's the breakdown of my motivational state, since that's of interest to you:

1)Original motivation: Coaches/players sadly do not know when they should allow the other team to score a touchdown and thereby prevent the clock from running out on them.

2)New (opposite) motivation: Coaches/players sadly do not know when they should refuse to score a touchdown even when allowed to by the other team and thereby ensure that the clock runs out on their opponents.
Reply
post #80 of 86
10/10/06 at 5:57pm
No, your motivation was that you should concede a lead in order to have a chance to get back to the point you were before you conceded points in the first place. This is different because there is no tie.

I find it interesting that blame should be on the guy who scored a game winning TD and not a defense for giving up an 87 yard TD.
Reply
post #81 of 86
10/10/06 at 6:07pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guttenberg Fan Club
No, your motivation was ..... [blah blah blah]
I have a handle as to my motivations. Please see above, where I go ahead and detail them for you.
Reply
post #82 of 86
10/10/06 at 6:08pm
So you're changing your original stance rather than admitting you were wrong? That's weak.
Reply
post #83 of 86
10/10/06 at 6:22pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guttenberg Fan Club
So you're changing your original stance rather than admitting you were wrong? That's weak.
I can't believe you are telling me that I am wrong as my personal motivations for creating a thread, then resurrecting it.

Quote:
No, your motivation was that you should concede a lead in order to have a chance to get back to the point you were before you conceded points in the first place. This is different because there is no tie.
Do you know what the word "motivation" means? Your quote above details a summary of my post, not my "motivation" for posting it.

As I explained before, my "motivation" in creating this thread was to point out examples of coaches/players not knowing how to manage clocks at the end of games in order to maximize their teams chances of winning. In this thread I have posted two specific examples of this strange phenomenom.

These examples happen to be opposites of each other: i.e., one team doesn't realize they should let the other team score, versus one team doesn't realize it should not allow the other team to permit it to score.
Reply
post #84 of 86
10/10/06 at 6:27pm
It's not opposite because the situations aren't comparable. A forward pass isn't the opposite of a tackle, they're just two different things.

Your arguement is that there is one case where a team should surrender a lead and that's the opposite of a case where a team already had a lead. That's incorrect.

You're still wrong on the first part, anyways.
Reply
post #85 of 86
10/10/06 at 8:02pm
Quote:
These examples happen to be opposites of each other: i.e., one team doesn't realize they should let the other team score, versus one team doesn't realize it should not allow the other team to permit it to score.
So, by your thinking, all players should know the situation. The score, the time remaining, the time outs available to the other team, etc. They should know when to tackle, when to allow TD, and when to fall (and risk injury, as WR and RBs dont have the same protection as a sliding QB). On top of this, these things should be taught during practice, and run as they do the 2 minute drills, since the coach cannot remind them that the other team is allowing the TD as they are running down the field, or vice versa.

I can picture it now: The RB breaks for a long run, so he decides at the last second, on the one yard line to lay down. The defense realizes what is happening, so they don't touch him, so as not to tackle him, since they'll just kneel and run clock. So everyone just stands there. AT SOME POINT THE DEFENSE MUST TACKLE HIM, or it's game over. There, that's your answer.
Reply
post #86 of 86
10/10/06 at 8:48pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Allen
So, by your thinking, all players should know the situation. The score, the time remaining, the time outs available to the other team, etc. They should know when to tackle, when to allow TD, and when to fall (and risk injury, as WR and RBs dont have the same protection as a sliding QB). On top of this, these things should be taught during practice, and run as they do the 2 minute drills, since the coach cannot remind them that the other team is allowing the TD as they are running down the field, or vice versa.

I can picture it now: The RB breaks for a long run, so he decides at the last second, on the one yard line to lay down. The defense realizes what is happening, so they don't touch him, so as not to tackle him, since they'll just kneel and run clock. So everyone just stands there. AT SOME POINT THE DEFENSE MUST TACKLE HIM, or it's game over. There, that's your answer.
Coaches need to know, not the players.

And yes, Foster should have collapsed in a heap at the one yard line and refused to move.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sports
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPORTS, GAMES & LEISURE › Sports › Rant re: Moronic Coaching Decisions in Football