Bill O’Brien out in Houston, that didn’t take long https://twitter.com/McClain_on_NFL/status/1313220830118248448?s=20
O’Brien is a good coach. Wouldn’t call him great, but he runs an orderly show. But his teams never could seem to get much past mediocrity.
I just figured no one would be pulling the plug this early in the season given the clusterfuck that it’s been. But O’Brien will definitely be in the mix when we have our annual coaching carousel thread in January
Horrendous GM, though.
Agreed, and that’s what cost him his job. Coaching is one thing; drafting, getting FA, replacing new assistants and coaching is quite another. Few can do it like Hoodie Wizard.
Tony Romo and Jim Nantz are celebrating nepotism in the NFL.
I think that wearing both the coach and GM hats at the same time is just about impossible to do well in the modern NFL. Belichick is the exception to the rule (though he isn’t technically the GM, he effectively is, of course); I’m not sure that anyone else has done it successfully in the salary cap era.
Yeah, a lot of coaches have input and influence over personnel, but I don’t think even Andy Reid is quite as involved to the degree that Belichick is. Belichick is like an architect or an engineer - he gets granular, and not just with players but with his coaching staff as well.
Bill Bellicheck impresses again. Dude’s amazing.
Mike Holmgren tried to: he left Green Bay after two straight Super Bowl appearances (and a victory) in '98, because he wanted to be GM as well as head coach, and Seattle was willing to give him both roles.
That experiment lasted four years, the last three of which had the Seahawks not making the playoffs; after the Seahawks took the GM duties away from him, he coached the team to five straight playoff berths and a Super Bowl appearance.
New rule: You’re not allowed to play NFL football for 3 weeks if you get juked by Brian Hoyer.
One of the local papers ran an article after Week 2 about four 0-2 teams “in trouble” since expectations were not met. It seemed a little early to be getting misty eyed. But I’m a little surprised at these Texan teams. I guess it’s not the same Cleveland team yet again.
Pats backup QBs not lookin’ too tough.
Obviously would have been a much different game if Newton would have played. Pats defense played well and kept Mahomes in check for much of the game.
One of the longstanding board debates is when to go for 2 when down by 15. I’ve long argued (and still maintain) that you save the hardest thing for last, so go for 2 second. I’m in the minority, though, possibly on an island. I think of you add up all the chances it works slightly better to go for it first so that you know what you need if you miss it, instead of the game just ending because you saved it for last. But the “slightly better” requires successfully recovering an onside kick, which I dismiss out of hand as anything you can plan on or factor into your chances of winning. You can convert a 2-pointer. You can’t recover an onside kick.
Anyway, someone posted in one of these weekly threads this season noting that the exact situation had happened. (Anyone got a link?) Pretty sure the comeback team was down by 15 and went for the 2-pointer on the first TD, but I forget the results. (Anecdotal either way.) But it showed acceptance of the slight mathematical advantage argument in practice in the league.
What I’m wondering is, has that same logic for going for the 2 on the first TD when down by 15 crept into standard logic when down by 14? Is there really any functional difference between the two? (Not a rhetorical assertion, an actual question. Is there?)
Was either of this week’s teams who went for it first the same team that did it earlier this season?
I don’t recall the references you mention, but just speaking generally…there should be no difference at all. Unless you can prove that the odds when going for 2 change based on the order in which you try (doubtful) the odds of success should essentially be equal.
The only argument that I can think of which is compelling is that if you go for 2 first, then you retain the option to play for the win on the second attempt instead of settling for the tie. If I were a coach that would be what I’d base my strategy on.
They do. If you get a penalty on your first attempt at going for 2, say, a false start or a holding, and it becomes 7 and goal or 12 and goal instead of 2 and goal, you can switch to kicking an extra point (where the penalty yardage barely matters) and try the 2 point attempt after the next touchdown. If you don’t go for 2 until the second TD, and you get a penalty, now you have no option and a much harder converison.
When down 14, always go for two in the fourth quarter.
Let’s pessimistically say you’ll convert 100% of your extra points and just 40% of your 2-point conversions. Let’s also say you win 50% of the time in overtime.
Case 1: You fail on the first 2PC 60% of the time. You fail the second 2PC 60% of the time. 36% of the time, you lose in regulation. You succeed on the second 2PC 40% of the time. You go to overtime 24% of the time; presumably, you’ll win 50% of the time then.
Case 2: You succeed on the first 2PC 40% of the time. You kick an extra point the second time, succeed, and win.
In total: you lose 48% of the time (36% in regulation, 12% in overtime) and win 52% of the time (40% in regulation, 12% in overtime). So even with the 40% 2PC rate and 100% XP rate, it’s better to go for two first. (Assuming 100% XP conversion, the breakeven point is where your 2PC success rate is the same as how often you miss two 2PCs: x = (1-x)² = (3-√5)/2 ≈ 38.197%.)
The argument as I remember it is that you either make or miss the 2. If you save it for last and you miss you lose 100% of the time. If you try it first and miss you can still win. You need an onside kick and a FG, but it’s non-zero. So whatever small percentage that is, add it onto the “do it first” side and that makes it higher percentage to go for 2 first. That way you know what you need instead of just conceding defeat if you miss the 2.
I haven’t heard that before. It is non-zero, admittedly, but I still think saving the 2pt for last when down by 15 is better.
You have to play a lower percentage game plan when down by two scores than down by one. I believe just in my gut that the difference (no stats to support or refute) between those higher and lower percentage gameplans overwhelms any minor statistical advantage granted by getting a free mulligan for a holding penalty plus the extra non-zero chance of recovering an onside kick and then scoring a field goal.
If you go for it first and miss, the next TD is now much less likely to happen, because now you have to save the clock for the onside kick so you have a more restricted gameplan. Lower percentage.
I’m saying that lower percentage plan half the time (because you missed the 2pt) overwhelms the minor “but you could still win!” bump to have an end result where it’s actually higher percentage to save it for last. But I have no stats to back that up whatsoever, just the logic of it.
Imagine you’re down by 9, deciding between PAT and 2pt, with 3:00 left and 2 timeouts. Kick the PAT to pull within 8, kick off, hold them, get the ball back at or very close to the 2:00 warning on your own 25.
Or you go for the 2pt and miss. You’re now still down by 2 scores, have to hold them, score a TD, recover an onside kick, and score a FG to win or you’re done. My argument is that that next TD is now much less likely to actually happen than in the “kick first” scenario, but it always seems to be assumed to be the same chance.
I have also argued that in practice, going for it first and missing will utterly destroy your team morale, still down by 2 scores and knowing you need an onside kick to even have a chance. In addition to a lower percentage gameplan because you have to save more time, your human players may very well check out mentally and just be thinking about the plane ride home instead of pumped up and doing everything in their power to win this winnable game.
I think in every sense you should save the 2 for last, both in terms of a strict % chance of winning and for motivating your team to make it happen.
On preview, I’m not entirely sure what Kimble just wrote. I’ll have to think on that a minute.
I was thinking of the week 2 thread, where Taber pointed it out in post 43:
A direct refutation of my position. I mean, it still needed the “Step 2: A Miracle Occurs” of recovering an onside kick, but it did demonstrate an actual NFL team going for the 2 first.