To quote Rodney Dangerfield on The Simpsons: “If it gets any livelier, a funeral is gonna break out!”
If this was high school, that Jets receiver who dropped the ball on the 1 yard line would be forced to run the stairs at the stadium every day for the rest of the season. It never ceases to amaze me that guys can continue doing that.
Just came home and my wife told me about the Corley oopsie. Good lord, this has happened enough times already, does nobody ever learn?
Loving reading the messages that the Jets fans with paper bags on their heads have written. I LOL’d at “Save Us, Ben Johnson!”
Heh: Headline on a Sports Illustrated story today:
Blame the Texans for Keeping the Jets Relevant for At Least Another Week (si.com)
I blame the coaches. Make it clear that this bullshit will not be tolerated. And then don’t tolerate it. Bench the idiots for five games or so.
Threats of consequences mean nothing. Not scoring the first ever TD for a rookie is way worse than being benched.
It needs to be muscle memory. If you’re relying on the player to be thinking about it, stuff like this happen. Train them to run to the back of end zone or something, every time.
Film of that should be shown to all rookies as part of a formal orientation package. Anyone can score a touchdown after recovering a fumble, so everyone should be reminded.
Last week Jeff Saturday had some good insights on PTI I meant to share but forgot. (At least I think I forgot. Apologies if this is repeat.) They asked him about how uncomfortable you’d feel as a coach playing Tua. He said as a coach that wouldn’t even be a thought. Medical cleared him, he plays. Your job as coach is to coach the guys who are there. As a person you might feel some kind of way, but as a coach it’s your job to play him.
They followed up about Tua’s statement that he’s playing the odds. Jeff explained that all NFL players have lived their lives beating the odds. They’ve already beaten the one in a million odds at least once by virtue of making to the NFL, so the mindset is that they will continue to beat the odds. So he understood Tua using those words because that’s the typical mindset.
Later they asked Jeff about some QB who was playing terribly. They asked him as an offensive lineman, how would you feel about that? Jeff said cautiously optimistic, because again, the mindset of your typical NFL player is that they can beat the odds to turn it around.
I thought it was a fascinating insight that seems so obvious once he stated it outright. And then I felt that mindset in Rodgers as Michaels and Herbstreit were discussing on TNF how Rodgers outlined a path to the playoffs for the Jets this year in their meeting with him.
Saquon Barkley hurdles a defender while running after a catch. Backwards.
Lions look to be the cream of the NFC at this point.
Sirianni is infuriating. Absolute coaching malpractice. Went for it on 4th twice instead of taking the sure field goal, and three times went for a two-point conversion. Failures, leaving 9 sure points on the field, and almost losing a game that should have been out of reach. Only the last PAT was arguably justifiable, and that was only because his prior decisions made it so.
I am so tired of his dick-waving, “nobody tells me what to do” bullshit, and also tired of announcers excusing it because “that’s just how he is, bold and aggressive.” There’s bold and then there’s idiotic.
Yeah, no big blowout this time like against the Titans or Cowboys, but just a competent, well-handled game against a good Green Bay team in the pouring rain. At no time did it feel like the momentum might have been slipping away from the Lions. I’m starting to have tiny little glimmers of hope that-- no…don’t…say…it…
I believe the numbers say you are supposed to go for it instead of kicking. But as a Giants fan I’m getting awfully sick of following the numbers. Two weeks in a row down by 14 the Giants score a touchdown and go for 2 and don’t even come remotely close to converting either 2. So in both games they were down by 8 instead of 7 and it felt like they weren’t likely to convert the 2 to tie it up even if they scored again. A real kick in the dick in terms of momentum.
I have yet to be convinced that this is the correct strategy.
IMO, you should kick the XP to cut the lead to 7. Then, if and when you score a TD to draw within a point, you can make the decision to tie or take the lead.
But, the analytics.
I’m pretty sure this is strictly worse, strategically, than going for two first and kicking the XP on the second score, right? You’d rather have the option of going for two the second time to force the tie in case you fail the first time. In the “kick first, go for two second” strategy your odds of winning are strictly the odds of converting a single 2PAT.
Now, if you know you are going to kick both times to force OT, then fine. But if there is any chance you’re going to go for two to force the win it’s better to try it the first time.
I guess you give yourself the option of bailing out and taking the OT, but that’s just deferring the decision and giving yourself worse odds. Just make the call immediately on whether you are playing for the tie or the win and pick the path that maximizes your chances of that.
ETA: If you assume OT is a 50/50 win probability, and 2PAT is 50% and XP is 100% you get:
Kick both: 50% win, 50% lose
XP, then 2PAT: 50% win, 50% lose (no OT possible)
2PAT, then XP (or 2PAT if necessary to tie): 62.5% win, 37.5% lose
This is really the problem. Good teams have plays that are very high probability of success that they save for these situations. And they focus on execution to such a high level that they are consistently well over that 50% threshold.
So it’s not bad strategy, it’s bad tactics and execution, IMO.
ISTM unless going for it on 4th down is successful (meaning, ultimately results in a touchdown) 50% or more of the times, it should be extremely situational. It’s the first half and you’re up by 14? Bank the 3 points. And shouldn’t one of the decision factors be, “Gee, we’ve failed 4 times so far this game. Maybe for whatever reason today’s not the day for us to roll the dice against this opponent”?
I do agree that it should be just about every time or almost never, statistically. But I’m tired this year (and last year) lamenting games where leaving points on the field played a huge factor. So, we’re either an outlier or I’m experiencing confirmation bias—but I’m not sold.
Sorry, I was unclear. I meant good teams should be succeeding at a high rate.
But year, this year teams are failing a lot. I don’t know if it’s because more teams are trying it - at a rough glance that doesn’t seem to be the case.
Last year 20 teams ended at or above 50%, and the overall success rate was 55% (from your article).
So either teams are just really poorly coached this year, something about all the rookie/backup QBs is lowering the success rate, or it’s just a glitch of small sample size and it will even out by the end of the year.
I am fully aware of what the strategy and analytics say in this situation, and it says to go for two.
I wonder, though, how often it’s been tried and ultimately been successful? If you are down 14 points in the fourth quarter, you’ve been outplayed for a significant period of time, and your odds of scoring another TD (while holding your opponent scoreless) are probably not real high.
This ESPN article from September of 2023 states that the down-8-go-for-two strategy had been attempted 24 times in the previous five seasons and was successful 14 times…but only once had the converting team actually won the game. (The article also makes a strong analytical case for attempting the two-point conversion.)
Going for 2 down 8 points: Explaining NFL analytics strategy - ESPN