NFL Playoffs

[DSYoungEsq]

@Hamlet

Again, if Freeman does his job, it wouldn’t have been a bad call. I don’t think you can blame a coach when he doesn’t let the possibility of a player making a horrible play stop him from doing what has been successful all year. I linked to the article about just how good Ryan had been on 3rd down and how succesful the Falcons offense as a whole has been. I think way too many coaches take their foot of the pedal and try to avoid losing a game rather than playing to win the game. The Falcons were playing to win the game, and I don’t think it’s fair to fault them for that. Especially when they’ve been so successful all season.

It was a BAD CALL. It was a bad call for the following reasons:

1. It had a low probability of success. A deep throw on 3rd and 1 is not in any way designed with a high probability of succeeding. Checkdowns aren’t always going to be available. It is not a play designed to maximize the chances of moving the sticks. Doing it on 3rd and 1 in the middle of the field, where you can just shrug and go for it on 4th and 1 might be fine. Backed up in your own end of the field it’s a stupid call.

2. It offers up a greater possibility of a sack. Ignore the fact that Freeman was the one who failed his assignment. ANYONE of the blockers might have made a mistake. Further, the defense might have managed to out-think or out-play the offense and gotten to him, even with good play by the offense. A sack in that situation was a bad result, even if the ball isn’t fumbled.

3. There are plays the Falcons had in the playbook that not only are better designed to gain a single yard, but which had been quite successful up to that point in doing that. And those plays are much less likely to have a catastrophic, or even bad result. A pass play with a quick release, for example, such as the Patriots used successfully down the stretch, and which the Falcons are adept at using themselves (as the Packers found out).

4. The main reason to try what they were trying is to hit the “home run”, so to speak. Which is a fine idea when you are playing in a game that is wide open, or where there is still plenty of time to make up for your screw-up, should you screw up. I am never an advocate of retreating into a shell, and not being who and what you are. But the Falcons weren’t exactly spending the game being pass-happy (23 pass attempts to 18 rushing attempts). So asserting that they had to pass to fit their philosophy is just ludicrous. They could have run, or attempted a short pass, and been well within their “Falcon” persona.

You’ve asserted that the only reason this play is being criticized is because of the result. That’s not true, as I’ve shown. But I’m going to make the opposite charge: you’re asserting that it was an ok play only because of what would happen if it succeeded. That’s not a good yardstick. When you are up and protecting a lead (and at that point, the Falcons had to know that momentum was swinging, and the lead was theirs to protect), you don’t measure what to call on the basis of the upside of perfect play. It was a poor call. Yes, the result of the play magnified the poorness of the call, but it would have been a poor call even if all that had happened was that the Falcons had to kick to the Pats. It was part of the mental breakdown the Falcon staff had in that situation. They will, perhaps, learn from it.