I’ve been thinking lately of three particular NFL games:
[ul]
[li]Super Bowl XLIX, the infamous game where the Seahawks threw the ball at the 2-yard line (Seattle still had one timeout) rather than run it with Lynch, and it was picked off by the Patriots, game over;[/li][li]Super Bowl LI, where the Falcons held a 28-3 lead at one point and on three or four different occasions thereafter could have effectively ended the game by running the ball, but instead kept dropping back needlessly to pass (and getting sacked or throwing incompletions that stopped the clock and gave New England precious time), and it eventually led to the Patriots comeback;[/li][li]A much less consequential, more recent, game: Packers at the Eagles’ 3-yard line, with two timeouts remaining, but Rodgers threw the ball and it was picked off by the Eagles; game over.[/li][/ul]
In each of these instances it made far more sense to run the ball than to throw it - but the offensive coordinators got too cute and it led to defeat. Is this a case of outsmarting oneself - “They know we should run, so we ought to pass instead?” In the Seahawks and Packers instances, there was still 25+ seconds of time remaining and the offense still had a timeout remaining, so the concern about the clock expiring if the runner were stopped short of the goal line didn’t apply.
I think it depends on how the offensive front stacks up to the defensive front. My read on the situation is that “obvious” situations probably aren’t so obvious. I’ve seen a lot of 3rd or 4th with less than 1 yard to go where the offense decides to run it up the middle and fails. I think if a defense “knew” that the offense was going to run it up the middle, they would be able to stop the play for no gain on decent percentage of those plays.
I wonder why NFL OCs insist on running the ball when the defense knows that’s the obvious situation. Time and time again, a team needs a first down to end the game, so they run it and get stuffed. So instead of throwing it, they run it on second down, and get stuffed again. Instead of just throwing the thing like they should, they run it again, and get another yard, finally punting on 4th and 7 after a three-and-out. Now the opponent’s star QB shreds the Prevent Defense and they lose.
So my question is why, why, why some NFL offensive coordinators insist on running the ball in **obvious **“run-it” situations?
^^^ Be that as it may for the specific Seattle situation, in the Falcons-Patriots game there were numerous occasions where the Falcons were in Patriots territory, with a big lead, and had they just run the ball, could have run down time and added a few field goals to put things out of reach. Instead they took sacks or incompletions that gave New England time and drove the Falcons back out of FG range.
The Patriots have an unblocked defender on the right side (note that there are two defenders under the rightmost yellow circle, and only one of them is in man coverage against SEA #89.
Two years prior, Green Bay was up by 12 with five minutes left and first down at their own 40, and did exactly that, but ended up having to punt after losing two yards net over the three downs and taking just over a minute off the clock. Four minutes and a brutal OT later, Seattle punched their ticket to the Super Bowl - where they tried to pass instead of run and lost to the Patriots.
Moral of the story - never take your foot off the gas. The Packers started thinking about the Super Bowl before they finished the game they were playing, and gave up the second-most excruciating loss to the Seahawks in my memory.
I think the Falcons legitimately took the aggressiveness too far. Even against a great offense like the Patriots, when you’re in clock-killing mode you should be running almost all of the time on first and second, and then maybe throwing on 3rd to try to keep the drive alive. Teams had lost huge games to the Pats in big games in previous years in part because they got too conservative, but there’s a happy medium. Also the falcons hat legitimately got to the point where a few run plays and maybe one first down would have just iced the game - you can’t ignore the math when it gets that extreme.
In the Seahawks game, I believe it was only second down. So an incomplete pass would give them time for two more plays, whereas a non-scoring run play likely wouldn’t.
Hindsight is 20-20. When it is all said and done, it’s a “great call” if it works or a “terrible decision” if it doesn’t.
That’s not to say that I don’t agree there are bad decisions. Throwing on the goal line when you had what was the best running back in the league at the time made no sense. It was a case of thinking too much and trying to cross up the defense when you simply could have run right over them.
I remember when Lovie Smith called a time out in order to decide whether or not he should throw the challenge flag. He had three minutes to make the right decision. He chose to challenge and lost so, in essence, that one challenge cost him TWO time outs instead of just one.
I can only agree with this up to a certain extent. Some decisions simply flout practical sense. With the Seahawks call, perhaps indeed the Patriots were gearing up to stuff the run, and an INT doesn’t happen all that often, so it was worth the try. But with the Falcons, they were repeatedly throwing the ball even when they were already substantially within Patriots territory, needing to bleed the clock, holding a big lead, and running the ball twice could have given them a field goal and also run more precious time off the clock. Even a high school football team would know better than to keep throwing and taking sacks and incompletions in that situation.
Why didn’t Vizzini switch the cups one more time? Eventually you have to select a play, and if it looks like an obvious run situation then the defense knows that too. You pick the play that you think has the best chance of success, and if you’re lucky you picked the right one.
Not if the robot based its calls on fans choice! The fans call one of several 1-900 numbers to register their preference. Each call costs 1, with .60 going to charity and $.40 going to me (it was my idea).
A few years ago I watched a game at the stadium with a retired professional player of that sport. It was illuminating, he predicted every play before hand, almost always correctly. Even more interesting, on several occasions, he said, beforehand, that the other side had figured out what was going to happen and the play was blown.
Point is professionals know a hell of a lot more then the fans. What’s “obvious”, might not really be, due to factors we cannot readily appreciate. In addition, the “obvious” thing is predictable, and as Boris Becker can tell you, an opponent who knows what you are going to do is a very dangerous one
Finally, in the examples,above, what was the earlier game flow like? If throwing has been succeeding and running failing, I can well imagine the coaches and players being loathe to change. Sure you may have a 20 point lead and running may be the conservative smart move. But if for instance, in the game this far you have been stopped every time you run and only throwing has gotten you such a lead, yeah the option is between certain failure by running (exacerbated by the fact the opposition knows you are going t), and possibly let them comeback or continue to play as before, with an element of surprise and high reward.