Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 56 of 71 FirstFirst ... 646545556575866 ... LastLast
Results 826 to 840 of 1059
  1. #826
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    28,021
    Quote Originally Posted by shorvath721 View Post
    Getting the first down in both scenarios is way more important than making them use a timeout. You end the game in that scenario. Way more success running in 3/2 then 3/7 in my opinion to get a first down.
    Would like to see some data to back that up. I'd guess the odds in either case are higher to convert with a pass than run. In this offense, I'd put it close to a guarantee though. I don't blame Nagy for not trusting the run.

  2. #827
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    21,712
    Quote Originally Posted by La_bibbers View Post
    That's great, but again, you have to be mindful of the fact that a coach has to play to his players weaknesses. It's again, an instance of people failing to take into account how limited Nagy is by his players.
    More variance means use it a little more. It doesnít mean predominantly. Unless you think foles is completely incapable of running any plays under center

  3. #828
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    South Chicago Suburbs
    Posts
    1,277
    Quote Originally Posted by La_bibbers View Post
    Would like to see some data to back that up. I'd guess the odds in either case are higher to convert with a pass than run. In this offense, I'd put it close to a guarantee though. I don't blame Nagy for not trusting the run.
    What data? Iím just saying itís easier to get 2 yards rushing than it is 7? Pretty simple math man. If we had a great QB, different story.

  4. #829
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    51,122
    Quote Originally Posted by shorvath721 View Post
    What data? Iím just saying itís easier to get 2 yards rushing than it is 7? Pretty simple math man. If we had a great QB, different story.
    That's not what he was saying. He was saying that running the ball for 2 yards with this offense doesn't seem more likely to result in a first than passing it for 2 yards.

    Also, people here don't actually use win probability. They use the win probability that exists in their head canon. If they used real win probability they wouldn't be nearly as angry about these decisions as they are.

    I hated the decision to pass yesterday specifically. I thought it was a really bad decision. But any single bad decision almost NEVER cost your team more than a few percentage points in the win probability column.

    And on top of that, most people have such a poor understanding of probability and statistics that it's often counterintuitive when something is or is not a good decision.
    Last edited by Doogolas; 10-19-2020 at 01:35 PM.

  5. #830
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    28,021
    Quote Originally Posted by KG2TB View Post
    More variance means use it a little more. It doesnít mean predominantly. Unless you think foles is completely incapable of running any plays under center
    I mean, it's not like Nagy didn't call any out of the shotgun though. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but from that same Hoge article I referenced before we know the breakdown through the first 3 quarters until the Bears were in catchup mode (from the Colts game) were:

    1st quarter: 11 passes, 6 runs, 10 plays out of shotgun, 7 plays under center.

    2nd quarter: 7 passes, 4 runs, 5 plays out of shotgun, 6 plays under center.

    3rd quarter: 11 passes, 2 runs, 11 plays out of shotgun, 2 plays under center.

    That's 15/41. 36%, which sounds about right for what we've seen since. Sounds exactly like plenty without predominantly to me.

  6. #831
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    21,712
    Quote Originally Posted by La_bibbers View Post
    I mean, it's not like Nagy didn't call any out of the shotgun though. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but from that same Hoge article I referenced before we know the breakdown through the first 3 quarters until the Bears were in catchup mode (from the Colts game) were:

    1st quarter: 11 passes, 6 runs, 10 plays out of shotgun, 7 plays under center.

    2nd quarter: 7 passes, 4 runs, 5 plays out of shotgun, 6 plays under center.

    3rd quarter: 11 passes, 2 runs, 11 plays out of shotgun, 2 plays under center.

    That's 15/41. 36%, which sounds about right for what we've seen since. Sounds exactly like plenty without predominantly to me.
    Yeah that does seem like a nice mix. Seemed less last game though. Without the numbers in front of me could be wrong though

  7. #832
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    51,122
    Quote Originally Posted by KG2TB View Post
    Yeah that does seem like a nice mix. Seemed less last game though. Without the numbers in front of me could be wrong though
    Looks like yesterday we were in shotgun more. It was 21% under center to 79% shotgun. But it's interesting because we started the game heavily in the shotgun and ended the game heavily in shotgun. But the second and third quarters it was a lot more balanced.

    For whatever that's worth.

    Link for reference:

    https://www.sharpfootballstats.com/s...ter--off-.html

    League average yesterday was 35/65.

    We were 27/73 the first two weeks with Foles, and have been 25/75 overall with him.
    Last edited by Doogolas; 10-19-2020 at 01:41 PM.

  8. #833
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    South Chicago Suburbs
    Posts
    1,277
    Quote Originally Posted by Doogolas View Post
    That's not what he was saying. He was saying that running the ball for 2 yards with this offense doesn't seem more likely to result in a first than passing it for 2 yards.

    Also, people here don't actually use win probability. They use the win probability that exists in their head canon. If they used real win probability they wouldn't be nearly as angry about these decisions as they are.

    I hated the decision to pass yesterday specifically. I thought it was a really bad decision. But any single bad decision almost NEVER cost your team more than a few percentage points in the win probability column.

    And on top of that, most people have such a poor understanding of probability and statistics that it's often counterintuitive when something is or is not a good decision.
    Ok, but I wasnít comparing those two situations. He replied directly to my comment about comparing 3/2 and 3/7, not to run or pass from 3/2???

  9. #834
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    51,122
    So just to check here, Brady would have had about 44 seconds with 0 timeouts had we run it twice. The win probability calculator tells me that gives a win rate of 13.14%. With 1:22 left it moves it to about 20.38%.

    So basically Nagy cost us about 7% than running it twice. However, that means he was weighing the probability of getting the dagger play, which would have gained us 13% over just running it twice. So basically you go for the dagger if you think that at least 1/3 of the time you will convert, and I'm guessing that the chances of converting there are > 1/3.

    I think if you're looking at win probability only, passing is a good decision in the game against the Bucs.

    I haven't done the math for the game yesterday. And especially with it having a fairly reasonably high likelihood of a run getting a 1st (as opposed to the Bucs game), the math becomes way more complicated.

  10. #835
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    51,122
    Quote Originally Posted by shorvath721 View Post
    Ok, but I wasnít comparing those two situations. He replied directly to my comment about comparing 3/2 and 3/7, not to run or pass from 3/2???
    Can't answer that. I was just explaining the interpretation I had of what he did say.

  11. #836
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    28,021
    Quote Originally Posted by shorvath721 View Post
    Ok, but I wasnít comparing those two situations. He replied directly to my comment about comparing 3/2 and 3/7, not to run or pass from 3/2???
    I'm confused at this time what exactly it is that you're trying to argue. I am arguing that on 3/2, a pass is more likely to convert than a run, especially in our offense. 3/7, obviously neither a pass or run is terribly likely to convert.

  12. #837
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    South Chicago Suburbs
    Posts
    1,277
    Quote Originally Posted by Doogolas View Post
    So just to check here, Brady would have had about 44 seconds with 0 timeouts had we run it twice. The win probability calculator tells me that gives a win rate of 13.14%. With 1:22 left it moves it to about 20.38%.

    So basically Nagy cost us about 7% than running it twice. However, that means he was weighing the probability of getting the dagger play, which would have gained us 13% over just running it twice. So basically you go for the dagger if you think that at least 1/3 of the time you will convert, and I'm guessing that the chances of converting there are > 1/3.

    I think if you're looking at win probability only, passing is a good decision in the game against the Bucs.

    I haven't done the math for the game yesterday. And especially with it having a fairly reasonably high likelihood of a run getting a 1st (as opposed to the Bucs game), the math becomes way more complicated.
    Also, we were losing. Running and relying on a 40 yard field goal isnít the right thing to do. Weíve seen this play out too many times and miss the kick. Santos has been good this year, but still, thatís not a spot Iím looking to run the ball and hope he makes the kick.

  13. #838
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    51,122
    Quote Originally Posted by shorvath721 View Post
    Also, we were losing. Running and relying on a 40 yard field goal isnít the right thing to do. Weíve seen this play out too many times and miss the kick. Santos has been good this year, but still, thatís not a spot Iím looking to run the ball and hope he makes the kick.
    Also a pretty reasonable point.

  14. #839
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    South Chicago Suburbs
    Posts
    1,277
    Quote Originally Posted by La_bibbers View Post
    I'm confused at this time what exactly it is that you're trying to argue. I am arguing that on 3/2, a pass is more likely to convert than a run, especially in our offense. 3/7, obviously neither a pass or run is terribly likely to convert.
    Why are you confused and quoting me then? Your quoting me when I am saying Iíd be aggressive to pass on 3/7, but now you are only talking about 3/2?

    Sorry man, just looks to be some miscommunication here, Iím not gonna get into a back and forth he said she said here.

  15. #840
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    28,021
    Quote Originally Posted by shorvath721 View Post
    Why are you confused and quoting me then? Your quoting me when I am saying Iíd be aggressive to pass on 3/7, but now you are only talking about 3/2?

    Sorry man, just looks to be some miscommunication here, Iím not gonna get into a back and forth he said she said here.
    I wasn't confused at the time, and believed you were arguing that 3/2 a run was a better call than a pass. I was confused afterwards when said that's not what you were arguing.

    If you're saying that 3/7 you go for it there too, then fine, that's a different argument. I'm not too sure, but either way it wouldn't offend me. In that case tho, I might lean run and kill the TO. Just not sure the convertion rate is high enough to feel comfortable taking the chance.

    Overall, I think the point here is every HC makes 50/50 management mistakes here and there, but they are seldom the reason a team will lose the game if the HC is doing things right. It's far more important how well their schemes and playcalling work.

Page 56 of 71 FirstFirst ... 646545556575866 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •