mister d wrote:Isn't it impossible to just "stop blowing fumbles dead"? Every play is blown dead and refs don't knowingly screw up, they just don't see the ball out.
They did this a few years back, and I thought it worked well. Let the return play out, then call it a dead ball on the field. If it is challenged and overturned, the defensive (or offensive) return stands. I vaguely remember the changing back out of fear of injuries on the extended plays. This really isn't any different than a live ball play, so let it go. David Harris picked up a fumble and would have scored, but the refs blew it dead. They overturned the ruling, giving the Jets the ball at the spot of recovery, but did not give any return yards. Predictably, the Jets drove down into the red zone and kicked a field goal. The BS pass interference call was much worse, though. I think they should have thrown a flag on the Jets last play of the game, too. Kerley caught the ball in the air in the back of the endzone, and came down with only one foot in. Before the ball got to him, the defender drilled him in the chest knocking him back several feet out of bounds. He hit Kerey with the crown of his helmet, so he clearly wasn't looking back at the ball. Chucky agreed with the no call for some reason, which make me more confident in my analysis.
An honest to God cult of personality - formed around a failed steak salesman.
-Pruitt
Jerloma wrote:Mike Tomlin is completely clueless at game management. He's getting worse, too.
As I watched that and earlier saw Brady and the Pats completely fuck up before half time, I concluded that I have really overestimated the intelligence of people in the NFL. Then I thought about Gunpowder saying that Seattle plays a simpler defense than what wlux was considering for his peewee team. With the ridiculous improvement of athleticism, has intelligence become less important in football and probably other sports?
Then there's also the Rice and Peterson mess, but I think that's more about cold business, unaccountable bureaucracy, and bad leadership. Actually, there's plenty of stupidity there too.
I have a theory that young coaches rise so quickly in the NFL because most people are idiots and those who aren't have an easy road to the top.
Pack a vest for your james in the city of intercourse
EdRomero wrote:Then I thought about Gunpowder saying that Seattle plays a simpler defense than what wlux was considering for his peewee team. With the ridiculous improvement of athleticism, has intelligence become less important in football and probably other sports?
When a football friend was talking last year about how good the Seattle defense was despite a lack of big names and high 1st round picks, I suggested maybe they were picking up guys with 2nd tier skill but 1st tier intelligence who were better able to read and adapt mid-play. So I was kinda close, but the opposite. They aren't smart, Seattle was just smart to be dumb.
I will say that Richard Sherman is a football genius, but for the most part they just pick up a ton of pass rushers and rotate them. Also, Earl Thomas doesn't seem all that bright and he's a star. That's why I can't understand Steeler fans who are so concerned about what to do next year with their potential third pass rusher in Arthur Moats. Fucking keep all of them.
They do actually have a good amount of names/high picks in that front 7. It's the secondary where they have been rotating in nobody CBs.
Pack a vest for your james in the city of intercourse
brian wrote:I'm really not sure what to make of the Lions at this point. The DL looks like the dominating presence I've been hoping for for the last 4 years. (And of course, Suh's walking after this year so no sense getting too excited. And yet...)
They were down to dudes in the secondary they literally signed off the street on Friday and they still made the vaunted Packers offense look stupid. So I dunno.
How is that vaunted GB offense? They were too scared to play in Seattle, came back against the Jets at home and then scored 7 against a non-existant secondary.
Has McCarthy run out of ideas?
The O line fucking stinks. Annnnd McCarthy might end up rivaling Ditka for worst coach to win a Super Bowl.
brian wrote:He certainly was the biggest goat yesterday. His in-game decision making is about as brutal as it gets.
you think Capers will take the fall for him? The defense couldn't stop Seattle the last 3 times they had the ball when they needed to.
Midway through the third quarter I marvelled at how brilliantly Capers' D was playing...
You know, that "hail mary" of a two pointer isn't caught, or that scapegoat kid doesn't jump in front of Jordy Nelson on the onside kick and none of this becomes an issue. But I know that if I were a Packers fan I'd be screaming for blood today.
"beautiful, with an exotic-yet-familiar facial structure and an arresting gaze."
brian wrote:He certainly was the biggest goat yesterday. His in-game decision making is about as brutal as it gets.
you think Capers will take the fall for him? The defense couldn't stop Seattle the last 3 times they had the ball when they needed to.
Capers isn't the one making the call to kick field goals from the 1-yard line. Those two decisions alone cost him an expected extra 2.6 points. Seems like they could have used an extra couple of points at the end of regulation.
brian wrote:He certainly was the biggest goat yesterday. His in-game decision making is about as brutal as it gets.
you think Capers will take the fall for him? The defense couldn't stop Seattle the last 3 times they had the ball when they needed to.
Capers isn't the one making the call to kick field goals from the 1-yard line. Those two decisions alone cost him an expected extra 2.6 points. Seems like they could have used an extra couple of points at the end of regulation.
I didn't mind the first FG since it's important to get first points on the road in a probably low scoring game. Especially since it was a TD that was reversed by replay and Lacy got stuffed in 3rd down. Seemed like a mess so I'm happy with 3 points.
But after the fumble off the kickoff the Seahawks were reeling. Gotta to go for it the 2nd time.
Kung Fu movies are like porn. There's 1 on 1, then 2 on 1, then a group scene..
brian wrote:He certainly was the biggest goat yesterday. His in-game decision making is about as brutal as it gets.
you think Capers will take the fall for him? The defense couldn't stop Seattle the last 3 times they had the ball when they needed to.
Capers isn't the one making the call to kick field goals from the 1-yard line. Those two decisions alone cost him an expected extra 2.6 points. Seems like they could have used an extra couple of points at the end of regulation.
I didn't mind the first FG since it's important to get first points on the road in a probably low scoring game. Especially since it was a TD that was reversed by replay and Lacy got stuffed in 3rd down. Seemed like a mess so I'm happy with 3 points.
But after the fumble off the kickoff the Seahawks were reeling. Gotta to go for it the 2nd time.
No. No, no, no. You go for it both times. It's simple math. You make the decisions that give you the best chance to score the most points.
You don't make game theory decisions in poker based on superstitious nonsense like "it's important to score first on the road".
It's important to score more points than the other team regardless of if the game is being played on the moon. That coaches in the year 2015 still regularly botch these relatively basic decisions flabbergasts me.
AB_skin_test wrote:I think a healthy-legged Rodgers changes his thought process, but McCarthy has certainly never distinguished himself when it comes to game management.
Fair point. Lost in the calculus of that decision that people always somehow forget is that even if you're stuffed, the other team gets the ball at its own 1-yard line which obviously isn't good.
I can't prove this, but I think McCarthy just makes these decisions from the seat of his pants, when instead coaches should just basically just have a philosophy of "fuck, it -- we're going to be aggressive and go for it on 4th and 1 on the opponent's side of the field". He (correctly) went for it on 3rd and goal at the 1 and 4th and goal at the 1 against the Lions in Week 17 in almost the exact same situation (1st Q of a 0-0 game) and the Lions stopped it and the Lions D is almost as good as Seattle (the run D is probably even better).
So if he's making these decisions based on whether or not the Packers are on the road or the stakes of the game, then he's an even bigger idiot than I thought.
brian wrote:Lost in the calculus of that decision that people always somehow forget is that even if you're stuffed, the other team gets the ball at its own 1-yard line which obviously isn't good.
Thank you. This leads to a decent probability of excellent field position and three points on your next possession.
Who knows? Maybe, you were kidnapped, tied up, taken away and held for ransom.
Those days are gone forever
Over a long time ago
Oh yeah…
brian wrote:Lost in the calculus of that decision that people always somehow forget is that even if you're stuffed, the other team gets the ball at its own 1-yard line which obviously isn't good.
Thank you. This leads to a decent probability of excellent field position and three points on your next possession.
I've seen a lot of goal line stands turn into 99 yard touchdown drives. It's a momentum swing.
Brian: I would have gone for it both times too. I just said I didn't mind it the first time for those reasons. Kicking a 2nd time was fucking stupid. McCarthy must have thought he would win 16-14 game.
Kung Fu movies are like porn. There's 1 on 1, then 2 on 1, then a group scene..
If you think it's important to score points on the road or against a tough defense or both, shouldn't that make you want to go for it in that situation because your mindset, under any of those mindsets, is that points are at such a premium? And, if in those mindsets, shouldn't a very good chance at seven points be much more appealing than an even better chance at three?
“All I'm sayin' is, he comes near me, I'll put him in the wall.”
DSafetyGuy wrote:If you think it's important to score points on the road or against a tough defense or both, shouldn't that make you want to go for it in that situation because your mindset, under any of those mindsets, is that points are at such a premium? And, if in those mindsets, shouldn't a very good chance at seven points be much more appealing than an even better chance at three?
And if you then give up a 99-yard TD drive, points probably weren't at all that much of a premium.
Pack a vest for your james in the city of intercourse
