Lessons For Rick Neuheisel From The Super Bowl: Play To Win
by Nestor on Feb 9, 2010 7:19 AM PST
in Football
56 comments
I am sure many of you have written numerous articles in last two days about Sean Payton's gutsy calls in Sunday's Super Bowl. I imagine yours truly is not the only one who was thinking about our Bruins (and Kai Forbath) when Payton decided to go for it on fourth and 1 from the goal line from time running out in the second half. I thought it's worth revisiting some moments of that game and think about how it applies to our team heading into next season.
Payton of course went for it and he made three other aggressive calls (encompassing the offense, specials teams and his defense) that enabled his Saints to pull the upset. On the other end of the spectrum, Colts coaching staff at times appeared downright Donahuesque in their approach to not lose the game. I imagine Coach Rick Neuheisel was watching the game, and I really hope he takes the lesson about how it pays off to be aggressive not just in the recruiting arena, but all on the field.
So going back to Sean Payton, Brian Burke from the New York Times did a statistical analysis of Payton's "gutsy calls." Here was his look at that fourth and 1:
The 4th and 1
According to the expected points model, it's clear that a team should go for it on 4th down and goal from anywhere inside the 6. But with time running out in the 2nd quarter, it might be better to turn to Win Probability (WP). With just under 2 minutes to go and a 4th and goal on the 1, the WP analysis agrees with the go-for-it call. FGs are successful 99% of the time from there, and over all, a decision to kick gives the Saints a 0.32 WP (trailing by 10-6). A successful TD ties the game, giving the Saints a 0.48 WP. A failed attempt gives the Colts a 1st down at their own 1 with 1:55 to play in the half, giving the Saints a 0.26 WP. It was certainly a high-stakes play.
On the goal line, 4th and 1s are converted 68% of the time. This makes the overall decision to go for it worth:
0.68 * 0.48 + (1-0.68) * 0.26 = 0.41 WP
Going for the TD was clearly the better call, 0.41 vs. 0.32 WP. If you don't buy the 68% success rate, the break-even rate, where going for it yields an equal WP as trying the FG, would be 42%. In other words, as long as Payton believed his offense had a better than a 42% chance of getting the TD, he should go for it.
In fact, this is a great example of why going for it is often worth more than many people, including most N.F.L. coaches, believe. Pinning the Colts at their 1 is not such a bad thing. The Saints were able to get the stop and get the FG before halftime anyway. There's no guarantee that would happen, but combined with the possibility of a TD, it tilts the scales in favor of being aggressive.
The post also looks into Payton's decision to go for the onside kick and the two point conversion. I just want to focus on the 4th and 1 for now because it reminded me of four specific situations from this past season.
The first moment that sticks out to me was the one against Oregon at the Rose Bowl. We had a first down and goal in first quarter and an opportunity to take total control of the game in the first half. Remember that was the game in which Kevin Prince was just coming back from his injury and was noticeably out of sync. So the Bruins called two straight rushing play for no gain, and then inexplicably had Kevin Prince (who was just coming back from an injury) try to sneak in two straight downs. So, statistically Rick Neuheisel made the right decision, but the calls for Prince to sneak just didn't make any sense. We made the right decision to go for it but if could have made a little more imaginative calls, we had a chance to go up at half time 10-0 with a completely different complexion to that game. It was a big opportunity lost.
The second moment that sticks out to me was the one against Oregon State. In that game we were down by a score of 16-0 after a very frustrating first half, in which we were being very sloppy with the ball. So to start the second half we drove down the field to their 14 yard line. Once again we called three straight rushing plays to get the ball to their 2 yard line and ended up with a 4th and 2. This time Neuheisel decided to kick it and take the easy points. I am not sure if we can characterize that decision as timid. Seems like it was the safe call to make and at least get points on the court. However, in the back of mind, I guess my instincts has always been to just ball out and go for it. If we had found a way to get 7 points in that situation, who knows the score would have been different.
The third moment came against the Trogans. The Bruins were down 0-7 in the second quarter. ATV had just picked off Barkley and the Bruins subsequently put a little drive to end up with a 4th and 1 on Southern Cal's 40 yard line. This time CRN elected to punt. I guess his calculation at the time was that our running game was not going anywhere and our receivers were not showing a lot of confidence to make big catches. Still he played it safe.
The fourt moment that sticks out to me was the one against Temple. This time the Bruins were down by a score of 10-21 in early 3rd quarter and were facing a 4th and 1 on the Owls 32 yard line. Bruins went for it as Prince Rolled out and completed a beautifully designed short pass to Austin, who housed it. It was perfect. Bruins grabbed momentum of the game from there on and never really gave it up.
So out of those four instances Neuheisel made the call to go for it twice. A well designed call paid for him against Temple. On other two occasions he decided to kick it and play it safe (ended up losing both of those games). Of course there are other factors in play such as availability of talent. We had a first year QB this past season, who was getting accustomed to playing after being out of the game for two seasons behind an entirely rebuilt OL. Our running game wasn't all that hot as our best runner had fumble issues, our dependable one wasn't explosive, and our most athletic one didn't have a command of the playbook.
Despite our personnel issues, we went for it on 4th down 15 times and converted on 8 of those opportunities (53.33%). That is a better conversion rate than Carroll's Trogans, who went for it 17 times, converting on 7 (41.18%). I bring up Carroll because he is perceived to be the most aggressive one in this situation. The most he went for it on 4th was during the zenith of Norm Chow era in 2005, when they went for it 30 times and converted on 18 (60%). Yeah, it helps when you have a QB who is kept eligible by taking ball room dancing classes and a superstar QB, whose family is (allegedly) put up in million dollar home.
Now going back Sean Payton's decision to go on 4th, it told me couple of things. He was sending a clear and unmistakable message to his team that he was in it to win it. On the other side, he was also showing a lot of respect to Payton Manning (who deserves it) by realizing he had to get all the points he could to stay in the game. Still Payton's aggressiveness I am sure set the tone for the entire team.
Meanwhile, the Colts were being passive and it was really apparent in the way they just packed it in towards the end of the first half. The conservative play calling at the end of first half (even though they have one of the best QBs in the history of the game), enabled the Saints to stuff them and pick up another 3 and momentum to end the first half. Didn't work out too well for them.
Of course the playing to win mindset didn't just pay off on offense, it was the basis of the defining play on defense. I had to chuckle when Phil Simms was imploring the Saints not to blitz when Manning was putting on his drive towards the end of the fourth quarter. It was of course a blitz, that led to that game clinching pick-6, and it was that aggressive mindset that has paid off for the Saints defense all season long.
Why am I writing all this? One of the main reasons I was so excited about Rick Neuheisel in Westwood was because I thought his arrival would finally be the death knell of Donahue football in UCLA. Now given the personnel issues from last two years, I understand why at times Neuheisel has had to play it safe (not to mention how an aggressive call by having Prince roll out against Tennessee really backfired on all of us). However, I am hoping that this coming season, the influx of talent from last couple of seasons, will finally enable him to let loose a bit, and play on the aggressive percentages and play to win.
So at least on paper and according to data, it appears that it always pays off to be aggressive at certain times. Sean Payton proved it pretty emphatically on the field.Of course it sure helps that Payton has one of the best QBs in the game at his disposal so he has the luxury to be ultra aggressive. What we can hope is that the continued upgrade of talent and the experience from this season for players like Kevin Prince and our rebuilt OL, will enable Neuheisel to take more chances next season.
We are not expecting Neuheisel to go out and win every game or even end up in the Rose Bowl. However, I think if we are going to take that next step - a winning record in the Pac-10 - coach will have to roll the dice a little more to win it on the field.
GO BRUINS.
0 recs |
56 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Nice write up
One of the things you can’t put on paper is the psychological and momentum boost a team gets after converting an aggressive, gutsy play. That onside kick to open the 2nd half was crucial in setting the tone and seemed to give the Saints a psychological advantage—something you obviously can’t quantify statistically. That’s where a good coach has to have his finger on the pulse of his team and know when is the right situation to pull out an aggressive play like that.
Shockingly, I can even remember a time when Dorrell made an aggressive call…with successful results. Remember that home game against Cal, when IIRC we were down by 14 points and Dorrell called for a fake punt on our own 45 yard line…we converted, scored, and came back to win that game something like 44-40. Too bad for KD that he couldn’t “learn and grow” from that moment.
"I don't forget very much" Rick Neuheisel, 11/28/09
I think KD called for fake punt in couple of other occassions
But can’t remember them now. What KD didn’t do though consistently was putting us in position to win. There was no freaking energy. With KD we would have gone blown out by Temple (just like we got embarrassed by Fresno State and Wyoming).
One of my most memorable "KD putting us in a position to lose"
games was up in Washington 4ish years ago. We had the ball on our own 20 with 6 minutes left, and we were down by 17. What does KD do? Does he start throwing down field to try to get a reasonably quick score? Nope. He runs the ball up the middle on first AND second downs, and uses up about a minute and a half of the clock doing it, while gaining a whole 4 yards.
KD’s a Bruin, but he couldn’t out strategize Elmer Fudd.
by bornagainbruin on Feb 9, 2010 8:28 AM PST up reply actions
I remember a Dorrell fake punt call
where unfortunately the ‘receiver’ was unaware of the call and ran up ready to tackle the returner…
by britishbruin on Feb 9, 2010 12:10 PM PST up reply actions
I will never forget KD punting on 4th and 5 on the trOJan 35
or forgive it. It was the most cowardly thing I have ever seen. He was playing the best offensive team in football and was trying not to lose by too much, not trying to win. There is no way you beat a team like that unless you are scoring a lot of points, not punting with 15 yard net punts.
Still pisses me off….
by silverlakebruin on Feb 9, 2010 9:10 AM PST up reply actions
+1
That was the moment I really started turning against Dorrell. We needed to score every, single possession possible to win that game. We had to punch them in the face early. And he waves the white flag in the first quarter on the very first possession! For What? Not to risk giving them the ball on the 35?!!! They had one of the best offenses ever seen that year. Giving it to them on the 5, the 20, the 35, the 50. Didn’t matter much. When he punted, I turned to my friend and said “here comes the blowout.” And, indeed, it came. You’re right, still pisses me off, too.
UCLA's most famous athlete: Jackie Robinson
U$C's most famous athlete: OJ Simpson
'Nuff said
by Cade McAdverb on Feb 9, 2010 10:24 AM PST up reply actions
Lets apply this to basketball also....
Pressure defense, more full court presses to mix things up with thezone. Bring in young kids with fresh legs and cause havoc.
Much like the Saints did on the last drive with the D. Instead of rushing 3-4, they blitzed and forced the Colts to make plays. On a side note, Reggie Wayne sold out Peyton Manning on that 3/4 route that he ran… W/O the defensive calls, that mistake would never have happened.
Pressure defense may really make sense
All the debate about who should gets minutes indicates the gap, if any, between the starters and the bench is small. If you have 10 or more largely interchangeable parts why not put pressure on teams without the depth (and probably more strenght in the starting 5).
And, what do we have to lose???
by Bruin Dad and Grad on Feb 9, 2010 9:55 AM PST up reply actions
with this year's squad?
Even if you throw Moser out there for Dragovic, we don’t have 5 players capable of playing full court press.
by britishbruin on Feb 9, 2010 12:13 PM PST up reply actions
I'm far more concerned about BEN's seemingly inflexiblity to
“Play To Win”, than I am Rick’s. I know Rick, just as I knew Karl. Don’t worry about Rick playin with big ones (when he has the crew). If Ben wanted to PLAY TO WIN, he’d only play the youngsters – from here on out.
I think in the red zone or really anywhere in Kai’s range is tough to say no to the guarnteed points.I think we will be in a position to be much more aggresive next year.Knowing that when we get to the red zone we’ll know it won’t be the last time.
Yeah, that's a good point
I don’t know the data on top of my head but my impression was that the Saints kicker wasn’t dependable (until of course the last two money games).
actually
garrett hartley was one of the few bright spots in kicking this year, he was just not with the team for much of the year for disciplinary reasons, i believe
by Captain Leebeard on Feb 9, 2010 3:02 PM PST up reply actions
A dependable kicker
is the difference between going for it and kicking a field goal when you’re, say, 4th and 2 and anywhere between the 35 and 25 yard line.
I’ve often noticed that the proficiency of an offense is inversely proportional to the dependability of a kicking game. If your kicker can’t be trusted, you are more likely to go for it, and hence you’re more successful. It’s a double edged sword to always rely on your kicker.
"I don't forget very much" Rick Neuheisel, 11/28/09
agree
CRN will always kick the FG with the kicker he has and you cant blame him…
"Success is never final, Failure is never fatal. It's Courage that count's"
John Wooden.....
And 9 out of 10 times
the prudent move will be to kick a FG on 4th and 2 with the ball at the 30, especially since Kai is money from 52 yards in.
There are times, though, that punching in a TD after converting a 4th down is worth more as a momentum shifter than the points themselves. That’s where a good coach has the pulse of his team, has a good sense of the ebb and flow of a game, and can pick his spot.
"I don't forget very much" Rick Neuheisel, 11/28/09
BTW, Uclan,
Very nice avatar there. That’s a South Campus student, too, for all you cocky North Campus types.
greg in denver - UCLA guy for life
ahh yes the lovely Elise
always a favorite
"Success is never final, Failure is never fatal. It's Courage that count's"
John Wooden.....
I thought it was you at first
but then it turned out you’re a dude.
It’s like when I drive on the freeway and see long blond hair blowing in the wind in a convertible…only I speed up and find out it’s Fabio.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
N, you spelled CRN's name wrong in the headline!!!!
by inhowlandwetrust on Feb 9, 2010 8:58 AM PST reply actions
this is what happens
when we get too comfortable using abbreviations for everything and everybody. After the second time I thought you’d just end up with “Lessons for CRN” :)
Go Bruins!
somewhere herm edwards was smiling...
payton definitely played to win the game. as most of you guys mentioned, going for it for us with kai is not going to happen since we can’t give up guaranteed points. i’ve never questioned CRN’s ability to go for it. his whole attitude is a go for it attitude.
CBH on the other hand has definitely not made any go for it now, or get better in the future decisions this year. he’s simply made a decision to stick with (insert favorite expletive here) dragobrick.
"Be more concerned with your character than your reputation, because your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are." --John Wooden
Think this same discussion came up after the Cal game when we kicked a couple of FGs and punted on 4th down – same guy and same data also came up from his site, “Advanced NFL Stats”. Based on NFL data he showed that it’s a wiser choice, statistically, to go for a 4th-and-short in most situations on the field (and keep in mind most NFL kickers are more reliable than NCAA kickers – FGs probably even have a lower expected point value in NCAA). Anyway, he says 4th-and-1 almost all the time, from anywhere, even from well within FG range, with NFL kickers. There’s a chart on his site somewhere and I linked it last time. The expected points you will get from a probable 4th-and-1 and either a TD or putting the other team deep in his own territory is greater than the expected points of 3 minus the expected points the other team will receive from getting the ball back around their own 30.
There are other factors like how well the other team is doing, and how reliable your kicker is, but for the most part I think his data is applicable and football teams in general need to be going for more 4th downs. The punting thing came out of football’s early days when games were won 6-0 and there was little offense. In today’s world where teams routinely score 30 points and can drive for over 200 yards, it is a lot easier to come by one yard.
BTW, on that same topic – if you are an underdog, which I believe the Saints were, you have to play this way. If you’re probably not going to win going head to head then the only real chance you have is to gamble. It will either blow up in your face or you will win, but you’ll still have a better chance than if you played straight up. If you are a heavy favorite then I say take the points – the only way you will lose is if you screw things up.
I know of a HS coach who onside kicks every time. He figures, since his kicker isn’t strong enough to reach the endzone for a touchback, he might as well onside. If he loses the ball, then the other team gets it on the 50 – that’s only like a 20 yard difference from where they would get it if he kicked off and was not able to get a touchback, and this way he has a chance to get the ball back. He is actually pretty successful at it, as they practice onside kicks every day in what they call Tsunami. However, if he loses a kick, no big deal, they will play defense from the 50 just as if they gave up a long KR. His reasoning makes sense and I’m guessing the statistics are either in his favor or close to it, giving up about 20 yards for a chance to get maybe about 50% of the kicks back.
However you’ll probably never see this kind of strategy in the NFL or in big-time NCAA football as the stakes are so high and teams/coaches are so afraid of “losing” the gamble. These decisions are so out of the box in today’s football that they are seen as gambles when they may in fact be smarter decisions if you look at the big picture.
by jtthirtyfour on Feb 9, 2010 10:42 AM PST up reply actions
Very interesting
Given our kickoff issues from two years ago. Locke did a much better job than Rothstein last year, but he did appear to tire at times towards the end of the season.
Someone is probably going to point out that one big reason NCAA coaches will not do this is that you kickoff from the 40 in HS but the 30 in NCAA, and this type of kickoff is illegal in the NFL – but I was just trying to get at the general idea of thinking outside the box and challenging conventional norms. I don’t think we’re going to have a problem with this since we’re kicker U, but if you have a punter who can only boot it 40 yards or a FG kicker who has a range of 40, it’s probably less of a gamble to go for it on 4th-and-1 than kick.
by jtthirtyfour on Feb 9, 2010 10:54 AM PST up reply actions
I'm failing to remember which columnist suggested this
However you’ll probably never see this kind of strategy in the NFL or in big-time NCAA football as the stakes are so high and teams/coaches are so afraid of "losing" the gamble.
Seeing as it’s considered an atypical coaching move, a lot of NFL coaches (who are constantly at risk of being fired) never make an onside kick attempt (or go for it on the questionable 4th down) because a failure on that play is seen as the playcaller’s fault. If the kickoff is returned very well or the offense gets back the ball and scores after a traditional call, there is considered more onus on the players failing to do their jobs.
This isn’t for the sake the team of course, but a move by the coach to insure his own future.
Go Bruins!
Note
obvi the quote came from jtthirtyfour, but the content of what I said isn’t my own original thought, but an opinion by a columnist reflecting on Belichick’s 4th down move (and failing to get it) against the Colts, resulting in a loss.
Go Bruins!
here is that for which you are looking
Steve Levitt of Freakonomics fame:
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/16/bill-belichick-is-great/
he had made the same point previously, in the context of principal-agent problems – the coach is an employee of the club, and you would want them to do that thing that maximizes the chance of winning; but the incentives are misaligned if the employee thinks that going for it on 4th down provides a greater chance of damaging his job security than increasing it.
This is why coaches with plenty of security – naming no names in particular – can often go for it on 4th down in the best interests of the team, while coaches with less security are literally ‘playing not to lose’ and fail.
by britishbruin on Feb 9, 2010 12:21 PM PST up reply actions
we call it the bulldozer
every kickoff was ran out of a similar formation and sometimes we did kick onside. at least once a game. recovered about half of the attempts. we had no DB’s to speak of so anytime we gave up the ball it was almost a sure score.
"Be more concerned with your character than your reputation, because your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are." --John Wooden
Did CRN's Baltimore years hurt him badly?
I get the feeling they did. He spent three humbled years “learning” from Brian Billick, the most conservative playcaller around, on a team that relied on the their defense more than any other in the last decade and had one of the best defenses all time when CRN was there. These last two years he has often coached like our defense was as good and reliable as Balitmore’s (relatively), when it was nowhere close. We all remember how ballsy he was as a college coach, so I think he learned the wrong “lessons.” I think he would’ve been much better if he spent those years with Sean Payton or Bellicek.
I’m willing to give the last two years a pass - barely, because identities are usually formed and being aggressive is something you’re usually comfortable with or not - because of talent concerns, but this year there will be no excuse for risk-aversion.
Good article and a Question
Nester – Good article and I agree that we should expect to see more of this mentality this coming season (seems consistent with CRN’s mindset too). On the point you made about having more confidence in our OL, have you heard anything about Stan Hasiak’s status? i haven’t heard of any new news since he left the team in November and he would be a huge help if he returns to bolster the line’s depth.
Nah
We’ll be fine. We have real coaches now.
Our QBs, on the other hand… :(
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
OL vs QB
This is a chicken vs the egg argument, average OL play leads to more QB injuries. I know we’ll be fine, I just can’t wait for the talent we recruit to actually become 3rd and 4th year players in the program. Such high hopes for players like Hasiak.
Not true
Olson and Cowan went down right after each other in spring practice, it had nothing to do with the OL.
KP got his jaw broken on a rollout from the end zone. Can’t blame the OL on that and it should have been called for unnecessary roughness.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Bad Teammate?
if he really was such a distraction and a bad teammate? maybe were better off?
"Success is never final, Failure is never fatal. It's Courage that count's"
John Wooden.....
he burned his bridges
There was talk of him getting a medical redshirt, so there may have been some medical issues tied into his behavior, and if so, those can be treated once you are properly diagnosed. That’s just conjecture on my part, but seems reasonable based on what we have heard.
I wish Stan the best and hope he finds success and happiness wherever he is.
by silverlakebruin on Feb 9, 2010 3:28 PM PST up reply actions
Sounds like
manic depression or bipolar disorder, if it is indeed a medical issue…
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
the onside kick is what sticks out in my mind.
Much Like Boise State’s fake punt, the results are better measured in team morale than probability points. Those guys come out energized by these kinds of decisions. You could see the difference in the second half. Rather, than be down by the lack of the success they had had against the Colts, they had “doubled down” mentally and it showed.
“Who Dares Wins!” – motto of England’s Special Air Service.
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
this type of analysis can never tell you the 'right' answer for a situation
I think bringing the data to bear definitely says some interesting thing about the league in general, and adds context for any discussions we have about decisions made by coaches.
However, it is important to acknowledge the limitations.
This statistical analysis suggests you can make a ‘decision tree’ out of football.
Steps:
1) Assign probabilities of ‘success’ to each choice
2) Assign values to the ‘success’ and ‘failure’ outcomes possible with each choice
3) Multiply the probabilities by the values to get the ‘expected value’ of taking a particular choice
4) Take the choice that offers highest expected value
This is always a logical way of proceeding. However, it is not easy to calculate either the probabilities or the values needed in a particular instance.
Ideally you would want to have a large sample size of very similar situations to have faith in the statistics – e.g. try going for it on 4th and 1 with the Saints offense against the Colt’s defense ~100 times, preferably in Superbowls with a close score. Also, play out ~100 times how often the Saints win the game from 10-6 behind and the Colts receiving a kickoff with 2 minutes left, vs winning from 10-3 behind with the Colts on their own 1, vs winning from 10-10 with the Colts receiveing a kickoff, in order to come up with ‘win percentages’.
You can’t do that. To get ‘reliable’ statistics based on large sample sizes, you need to shed a lot of the details – the method used by the columnist aggregates “4th and 1 from the goalline” from a variety of teams in a variety of situations, and aggregates win percentages from teams facing 0, 3 and 7 point deficits two minutes before the half. Who knows how close those probabilities are to the ‘real’ probabilities? Applying these aggregate statistics to specific situations can provide a guide to an ‘average’ situation; this can serve to ground decision-making, but can never be close to making a particular decision ‘right’ or ‘wrong’.
Similarly, although the data suggests that, on aggregate, teams should play more aggressively on 4th down, this says nothing about whether a particular team should play more aggressively on 4th down, or even imply that there is some standard decision towards which we should gravitate. Playing aggressively on 4th down depends on how likely you are to convert, how likely your other options are to yield good results, and how the various outcomes factor into an overall win probability.
To apply it to our team last year
1) our automatic FG kicker means we are likely to be better off kicking it on 4th down than other teams who have a higher risk of coming away empty even on the ‘conservative’ play
2) our low conversion rate and lack of running game means going for it is often going to fail, which means it’s likely to be a less good play
3) on the other hand, our general lack of offense may mean that settling for a small deficit may be bad, as we may struggle to get into position enough times to score enough field goals to win…
One other thought on going for it on 4th down: if you are a team that knows on 4th down it is going to pound it with a high degree of success, and it doesn’t matter that your opponent knows what you are going to run, then you can do it all season without reducing your conversion %. If you are a team that has to rely on designing plays to get receivers free for short passes – as we apparently do to a greater extent – then going for it on 4th down repeatedly has the additional disadvantage of ‘showing your hand’ and giving opponents more of a read on how to stop you on 4th down later in the season.
Love the post and comments in this thread
Very well thought out by everyone. Thank you.
In my opinion, going for it on 4th down from the 1 was a no-brainer (or should be a no-brainer). It’s hard to think of a circumstance where it wouldn’t be the right choice. Down by 2 or 1, tied or up by 1 or 2 with under a minute left in the game would be about the only time it would make sense to settle for 3 points.
Everyone talks about how it was a bold decision and questions whether it the right one. This post focuses on the other aspect of the decision—the play call. Payton made a “bold” move (in quotes because we know that the odds favored going for it) by going for it, but he made perhaps a bolder (read: questionable) move by calling a similar, if not the same, play on 3rd and 4th down (off right tackle). When you have Drew Brees in the midst of a near-perfect game, you have to let him throw it on one of those two plays.
I, too, hope that CRN’s conservatism was due to circumstances and not due to the NFL having crept into his mindset. Settling for 3 points means you have to score 2 more times to better your opponent who has punched it in once. In a limited possession game, settling for 3 points when going for the TD is the odds on play puts you one step closer to losing.
Going for it
If you do not play to win-don’t bother to play. If you get a lead increase it. Kicking field goals can get us three points and if we get a long distance kicker who puts it out of the end zone we are ahead as our punt return coverage is to be charitable is spotty. Maybe with bigger backs who have a little speed we will go for it with less than 2 yards to go. I feel CRN played to his strength last season and with an experienced QB and some good receivers can be more open. I am looking forward to 2010 and feel we will show great offensive improvement as Coach Chow gets more of his type of ball players.
Nestor, +1000
My biggest gripe is not playing to win in any sport. I’ve been surprised how conservative CRN has been, especially after KD. Maybe it’s his Baltimore Billick influence. Or maybe he couldn’t resist Forbath’s easy 3s.
I’m not a doctor, but the first rule of medicine is do no harm. In sport, that means, to me, don’t shackle your own offense or defense. I’m so hopeful with the studs CRN is bringing in tht he will change his ways for the good.
Anyway, great post. A lot of work and research went into it. I appreciate it.
By the way, I ran into a new Bruin, Luc Ganes, our walk on from Edison High who has beaten some type of cancer, at the Miss Huntington Beach Beauty Pageant this past weekend on Super Bowl Sunday. Yep. I missed it. I had the pleasure of wishing him well and telling him what an inspiration he is and how lucky he is to be a Bruin. He was kind and gracious.
I think his girlfriend won, not sure.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
