NFL & NCAA Football Threads

[Redford]

The big difference is in poker the situation is always the same. The odds are the odds. The cards do not care who holds them. In the NFL, no two situations are the same. Different teams, different venues, different weather conditions. You cannot use analytics the same way.

Yep. And if you read the article closely, the key statement is:

“My colleague Kyle Thele used a poker analogy in a Slack conversation about this topic, stating, Shanahan played the cards and not the person. Analytically it made sense, but with Andy Reid and Patrick Mahomes on the opposite sideline, can you really just go with the numbers and hope for the best?”

To that end, Shanahan needed to keep Mahomes - the gun - off the field by not giving him 4 downs of opportunity instead of 3. Unfortunately he went with the first option.

 

[Redford]

Steve Wilks fired. Pretty harsh. He was only coaching to Shanahan’s no blitz instructions. Yeah the defensive numbers went backwards this year and the players - especially Bosa - didn’t like the lack of attack, but that was Shanahan telling him to coach like that to protect a weak secondary.

Maybe the real culprit is Lynch, who for 10 years has refused to build a strong secondary.

 

[MD Jazz]

Yep. And if you read the article closely, the key statement is:

“My colleague Kyle Thele used a poker analogy in a Slack conversation about this topic, stating, Shanahan played the cards and not the person. Analytically it made sense, but with Andy Reid and Patrick Mahomes on the opposite sideline, can you really just go with the numbers and hope for the best?”

To that end, Shanahan needed to keep Mahomes - the gun - off the field by not giving him 4 downs of opportunity instead of 3. Unfortunately he went with the first option.

Spot on. They gave Mahomes an extra down. The greatest big game QB since Brady. That"s a massive *smile* up. Like the Lions going got it on 4th down instead of attempting the FG to make it a 3 score game in the 2nd half. And justifying it because analytics supported it. Bollocks.

 

[Redford]

Spot on. They gave Mahomes an extra down. The greatest big game QB since Brady. That"s a massive *smile* up. Like the Lions going got it on 4th down instead of attempting the FG to make it a 3 score game in the 2nd half. And justifying it because analytics supported it. Bollocks.

Yeah. And if you wanna talk game sense v analytics, check out the raging arguments in baseball where you’ve got the sabre matricians v baseball strategists bashing one another to smithereens the last 20 years.

Reckon you’ve gotta have a balance.

 

[RoarEmotion]

Once you know the result it’s easy to argue your point of view. Unless the analytics are poorly designed they should have factored in Mahones percentages and that the chiefs would go for it on fourth down. All the arguments above assume they are dumb percentage based analytics and not team/situation based. If they are just percentage based I agree the approach is dumb but you know what they say about assuming.

The bit we don’t get to see play out is that touch down touch down meant a field goal then wins it for the 49ers. Or chiefs then go for 2 points if they don’t like that scenario.

 

[tigerdell]

Yep. And if you read the article closely, the key statement is:

“My colleague Kyle Thele used a poker analogy in a Slack conversation about this topic, stating, Shanahan played the cards and not the person. Analytically it made sense, but with Andy Reid and Patrick Mahomes on the opposite sideline, can you really just go with the numbers and hope for the best?”

To that end, Shanahan needed to keep Mahomes - the gun - off the field by not giving him 4 downs of opportunity instead of 3. Unfortunately he went with the first option.

You dont know that if the Chiefs start, they go for the td, using 4 downs if needed.
That puts massive pressure in the 49 side when they get the ball.
The hindsighters will then say the 49s shoulda started with it

 

[Redford]

You dont know that if the Chiefs start, they go for the td, using 4 downs if needed.

That’s unlikely.

If they’re the first possession and on 4th down, and within easy enough FG range, they’re going with the FG. Even with Mahomes. That’s standard sort of decision making in OT ie putting a score up first is far better than risking no score at all.

If it weren’t, the Niners would have gone for it on 4th down themselves when they were only 4th and 4.

This is one of the great things about NFL. The tactics and decisions are crucial. The debate is great. It’s something that the Australian wowser who complains about the stop start nature of the game doesn’t get. It’s like sporting chess sometimes. Yeah it’s not as good as Australian Rules (although the AFL is doing their best to change that), but it’s damn interesting if you’ve got the mind for it.

 

[tigerdell]

That’s unlikely.

If they’re the first possession and on 4th down, and within easy enough FG range, they’re going with the FG. Even with Mahomes. That’s standard sort of decision making in OT ie putting a score up first is far better than risking no score at all.

If it weren’t, the Niners would have gone for it on 4th down themselves when they were only 4th and 4.

Detroit wouldve gone for it on 4th down!

But depends on field position.
And Andy Reid knowing what the oppo might do.

Point is that both teams get possession and opportunity to score. Winner was the one in the best position to capitalize

 

[tigerdell]

Here's a question on OT.
Both teams get the ball. Regardless of match clock. So like in rugby the game continues while the play is still live.
Does the 2nd team get the opportunity to convert a TD?

Say the niners actually scored 7.
The the chiefs touch down with 3 secs left.
Do they get a kick?
I'm guessing yes.
And what if instesd of kicking they go for 2 points (which would win the game).
Is that permitted?
At what point is the game demed to end - at the score or when the ball is handed back to the first side?

 

[RoarEmotion]

Here's a question on OT.
Both teams get the ball. Regardless of match clock. So like in rugby the game continues while the play is still live.
Does the 2nd team get the opportunity to convert a TD?

Say the niners actually scored 7.
The the chiefs touch down with 3 secs left.
Do they get a kick?
I'm guessing yes.
And what if instesd of kicking they go for 2 points (which would win the game).
Is that permitted?
At what point is the game demed to end - at the score or when the ball is handed back to the first side?

Super Bowl overtime rules, explained: How the OT format works in football's biggest game | Sporting News Australia

www.sportingnews.com

 

[MD Jazz]

You dont know that if the Chiefs start, they go for the td, using 4 downs if needed.
That puts massive pressure in the 49 side when they get the ball.
The hindsighters will then say the 49s shoulda started with it

As red said unlikely. It was a dumb decision. As was Detroits.

 

[MD Jazz]

That’s unlikely.

If they’re the first possession and on 4th down, and within easy enough FG range, they’re going with the FG. Even with Mahomes. That’s standard sort of decision making in OT ie putting a score up first is far better than risking no score at all.

If it weren’t, the Niners would have gone for it on 4th down themselves when they were only 4th and 4.

This is one of the great things about NFL. The tactics and decisions are crucial. The debate is great. It’s something that the Australian wowser who complains about the stop start nature of the game doesn’t get. It’s like sporting chess sometimes. Yeah it’s not as good as Australian Rules (although the AFL is doing their best to change that), but it’s damn interesting if you’ve got the mind for it.

Grood points. And the NFL have done well managing the concussion issues whilst still maintaining the physicality. it is a brilliant game.

 

[tigerdell]

Super Bowl overtime rules, explained: How the OT format works in football's biggest game | Sporting News Australia

www.sportingnews.com

Its not explicit but i guess its allowed.
Presumably the 'possession' finishes when the ball is returned to the other team ie the kick to convert or a 2 point play
After each team has had an opportunity to possess the ball,

 

[tigerdell]

As red said unlikely. It was a dumb decision. As was Detroits.

I think the prevailing wisdom on tactics will change after this. Yes the role is only for playoffs so its infrequent.
But if you get the ball first then you need to put maximum score on the board.

 

[RoarEmotion]

I think the prevailing wisdom on tactics will change after this. Yes the role is only for playoffs so its infrequent.
But if you get the ball first then you need to put maximum score on the board.

There is a lot of power in knowing what you have to do when you are chasing.

Duckworth Lewis method infamous for a reason

As Major League Baseball prepares to open its season in Australia for the first time, I'm reminded of how Australia's summer game – cricket…

www.theroar.com.au

The interesting twist the NFL has is that if you do get the same scores - especially if both teams go 4 and out, then going 3rd means you only need a FG to win - and you are probably going to use all 4 downs to try and get into FG range...

1st team result then what would second team likely do

Safety = see you later
Interception/fumble = uh oh
Turnover on downs/Punt = FG with 4 downs in almost all scenarios - maybe 4th and long pinned deep means a non conversion leads to FG win for opposition so second team could very rarely punt..
FG = go for TD with 4 downs until in FG range - again a 4th and long you may settle for field goal if that option is there
TD = TD or TD with PAC with 4 downs, every set is going to be 4 downs no ifs buts or maybes - a choice on TD to go for win, or risk oppo getting a field goal for win - probably says you are going for PAC which on my short bit of research is about 50% successful across the league. That would be some coin flip for the Superbowl.

So a lot of power in being second... and you get a moderate advantage... once you however match on scores / then you are at a massive disadvantage. So if being second makes you chance of winning on those first two possessions > 50% then its moot and you should always go second.

I imagine its more like 30% first team wins 40% second team wins on the first 2 plays of an infinite number of matches, then after that becomes more a 20% to 10% ratio with the total ending up near 50-50. I think psychologically less challenging being second..

 

[tigerdell]

There is a lot of power in knowing what you have to do when you are chasing.

Duckworth Lewis method infamous for a reason

As Major League Baseball prepares to open its season in Australia for the first time, I'm reminded of how Australia's summer game – cricket…

www.theroar.com.au

The interesting twist the NFL has is that if you do get the same scores - especially if both teams go 4 and out, then going 3rd means you only need a FG to win - and you are probably going to use all 4 downs to try and get into FG range...

1st team result then what would second team likely do

Safety = see you later
Interception/fumble = uh oh
Turnover on downs/Punt = FG with 4 downs in almost all scenarios - maybe 4th and long pinned deep means a non conversion leads to FG win for opposition so second team could very rarely punt..
FG = go for TD with 4 downs until in FG range - again a 4th and long you may settle for field goal if that option is there
TD = TD or TD with PAC with 4 downs, every set is going to be 4 downs no ifs buts or maybes - a choice on TD to go for win, or risk oppo getting a field goal for win - probably says you are going for PAC which on my short bit of research is about 50% successful across the league. That would be some coin flip for the Superbowl.

So a lot of power in being second... and you get a moderate advantage... once you however match on scores / then you are at a massive disadvantage. So if being second makes you chance of winning on those first two possessions > 50% then its moot and you should always go second.

I imagine its more like 30% first team wins 40% second team wins on the first 2 plays of an infinite number of matches, then after that becomes more a 20% to 10% ratio with the total ending up near 50-50. I think psychologically less challenging being second..

a few minor points.
If 1st team get a FG, then 2nd team will always go for td to win. Otherwise its suicide as the next score wins with it in first teams hand. So unless its 4th and long the 2nd team will play on.
If 1st team dont score its a FG attempt regardless of the downs. But they probs run it to 4th.
If 1st score 7 points then its always attempting a TD with 2point conversion.


The only power in going 2nd is knowing what you have to do. But the 1st team get to set the pace.
And having the 3rd possession is important.
Here the 49ers set a low bar. In other words there was a clear line For the Chiefs to beat them.


I think teams going first will aim for 7 points.
That means going on 4th and short. Maybe even a 4th and long depending on field position. Obviously they need a score but driving it to the end sets enormous pressure on the 2nd team.
A TD takes away a field goal. So the 2nd team have to play on every 4th down.
Then even if they score they will go for the PAC.
I'd suggest some of the success of the PAC is due to surprise. But not in this situation.
SO 2nd team can only win by playing the ball and the defensive sets up for this.


Having said all that if its overtime in the post season its between 2 very good teams so either can win it really.
Its a good OT rule.

 

[Redford]

The Denver Broncos. They are very funny.

Broncos to cut Wilson, take $85M dead money hit

The Broncos announced Monday that they have informed quarterback Russell Wilson he will be released after the 2024 league year begins March 13 at 4 p.m. ET.

www.espn.com

 

[tigerdell]

The Denver Broncos. They are very funny.

Broncos to cut Wilson, take $85M dead money hit

The Broncos announced Monday that they have informed quarterback Russell Wilson he will be released after the 2024 league year begins March 13 at 4 p.m. ET.

www.espn.com

so will the owners club together and decide no one wants wilson?

 

[MD Jazz]

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/39564678/the-cost-nfl-invincibility

 

[T-Shirt Tommy]

A small part of me died yesterday with the announcement of Jason Kelce's retirement, just as it did with Reggie White's desertion to Green Bay and Randall Cunninghams ACL in 1991.

It will be strange not seeing the number 62 line up at centre. And as brilliant and emotional a retirement speech as you would ever see.

Jason Kelce Retirement Press Conference: March 4, 2024

The All-Pro center delivered a retirement speech for the ages as he officially said farewell to the NFL.

www.philadelphiaeagles.com