Norv has basically been a bottom-5 NFL head coach for most of his career.

If I was a Chargers fan, I'd be livid at how much talent Norv pissed away. To have not at least reached a Super Bowl over his tenure is pretty awful.

Doing anything to make Norv Turner look worse and therefore be likely to get fired is obviously stupid

question, are the chargers bad or is it norv that's bad?

playoff semifinal:

his team scores a TD to close the lead to 18 with about 8 minutes to go in the game. he decides to kick the XP instead of going for the 2 point conversion to close the lead to 16, and make it a potential two score game, wat? they kick onside, but his team doesn't recover the ball.

the other team scores a TD to get those 7 points back. with about 4 minutes to go, his team scores AGAIN to close the lead to 18 points, and he once again sends out the kicking team to make it a 17-point game. this time he declines to kick onside.

wat

Chargers window is effectively closed now, but they had legit title equity that Norv squandered.

nah, they have a legit elite QB who still has prime years and some talent in various spots. they are far from done.

though Norv needs to go.

LOL Canada or some such.

IMO the best risk-free strategy for Oklahoma would be to not call time outs until Baylor has 4th down @ 20. Oklahoma could go for block, or if wind was truly bad call for a fair catch near 50 for a free field goal kick of about 60 yards.

the clock would expire if OU doesn't call timeout

Oklahoma had 3 time outs with 51 seconds, correct? They could have obviously forced Baylor to punt, assuming they held on downs.

1st down: 4 yard gain, Oklahoma let's clock run down to :20, calls first time out.
2nd down: assuming no gain, Oklahoma calls second time out with :14 remaining.
3rd down: assuming no gain Oklahoma calls third time out with :08 remaining.
4th down: go for blocked punt or fair catch free kick. Game goes to OT if failed.\

I only mention calling TO on 4th because Baylor could conceivably throw incompletes or run OOB which would stop clock. if Baylor tries to run clock without going for a first down then Oklahoma should call timeouts to get ball back, but only when they get ball back with no risk of losing in regulation, i.e. no time left on clock except for free FG kick downwind. Also force a punt that can be blocked with ~0 downside risk of penalty because no time is remaining.

Except at that point you don't have to run if you're Baylor, because Oklahoma having two timeouts and :01 left doesn't matter (see: Kelly, Chip), so the whole playbook is opened up, including passing plays that will take longer than :06.

and baylor can just punt OOB negating any free kick opportunity. i think Stoops played it the most +EV, he just got bit by Baylor unexpectedly changing strategies (if you are going to OT with :51 and 1st and 10 at your 20, why are you going to try to drive with :46 and 2nd and 6 at your 24?) and the defense ****ting the bed.

The point is that Baylor should not get a free roll option to OT by running out the clock. If Stoops takes the TO with 20 seconds left at 2nd down, then Baylor either tries to get a 1st down, or is required to punt the ball. Even if Baylor punts OOB Oklahoma gets a chance to block the punt or run a hail mary at around the 50 which poses no downside risk. But Stoops takes the TO @ 50 seconds which is not the right way to do it, because Baylor now has more time to drive if they make 1st down.

NZ's idea makes some sense, except if Baylor gets a first down on the first play after the TO, then they've got two or three shots to get into FG range anyway.

What's that technical term from game theory where you set up your plan several steps ahead, but forgot that your opponent can deduce your strategy and adjust accordingly? That's what Stoops did, imo.

But silly me, I am neglecting the pertinent question for someone who was at the game:

blackaces, at about the 3:30 mark Baylor had the ball trying to drive and kill the clock. They called a cross-field lateral which the defense was all over and went for a 10 yard loss. Looked like a really stupid play on tv, but was it actually a trick play? Like was that supposed to be a halfback pass or something? Did you see anyone running a deep route there, or was it just the idiotic play it appeared?

It looked to me like it was designed for the WR to have blocking and run, but could have been a pass. I was too busy screaming GET THE ****ING BALL to notice LOL

Just another coach with a ******ed punt!

Not Norv's fault, Rivers is a chump.

McBump

Nvm I'm obviously just not on his level.

Maybe I'm just wrong, but I'm pretty sure miami should have let dallas score a TD with like a minute and a half and 2 timeouts left instead of letting them run down the clock and kick the easy FG

Yeah unless they thought Bailey would miss a chip shot fg. Idiot coaches not thinking outside the box.

One thing about those situations is if you think the other team will kneel at the 1. The correct counter strategy is to play real defense. So NFL coaches are often at the equillibrium strategy by playing real defense, but by doing so aren't exploiting the fish who makeup some percent of NFL head coaches.

listen, you should never let this sort of mentality creep into ur defensive psyche. its ruinous. first you start selectively allowing scores. next your defense is just a sieve bc they think they dont matter.

That doesn't matter. The defense can't stop a team that shouldn't and ended up not trying to score.

Dallas win % is whatever their kicker's make % is from that part of the field if you don't let them score. It's over 90%.

Miami had a better chance letting them score and hoping to drive down the field to score a game winning touchdown. The chance of that is more than 10% so letting them score was a no-brainer.