From the Bengals@Ravens tonight I wonder about two decisions:

Harbaugh challenges the call of no-TD of Ray Rice on 2nd down. You have two downs for inches to get the TD (assuming you go for it on 4th and inches as well). Seems like you don't have much to gain from that challenge. Don't know the success rate for that type of challenge though.

Later in the game Bengals accept a penalty while on defence to give the Ravens 3 and 30 instead of 4th and what 15 ? and insta-punt. Deep in Ravens territory and being up Ravens will get cute on 4th there just about never right? I mean small risk of a third down conversion but still higher than 4th and insta-punt. Am I missing something?

Atlanta just kicked an 18 yard field goal

Kicking to Hester

well if the challenge is good the ravens get guaranteed points.

And the bengals can gain 10 yds of field position if they stop them w/o much of a gain.

Both teams failed to accomplish either of those goals regardless they are probably neutral EV

I cover high school football for a local newspaper. I see a lot of instances in the kicking game where what would be a close decision in college and pro football is easier in high school. Some teams have no kicker, so they always go for two, or go for it on fourth down when in college a field goal attempt would be in order.

I'm sure a lot of fans in the stands are second-guessing the high school coaches because they're looking at the games from the college and pro standards, when in fact the probabilities are much different.

Atlanta with 4th & 3 on the TEN 35 late in first half, run clock down, call timeout, then punt

LOL NORV.

2 time outs, down 11 with 3 mins left, calls a time out THEN challenges a play where forte is CLEARLY down... lololololol

.

lol, I came here to post this

I came here to read it and concur.

Norv GOAT for this thread

I'm here for the Norvbang.

lol NORVVVVV

Taking the extra time was the correct thing to do.

The guy was wide open but why would you fake punt with an 11 point lead and 2 minutes to go from midfield? Just kick them back 30-40 yards.

Lovie Smith and Norv Turner for trying to beat each other to death with their cripple crutches

Yeah that was pretty bad. Especially there was no misdirection or anything and it wasn't even a power-shotgun run. Just kind of a drift forward thing. I think it was less than a foot.

Hmm...3 timeouts for Oklahoma makes it closer, but still clearly the wrong play. OU hadn't been able to stop that offense since the first quarter. They had little chance of holding them to 3 & out using a prevent defense. There's a much better chance the timeout results in a Baylor score than a 3 & out resulting in OU getting a score.

And that's the problem--the bad results happen more frequently than the good results. At that moment the game was going to overtime, which was a 50/50 proposition. Trading that for anything that's a net negative is a bad move.

Everything the Bucs did today.

Really, its more like:

30-3 = 5.8 score game
30-6 = 5.4 score game

or something

Baylor's first play was a handoff up the middle. If they were inclined to go for it, they should have come out attacking. If they weren't, the timeout really shouldn't have changed anything, as obviously OU isn't going to keep calling timeouts. Also, if Baylor comes out attacking b/c of timeout and throws an incompletion, takes a sack, or throws a pick, that is huge for OU. Basically, if they are going to be conservative, have to call the timeouts. If they are going to attack, I think there is a decent chance a mistake occurs and OU takes advantage (and Briles obv agrees by his 1st down playcall)

Oh, I'm well aware of those issues, and you're right that it's often easier for them because the absence of either a placekicker or a punter takes away (losing) options. I mean clock management, play calling (and I really only judge this for the team I watch all the time, and am pretty forgiving about it), that sort of thing.

Actually, the worst decision I see consistently is playing the starters the whole game even when the team has no chance to win, or to lose (and this happens a lot in HS games), rather than giving the other kids a chance to get on the field. But obviously that's a different sort of issue.

I agree with the bolded (that's why I called Briles' decision stupid, and that's why it was so unnerving watching RG3 win the game despite his coach). Everything else is flawed logic. No idea why you'd think OU wasn't going to keep calling timeouts--that was clearly the whole point of calling the timeout.

Yes of course if something goes horribly wrong it is good for OU, but the chances are slim compared to a successful drive by the #2 offense in the country and a QB with a 73% completion rate on the season. He rarely throws interceptions and rarely gets sacked. Why give him a chance now, when his idiot coach is willing to let you try to stop him in overtime where you will ALWAYS have a chance to answer? OU is playing a virtual prevent, so even the frequencies below are exaggerated:

On the season:
5 interceptions
22 sacks
91 incompletions

vs.
245 completions
+ god knows how many uncalled scrambles for gain.

What I mean is that if BU gets a first down, OU won't call any more TOs bc they can't get the ball back anymore

It seems Norv Turner is most hated coach in professional sports. The Bears trying a fake punt up 11 is proof hell even Marvin Lewis who never does this sort of thing ran up the score on the chargers last season. Everyone just wants to embarrass the Chargers.