Punting OOB doesn't greatly increase your WP because it is so high to begin with, but punting OOB is clearly so much better than punting up the middle. If you ran the ball instead of QB kneeling everytime you might never lose a game because of it. The kneel is still clearly a million times better.

I didn't see the 49ers game, but what happened on the ensuing kick-off from midfield? In the stats it says Akers kicked a touchback, but I hope he tried to pooch it to like the 10 and force Dallas to take a fair catch there.

you're saying the kneel is better when you can definitely run the clock out, or the kneel is better even in ATL's situation where they will have to punt if they kneel, which they could avoid by gaining a first down running the ball?

Not 100% sure, but I think he is saying that comparing WP between 1) kneeling -> punting and 2) giving it to Turner -> punting doesn't indicate how bad the decision was. Like it would only decrease their chances of winning from 99% to 98.5% or something (made those numbers up obv).

Edit: err he was talking about punting out of bounds, nvm, but still kinda applies.

I was comparing running the ball when you can successfully kneel out the whole clock. To kneeling when you can successfully kneel out the whole clock.

wrt to pudge's/luka's point about the difference between 99% and 98.5%, just express it in terms of losing %.

I'm surprised the difference in this decision is 1%.

When I read what happened, I immediately thought accepting the penalty and taking 3 knees before kicking the field (to prevent any chance of a turnover) would be better decision. They'd take off ~ 2 minutes and have a 45-yard goal at the most. I wouldn't have done this of course, but it feels like a better, but likely very marginal.

They should've run the ball until they scored the TD or were forced to kick the field goal. With 1 1st down and running it every time, they would've taken at the worst 4 minutes off the clock and still have a likely 10-point lead.

...


I was talking about the Eagles scenario on Saturday night with a couple friends. I said I want to see a team up by 3 with 20 seconds more than they'd need to go knee, knee, knee to end the game. I want them to be on the opposing team's 20 yard line. They need to burn 20 seconds across 3 plays to 1000% win the game.

I want the QB to take the ball. Run backwards as fast as he can for 6 seconds and fall. Repeat, repeat, game over. He'll get -60 yards rushing but they'll have a 1000% chance to win.

What'd actually happen is the team will be afraid to throw an interception, so they'll run it 3 times, kick the field goal and the opposing team will have a chance 3/1,000 chance to win the game. No chance in risking that (esp. in college)

Atlanta couldn't have done that because they were pegged too far back, but I'm sure there was a scenario there to run that wouldn't have opened up a chance for Eagle victory. What they did gave Philly not just a chance to win, but a reasonable chance. Just ask the NYG.

...


The last one is my favorite. Minnesota. On Saturday, in that same conversation, I said I can't stand how there's these coaches next in line to become head coaches just because they're a good to great coordinator and because they've been interviewed for a head coaching position several times.

Some coaches are great at what there coaching position is and should be paid accordingly to be kept on at there team or seek a higher price for that same position, not just automatically become a head coach because he's earned that right.

I used Leslie Frazier as an example. I know nothing about him. Nothing at all except that he was the defensive coordinator of the Vikings for several seasons, paid his dues (lol) and has been interviewed by other teams to be a head coach. Why is he the automatic replacement when they finally dumped Chilly? What makes him head coach worthy?

He proved my point yesterday. He should've been fired this morning. His actions were inexcusable. I'm just floored that that happened.

...

On another note

Winning % shouldn't be look at in terms of XXX%. It needs to be looked at in terms of XXXX? There's a lot of space between 98 & 99%. They're the games that you never forget because some coach didn't account for the slim possibility that a miracle could happen so they looked the other way.

Coaches need to think with this mentality. If you don't account for these slim possibilities, eventually that 5/1000 will come through to bite you in the butt.

Yeah, this was hideous, and I'm glad you brought it up because it could have easily been forgotten as a non-national 4 PM broadcast. The real stupidity in the Sparano decision is burning the timeout. How often does drawing the defense offsides work in a situation where the defense knows the offense is trying to do just that?

This seems pretty awful though. A 45 yard FG is not close to a gimme, so I think the point of accepting the penalty is to try to score 7 points, not kill clock then take 3 points anyway (if you make it). Keep in mind, playing for the TD still allows you to kill clock.

the point about akers being automatic inside 40yds is a good one. it probably swings the decision to keep the FG to worse than i thought.

still, i can at least understand harbaugh's thought process. he may have been wrong, but there's still some logic to it. i wouldn't have been totally certain which move was correct in the heat of the moment.

as pudge mentioned, kicking the long FG in the first place was brutal. so much worse.

I don't think that it should be done this way. I just thought it might be better than what they ended up doing. I would've accepted the penalty and ran the ball until Dallas is within 1 score and it's 3rd down.

Well, but if one play can turn a win into a loss and that play has a significant nonzero chance of happening, you need to avoid it. Atlanta just sort of faced it head on and hoped for the best.

This. The reason people don't remember injuries on those plays is most people in football know enough not to mess around on them. If teams made a habit of getting fancy with that play you'd see some nasty stuff.

definitely, but that play will show up in win probability.

if it doesn't, then we are using an incorrect win probability (of punting to desean). if that's what kyle meant, then i missed his point.

Les miles has to be the worst

They went up 6-9 Thursday and missisipi state clearly couldn't move the ball and he onside kicks it

Then with the game in hand run run run punt territory he throws it for first pick of thengame

Of course he only plays three games all year where the other team really has a competitive chance, and he's run hot in his small sample ..... These guys really all need an MIT madden nerd in the booth

the thing is if you can eliminate loss probability on your own, the fact that the loss is remote either way shouldn't matter.

I am allin in a tournament. I have AA, opp has KK. Two of the flop cards are an A and a 2. I am then told "you can pick the 3rd flop card, it will either be an ace, 2, or K." Now, no matter what I pick, I will win 95%+ of the time. It doesn't mean I'm not a ****** if I don't pick the ace.

Ya kyleb u can only lose one game so win prob is all that matters , the devastation of the PR is directly correlated to the Individual game win prob

What site is it btw? It's like fan graphs for baseball where they don't adjust for teams ?

well said

i don't think either smith or harbaugh's decisions fit this description though. both had to weigh an outcome vs another outcome.

frazier's does fit. it was a total freeroll

Ban for poker/sports metaphor.

the onside to me was a good call

he didn't do the 10 yard onside, he kicked it into the open spot 35 yards downfield. The MSU returner had been close to breaking one on his first 2-3 attempts. Miles only gave up like 5 yards of field position from where he was taking it back to, and the kick was clearly one that had a high success rate judging from how MSU handled it.

i understand the 49ers not taking the penalty. though maybe wrong, "taking points off the board" is always scary.

taking the penalty and then turning the ball over or missing the next FG could cost him not only the 1 game, but potentially his job.

It isn't fancy, its just killing a couple seconds.

Having the QB stand behind a 9 man blocking scheme for 3 seconds then kneeldown is still going to be one of the safest plays imaginable on the football field.

Not when there's a 90 second wrestling match where some 330 lb defensive tackle tries to rip your guy's helmet off after it. Right or wong you don't disrespect high level athletes and those guys would take that play as disrespect. It's a chippy enough play a lot of the times now just because guys are frustrated they're going to lose.

I mean I don't disagree much but I can see why coaches don't do it and don't think they're wrong even if you're not exactly wrong either. Again, how much do you think you have to raise the chance of one of your guys getting injured or one of your guys getting fined or maybe suspended to lose more equity than you gain by burning an extra 6 seconds or whatever?

If the time is that important run some stretch/sweep running play and tell your back to have two hands on it and fall down as soon as somebody gets within a few yards of him. That's my opinion anyway and is probably the reason almost every football team does it that way.

Noodle, I think players other than the QB can get injured on that play. And historically, on teams not named the Colts, those players are actually valuable.

I don't know for sure but I'm guessing that is like an unwritten rule in football not to do that, kinda like don't headhunt in baseball.

If you stand there for 3 seconds then kneel, next play one of the 300 pound, 80-IQed monsters might just get upset and do something stupid to your lineman or whatever.

I don't think you are the first person to think up the brilliant idea for a QB to wait as long as he can before kneeling, while making sure to not get hit.

To hopefully replace the poker reference:

Let's say you have the ball, are up 7 points, and can kneel the clock out. Running the ball instead of taking a knee would be a terrible decision, and it isn't debatable. But looking at WP doesn't really illustrate how bad the decision is. You would only go from having a 0% chance of losing to a 0.001% chance of losing, which is basically nothing, but it would still be a really bad decision.