That surrender index is pretty bad. Kinda tempted to make a better one based on actually punting away significant win probability.

This, for example, is almost definitely a correct punt (at worst very marginally bad, but I doubt that):

DAL decided to punt to NYG from the NYG 44 on 4th & 5 with 10:51 remaining in the 4th while winning 35 to 10.

With a Surrender Index of 4.65, this punt ranks at the 90th percentile of cowardly punts of the 2019 season, and the 84th percentile of all punts since 2009.

Boogie boogie boogie!

The problem with incorporating win probability is that the inverse punt of it would also not count as Surrendery when it should rank very highly. Many of the very very very worst punts are those that move win probability from 3% to 2.5% or whatever.

Maybe a blanket "no punt when 90% to win is Surrendery" rule, or a more complicated function.

3% to 2.5% isn't that bad in the grand scheme of things. That's close enough that most people who actually get it might not be sure whether punting is good or bad in the situation. I don't have the numbers but I bet teams punt off 3-5% to get to ~1% all the time.

You're right though that on the extremes you can have atrocious punts that essentially throw away ~1-2% equity to get to 0% and you could argue that they're worse than punting from 55% to 50% because they're so obviously bad. Certainly more "surrendery".

But the "surrender index" is poorly named - it's just trying to be an awful punt index and it's not that great at that.

Surrender index was not designed to find the most objectively bad punts (i.e. the ones that cost the most equity), it was designed to find the most cowardly punts. It is essentially a bunch of arbitrary multipliers based on field position, distance, score differential and time left that Jon Bois threw together based on what he considered was the saddest/most cowardly in order to get a ranking.

Whatever it was intended to do, it doesn't do a particularly good job of it

Holy tit****ing Christ, the end of this game

That was just complete ****in insanity

Tampa takes the Chris Webber timeout to give Carolina 4th & 18 inches

Then Carolina runs the wildcat with McCaffrey when a plunge up the middle with Newton would work 95% of the time

Icing on the cake is that after Tampa gets the ball back they run the exact same plunge play Carolina should have run.

Felt like I was pretty immune to stupid coaching but this one actually shook me up. Wow.

it's harder to break into the ten commandments than the ten worst rivera coaching moments, but that play did it

The plunge up the middle with Newton seems like the smartest play call in that situation and should have a high success rate but just putting the ball in your QB's hands to start the play in that situation seems ideal. Craziest part to me of them lining up in the wildcat in that exact situation is doesn't it sort of take Newton out of any reasonable possible play call completely? He's unlikely to be part of the reverse there and they aren't likely to pass it to him and over complicate a short yardage 4th down situation so Carolina is basically telling Tampa Bay, "We are running the ball ~100% of the time on this play(taking any playaction boot run/dump out of the arsenal) and it's going through McCaffrey who is likely going to be the one with the ball in his hands when all is said and done.

It just basically in my eyes atleast put a massive target on McCaffrey once they removed their 6ft5 250lb QB from the equation.

Thing is Mcaffrey should have made it anyway. He could have run straight into the hole or cut around the line inside the lb but instead tried to bounce all the way and the lb stuffed him.

Ron Rivera would have probably gotten some great value in "First coach fired" prop bets.

To top it off, by running to the edge you lower your chance of using up most/all of the game clock if you happen to get the 1st without scoring. If he goes OOB inside the 1 there, TB is much more likely to still have time for a FG drive should they need one.

I don't always run to the edge on 4th and 1, but when I do I pick a guy who's slower than most NFL DBs.

What'd mccafrey run the 40 in?

I actually looked it up before I posted and got 4.48.

But apparently that was his Stanford time and his combine time was 4.22. Holy crap. Never mind.

Trot for show
Run for dough

This can't be right. Link?

https://www.sfgate.com/49ers/article...s-10979023.php

Sfgate is such trash, it might be wrong.



Jesus, yeah. Reporting, how does it work?

10 reps of 225? I think that is pretty ****in weak for a stout little muscular dude like him.

Yeah I'm pretty sure there are RBs putting up 25-30 reps

Lol San Francisco anything.

"Regular" dudes I'd work out with could put up 10 of 225. They weigh maybe 15 to 20lbs more than him but that is very surprising.

I remember seeing Chris Johnson maxed 375, God damn what an absolute beast. Sproles squatted something stupid too

We had a kid in HS who could bench 3x his body weight. He was 5'3" or something and a state champion pole vaulter.

We were also a perennial state power at football where the coach decided to play him at nose guard. His job was to run around the center, sneak through the hole and disrupt the QB or play. Pretty creative.

Pitt just attempted an 18 yard fg down 7 with 5 mins left in the game.