2013 NFL thread

[surviva316]

muhahaha =(

Well, you're not gonna find much better proof than that that it all evens out in the end. Except for the Browns ... it never evens out for the Browns.

[Lukie]

Well, you're not gonna find much better proof than that that it all evens out in the end. Except for the Browns ... it never evens out for the Browns.

confirmed.

Though you could start building a case with a coach who understands 4th downs/2pt conversions, TRich trade, Gordon, lots of stuff really. Just not actually winning games on the field.

[surviva316]

... a coach who understands 4th downs/2pt conversions ...

If it makes you feel any better, those don't exist. Every team should have a Game Manager--like a love baby of Joe Maddon and Nate Silver type mind--on their sidelines. I've long since realized that the pace of the NFL doesn't allow for this person to give input on every single play, but teams could at least get the big things right.

[Lukie]

If it makes you feel any better, those don't exist. Every team should have a Game Manager--like a love baby of Joe Maddon and Nate Silver type mind--on their sidelines. I've long since realized that the pace of the NFL doesn't allow for this person to give input on every single play, but teams could at least get the big things right.

There are coaches like that that do exist, but based on the play on the field, none of them are currently head coaches in the NFL.

If an NFL coach made game theory perfect decisions every time, 99% of football fans would think he is crazy. Coaches have been so overly conservative for so long that it is just kind of ingrained into football culture, and that's not even getting into adjusting for improving offenses and passing games, which increase the value of a possession and increase the chance of a conversion.

I do think Chud is the best in the NFL in these spots or at least one of the best. You could make a strong case that he at least gets the big things right. You could also make a case that maybe going for it every single time that you are supposed to go for it, based on the math, might not be the best play either (for example, the other team might adjust and start taking at least the low hanging fruit themselves.)

[surviva316]

If an NFL coach made game theory perfect decisions every time, 99% of football fans would think he is crazy. Coaches have been so overly conservative for so long that it is just kind of ingrained into football culture ... .

Right, this exactly. Coaches are much less concerned with making the right decision than they are with making a decision that "can't" be criticized.

One of the most obviously dumb things coaches do (that the NFL culture embraces unquestioningly) illustrates this perfectly. When a team is down by 15 in the 4th quarter, it is standard to save the 2-point conversion attempt for the second touchdown. This placates (dumb) fans and (dumb) media because it has the logic of "keeping the team in the game the longest." People get to watch more of the game feeling like the team is in it, which makes it *seem* like it gives the team a better chance to win.

But anyone who's capable of thinking with even the slightest eye to game theory sees that there's no advantage whatsoever to saving the 2-point attempt (other than making people feel nice and cozy), yet there are obvious advantages to finding out as early as possible whether you would or would not convert. It's an obvious case of gaining free information (it's free because you're going to have to go for it anyway, so why not now), and information is valuable. If you miss the 2-point attempt on the last play of the game, then you just managed the entire quarter in such a way that you just get one more score, only to find out that's not enough. If you miss it after the first touchdown, then you have a world of information to work with: you are more likely to do an onside kick knowing you need two more scores, you'll playcall in a way that leaves time AFTER your first score, if you get stuck in a 4th and long in your opponent's territory, you can kick a fieldgoal knowing that it's gonna take two scores anyway so no sense in selling out for a touchdown on this drive.

In other words, the big difference comes when you miss the 2-point conversion. It feels nicer to miss the 2nd one because you've gone so long going under the FALSE security that you could only be 1 score behind; when you miss the first one, you can operate under the KNOWN urgency that you're actually 2 scores behind. The latter feels shittier, and thus puts the coach under more heat, even though it clearly gives you a better chance to win.

Another, not quite as obvious but still pretty bad coaching decision illuminates this point too. Coaches don't go for enough 4th downs. It's rare that punting on 4th down will get the coach grilled, so they just do it until they absolutely HAVE to go for it. It shouldn't operate in terms of have to or don't have to; it should be a slow gradient toward more aggression in more situations as your likelihood to win using traditional methods whittle away.

Last night's game is a perfect example. Cowboys have 3rd and 4 at the Bears' 40 in the waning minutes of the 3rd quarter, down by 13 and yet to keep the Bears from scoring on a single drive (no punts, no turnovers, no turnover on downs; nothing but TDs and FGs). So the Cowboys throw deep on 3rd down and punt on 4th down. (Not to be results oriented, but the Cowboys got the ball back in the 4th quarter, now down by 21). Neither play is really gonna be criticized by the fans or the media, so sure, just do that because we all know game management in the NFL is 100% about not doing things that look bad and 0% about giving your team the best chance to win.

Much better plan is to treat 3rd down like 2nd down and run or take a short dump off (if you get it, GREAT! If you don't you have 4th and short), and go for it on 4th. But doing anything except throw past the chains on 3rd down is terrible! Going for it on 4th down sometimes turns out ugly!!!! Oh noooooooo!!!!!