Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dumb and Dumber

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Dumb and Dumber

    The play call with 2 minutes left in the half, needing 8 yards and the Gnats getting heavy pressure on Wentz on virtually every pass attempt, was and remains indefensible. The fact that the Gnats did not tie the game was only the result of a very fortunate combination of events: several favorable rulings by the officials; McAdoo's play calling stupidity actually exceeding that of Barney Rubble's, inspired goal line defense and a healthy dose of good luck.

    Facial appearance can certainly be very deceiving when making a guess as to whether someone is smart or not...but not always. That said, I am now convinced Pederson simply doesn't have a lot going on upstairs. And while dumb play calling is bad enough, stubbornly dumb play calling is much worse. After the game, Pederson firmly defended the call:

    “It was something that I discussed with the guy that’s helping me upstairs with some of the analytics and where we were on the field, what we were doing offensively at the time,” Pederson said. “The defense was playing extremely well. Had an opportunity to keep ourselves on the field at that time, so I elected to go for it at that point. Obviously, we didn’t get it and the defense held. … I stand by my decision.

    Some will defend Doug's call by saying they favor aggressive play calling. I like aggressive play calling too...when the circumstances dictate. Pickett's Charge and the Charge of the Light Brigade were both aggressive tactical "play calls". They were also stubbornly stupid. How did they turn out?

    We were fortunate that our chief tactitian was matching wits with stubbornly dumb Ben MCAdoo yesterday. It will rarely be that way. Especially if we start playing really big games for big prizes.
    Last edited by tinopuno; 09-25-2017, 08:19 AM.

  • #2
    I don’t mind aggressiveness. 4th and 8 from midfield is stupidity. It didn’t bite us though because of the stupid catch rule. That absolutely was a TD.

    I gotta think Doug learns from some of this stuff though. Let’s hope.
    You know Darren if you'd have told me 10 years ago that someday I was going to solve the world's energy problems I'd have said your crazy.... now lets drop this big ball of oil out the window.

    Comment


    • #3
      That was not the dumbest call I've ever seen, but it does appear towards the top of the dumb call depth chart.

      It started off looking smart. He had the Giants baffled, and if he had just forced them to use a timeout with time winding down at the end of the half, that would have looked pretty smart. But, then he actually went for it, which was about as dumb as you can get. That's the kind of decision that loses games, and gets you fired.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Eaglebreath View Post
        That was not the dumbest call I've ever seen, but it does appear towards the top of the dumb call depth chart.

        It started off looking smart. He had the Giants baffled, and if he had just forced them to use a timeout with time winding down at the end of the half, that would have looked pretty smart. But, then he actually went for it, which was about as dumb as you can get. That's the kind of decision that loses games, and gets you fired.
        I wish Carson (or Reich) would say, "hey coach, let's just punt it here".
        Canada's #1 Eagles fan.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by andrewaters View Post
          I don’t mind aggressiveness. 4th and 8 from midfield is stupidity. It didn’t bite us though because of the stupid catch rule. That absolutely was a TD.

          I gotta think Doug learns from some of this stuff though. Let’s hope.
          Sorry to disagree but BY THE RULES that was not a tad. Simply just wasn't . Rule isn't that if the ball hits goal post it is good.... The RULE sez it has go over the cross bar also.

          Comment


          • #6
            I also disagreed with the call.... But some of you are just being overly dramatic like this makes he guy stupid.

            Comment


            • #7
              I just think that the trend that Doug keeps insisting on is flawed and it's going to really kill us at some point.

              On another note I think that if that's what you are thinking that you had better plan a play on 3rd down that will not put you at 4th and 8. Finally, if you insist on gambling you don't call time out to let the defense set up for it. How many times do you see a team driving and get down to the goal line and call timeout to get "the right play". It used to drive me nuts in college when we had a team on the run and out coach did that. It's the norm and I think it's done. These guys work about 20 hours a week and you would think that they would be prepared for it. They've got a coaching staff of 20 people. Over coaching can be just as dangerous as under coaching at times.
              "Hey Giants, who's your Daddy?"

              Comment


              • #8
                yup, he really reminds me of Andy with his playcalling. No sense to it sometimes

                glad he had the balls to try the kick at the end. Lots of coaches wouldn't have

                Comment


                • #9
                  The ball was on the 43. If you punt, you often just gain those 23 yards. That often does not dramatically affect the other teams' next drive, so may as well go for it, often. And often, I'd be just fine with going for it on 4th and 8.

                  However, Doug did say that he has to take that analytical information and use that to inform his decision -- he had to adjust on other stuff. That was my problem with this one. There were too many other factors which should have been a punt decision.

                  First, the Eagles really were not getting passes of any depth at that point, at least not regularly. So the Eagles were less likely than normal to actually convert. If the Eagles had been hitting on some of those passes with some regularity, fine.

                  Second, the Giants were only capable of slow methodical drives at that point of the game, and there were just two minutes left in the half. The public analytical models to not take into account time left in half when calculating the expected points for the other team -- not sure if the Eagles do. But even if theirs does, those extra 25 yards would have made a difference -- Giants probably take several extra plays to get those yards. Given the time left, it made it very unlikely they were going to score. Giving them a start at midfield changes that. The Giants were not explosive at that point.

                  Lastly, if your defense was expecting the punt, that can affect them as well if you don't. Unsure if that happened or not, but they didn't seem to play as well on that drive.

                  In the end, Wentz made it worse by taking the sack -- he can't do that. One read, maybe two, then try to force it somewhere. An INT is better than an incompletion, and an incompletion is better than a sack. Just can't do that. So, that made it worse, and is something Wentz does need to learn. But for multiple reasons in that particular circumstance, I thought it was an awful decision. In others though, I could actually see going for it on 4th and 8 when in that area of the field.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by FairOaks View Post
                    The ball was on the 43. If you punt, you often just gain those 23 yards. That often does not dramatically affect the other teams' next drive, so may as well go for it, often. And often, I'd be just fine with going for it on 4th and 8.

                    However, Doug did say that he has to take that analytical information and use that to inform his decision -- he had to adjust on other stuff. That was my problem with this one. There were too many other factors which should have been a punt decision.

                    First, the Eagles really were not getting passes of any depth at that point, at least not regularly. So the Eagles were less likely than normal to actually convert. If the Eagles had been hitting on some of those passes with some regularity, fine.

                    Second, the Giants were only capable of slow methodical drives at that point of the game, and there were just two minutes left in the half. The public analytical models to not take into account time left in half when calculating the expected points for the other team -- not sure if the Eagles do. But even if theirs does, those extra 25 yards would have made a difference -- Giants probably take several extra plays to get those yards. Given the time left, it made it very unlikely they were going to score. Giving them a start at midfield changes that. The Giants were not explosive at that point.

                    Lastly, if your defense was expecting the punt, that can affect them as well if you don't. Unsure if that happened or not, but they didn't seem to play as well on that drive.

                    In the end, Wentz made it worse by taking the sack -- he can't do that. One read, maybe two, then try to force it somewhere. An INT is better than an incompletion, and an incompletion is better than a sack. Just can't do that. So, that made it worse, and is something Wentz does need to learn. But for multiple reasons in that particular circumstance, I thought it was an awful decision. In others though, I could actually see going for it on 4th and 8 when in that area of the field.
                    Hell an INT could be even better than a punt with these selfish DBs these days. They aren't team enough to bat a ball down on the 5 yard line and take the ball back at the 40. Who came up with the charts anyway? Doug? I doubt it. Was this another one of our GM's "I'm smarter than anybody else" ideas passed along to Doug?
                    "Hey Giants, who's your Daddy?"

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The math said it wasn't a bad decision. I know people a lot of people don't like the idea of using stats to determine what to do because of the "human factor", "momentum", "intuition" or just because it doesn't feel right... but the math is what it is. There was a slightly better chance of winning by going for it.

                      Intuitively, I agree, that I wouldn't think the math would work out that way just because if you don't make it, you give them the ball at mid-field. However, apparently the scales get tipped to the "go for it side" by the fact that...

                      1, if you make it the Giants never get the ball back.
                      2, if you punt and it goes in the end-zone, they get the ball at the 20 which is only a net gain of about 30 yards.

                      Based on the mathematics I saw, it wasn't appreciably different between "go for it" or "punt", but it definitely favored going for it.

                      I know a lot of people still won't like that, but if you're only answer is "You just don't do that at mid-field" you're in for a long X number of years of Doug Peterson because it sounds like he is entirely going by what his stats guys in the booth tell him give the team the best odds of winning in those situations.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by YourPalChrisMal View Post
                        The math said it wasn't a bad decision. I know people a lot of people don't like the idea of using stats to determine what to do because of the "human factor", "momentum", "intuition" or just because it doesn't feel right... but the math is what it is. There was a slightly better chance of winning by going for it.

                        Intuitively, I agree, that I wouldn't think the math would work out that way just because if you don't make it, you give them the ball at mid-field. However, apparently the scales get tipped to the "go for it side" by the fact that...

                        1, if you make it the Giants never get the ball back.
                        2, if you punt and it goes in the end-zone, they get the ball at the 20 which is only a net gain of about 30 yards.

                        Based on the mathematics I saw, it wasn't appreciably different between "go for it" or "punt", but it definitely favored going for it.

                        I know a lot of people still won't like that, but if you're only answer is "You just don't do that at mid-field" you're in for a long X number of years of Doug Peterson because it sounds like he is entirely going by what his stats guys in the booth tell him give the team the best odds of winning in those situations.
                        That's all fine and dandy, but I still think it was dumb, for numerous reasons. First, if you fail to get it, it immediately shifts the momentum of the game. Which it obviously did. Second, the Eagles have a very good punter, and special teams. I would say the odds of pinning them inside the 20 are better than the odds of a touchback. Third, is the time factor. It's harder to drive 80+ yards in 2 minutes than to drive from midfield, and also, starting at midfield opens up the playbook. You can run things from midfield that you would be reluctant to run from your own 10 yardline.

                        None of that shows up in the math. Which by itself, is not a good way to make decisions like that. Doug was aggressive, and that's not necessarily a bad thing, but he needs to have a better feel for the game there, IMO.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          OMG!!!!!! Stats are for baseball geeks. Add the fact that nobody ever goes for 4th and 8 from there in that situation I'd love to know where they got that ridiculous stat from. Why don't we just have PFF do their stats and throw them into a computer and coach the team? Maybe we can get Bill Gates? Risk reward? BS! We almost blew the game! We actually did without that stupid rule about a catch for a TD. I'd like to shove that chart up Doug's pass.
                          "Hey Giants, who's your Daddy?"

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Eagle60 View Post
                            OMG!!!!!! Stats are for baseball geeks. Add the fact that nobody ever goes for 4th and 8 from there in that situation I'd love to know where they got that ridiculous stat from. Why don't we just have PFF do their stats and throw them into a computer and coach the team? Maybe we can get Bill Gates? Risk reward? BS! We almost blew the game! We actually did without that stupid rule about a catch for a TD. I'd like to shove that chart up Doug's pass.
                            Teams are getting more serious statisticians these days. The Eagles have some now. I'm sure they model every single drive of every team over the years, and find the expected points per drive given a starting field position. I think they have found that the expected points is very similar starting anywhere from the 5 to the 30 yard line or so. So, punting to gain just a few yards at that part of the field doesn't help on the next drive, usually. On the other hand, converting at that point of the field helps your own expected points a lot -- it moves you into field goal range at the least. So then the question is how likely are you to get that first down. Apparently by the stats, teams actually tend to convert about 33% of 4th and 8 plays. It's not some ludicrous long shot, all the time.

                            Sometimes stats don't take something significant into account. For example, I'm not sure if that 33% stat is excluding drives when teams are in prevent defenses. But, they can also expose long-standing biases which are there for reasons other than helping your team win. A coach often does not want to answer questions like Pederson did on the matter, and will do the "safe" thing so they can't be criticized if it goes bad, even if it's not actually the percentage play. That's human as well, but hurts the team, and puts you at a disadvantage against teams who play the percentages better.

                            Pederson did go for it three times in the game, and converted twice. I think we got two TDs out of those drives, instead of FGs or punts. The Giants punted from the 41 and 38 yard lines, and got zero points out of those drives by choice. McAdoo did go for it on 4th down twice when he was in easy FG range, and those points would have helped a ton later in the game. The first I thought he was crazy to not take the points; the other on 4th and 1 was definitely defensible, although getting points before half and making Doug pay for his own 4th down call at least a little may have still been best. If Pederson punted on either of those other 4th down plays, we probably lose.

                            I did not like the call in that situation -- since with just two minutes left in the half, and us not really on all cylinders on offense, I think that changed the odds plenty enough on the normal stats to make it a bad idea. You do need to know what the models take into account, and what they don't. The sack made it much worse, but that is not Doug's fault. Even more, Agholor got open on that play and Wentz did not pull the trigger. Blount was also open short of the sticks; maybe he could have bowled over a tackler and gotten the first down. A Kempski article here has Baldinger's analysis of the play, with video.

                            In general, I like that Pederson is on the aggressive side. I would rather err that way than be too timid. It's going to burn you from time to time, but hopefully it helps us even more often. Given the game situation, I didn't like that one. We were very lucky that it didn't hurt us, since the Giants did not score anyways. The game was later tight because of the Ertz fumble, and possibly the defensive injuries which let the Giants get going more.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              My beef with the 4th and 8 was the Giants were beat badly in the first half. Not punting gave them life. If you punt it down to the 10 with 2:20 left in half McAdoo was going to probably get pretty vanilla and just run the clock out with some throwing but nothing really aggressive. That was my issue. It took a very iffy TD reverse to keep it from being 7-7. And I get the catch rule but that was a TD. We would have been furious if that would have been flipped.
                              You know Darren if you'd have told me 10 years ago that someday I was going to solve the world's energy problems I'd have said your crazy.... now lets drop this big ball of oil out the window.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X