Let them score?

[007]

Agree completely. Never when tied or ahead. For those who say let them score, do you do the same if we're up by 2? Same logic, right?

It's a good question. But the logic would not be the same in my mind. If you are up by 2, the right play would never be the play that puts the other team ahead. Since you are already ahead, you should play that hand, IMO.

For those of you advocating that you would only consider it when you are "behind," do you realize that you could only do it when you are down by no more than 1? Otherwise, if you let them score, you then need 2 scores to win. Kinda stupid.

 

[FrancoPizza]

Hard nosed coaches don't let teams score. (At least that's my assumption of Shafer's opinion)

I guess the 87 team wasn't hardnosed. 32-31 doesn't happen otherwise.

 

[FrancoPizza]

I think this is the criteria to use. The casual fans head would explode if you let them score in a tie game.

Why does the casual fan factor into this? It's simple probabilities. Pitt had a 10% likelihood of missing a chippy, perhaps even less. Our chances of driving for a TD with a reasonable amount of time left were probably a bit greater than 10% given our success moving the ball. Everything else should be irrelevant.

 

[Jake]

I guess the 87 team wasn't hardnosed. 32-31 doesn't happen otherwise.

Huh?!?! Mac didn't let WVU score in that game. We got the ball back with about 2 minutes to go and drove the field to win it with :10 to go.

Not sure what point you're trying to make?

 

[Jake]

Why does the casual fan factor into this? It's simple probabilities. Pitt had a 10% likelihood of missing a chippy, perhaps even less. Our chances of driving for a TD with a reasonable amount of time left were probably a bit greater than 10% given our success moving the ball. Everything else should be irrelevant.

It really doesn't matter...but I'd only do it if we are behind by 1. Otherwise I think you play straight up.

 

[Consigliere]

For those of you advocating that you would only consider it when you are "behind," do you realize that you could only do it when you are down by no more than 1? Otherwise, if you let them score, you then need 2 scores to win. Kinda stupid.

Agree that the only time it is completely acceptable is if you are down 1. It is an exception strategy and should be used only in exceptional scenarios. You can make a case for allowing an opponent to go up 2 scores if there is no way to stop the clock and you want to play for a quick score an onside kick, I suppose. Anybody remember any situations where allowing an opponent to score worked and turned the outcome of a game?

 

[Chip]

pitt might be meatheaded enough to barrel in. it's just much dicier than it used to be. when mumme did it, everyone's brains exploded. lots of arguments about whether he was an idiot

A lot of times it comes down to the player going with instincts and stat padding. On a 4th down, if the opponent throws it deep, how many times do you see the defender go for the interception instead of knocking it down? Sometimes it doesn't matter how much you tell them, a stat is a stat.

So I think let them score can always stay on the table. You just have to judge how far do you not care, thinking the FG is automatic from. Because if they are on the 10, and you think there's no way he misses that FG, then you can try to let them score. If the guy takes a knee at the one, you're no worse off. If he takes the knee to the right or left of a hash mark, you might actually be better off.

Game, quality of kicker, all determines. But you should also be ready for a fake punt, because more and more coaches know it's easier to win if you have the ball than if you don't.

 

[007]

Agree that the only time it is completely acceptable is if you are down 1. It is an exception strategy and should be used only in exceptional scenarios. You can make a case for allowing an opponent to go up 2 scores if there is no way to stop the clock and you want to play for a quick score an onside kick, I suppose. Anybody remember any situations where allowing an opponent to score worked and turned the outcome of a game?

Interestingly, Bill Belichick (against the Giants) and Mike Holmgren both did it in Super Bowls. The Harvard Sports Analysis estimated that the Giants had a .94 win probability before Belicheck allowed them score. That win probability dropped to .85 after the play. Almost no one has the stones to try it, but statistically speaking it increases your odds of winning in those situations. Of course, 85% of the time you are going to lose the game anyway, so looking at the "outcome" is not useful in deciding whether or not it is the smart play. Analytically, it is difficult to argue against taking the play that increases your win probability from .06 to .15. That is the only point I was trying to make.

https://harvardsportsanalysis.wordp...ll-belichick-and-letting-your-opponent-score/

 

[Oakland]

Did you mean to say, "if you are winning.."? If not, please explain.

If you're losing, you let them score in that situation. I would never let a team score in a tie game.

 

[Brooky03]

Did you mean to say, "if you are winning.."? If not, please explain.

I meant losing. If the game is tied or you're winning. trust that you can get the stop. When losing, just getting a stop does nothing for you; you have to let them score to have the slimmest chance of winning.

 

[FrancoPizza]

Huh?!?! Mac didn't let WVU score in that game. We got the ball back with about 2 minutes to go and drove the field to win it with :10 to go.

Not sure what point you're trying to make?

Are you sure? Did Mac say something in the presser afterwards? Or maybe he wanted to play them straight up... I don't know. Re-watching that last defensive series... and based on comments from my dad at the game... it almost looked too easy for WV. All nehlen had to do was run out the clock and kick a short FG.

 

[SWC75]

Interestingly, Bill Belichick (against the Giants) and Mike Holmgren both did it in Super Bowls. The Harvard Sports Analysis estimated that the Giants had a .94 win probability before Belicheck allowed them score. That win probability dropped to .85 after the play. Almost no one has the stones to try it, but statistically speaking it increases your odds of winning in those situations. Of course, 85% of the time you are going to lose the game anyway, so looking at the "outcome" is not useful in deciding whether or not it is the smart play. Analytically, it is difficult to argue against taking the play that increases your win probability from .06 to .15. That is the only point I was trying to make.

https://harvardsportsanalysis.wordp...ll-belichick-and-letting-your-opponent-score/

I think it's a choice of strategies that, given the situation, probably will not produce a victory. So I'm not sure we can gauge how often it "works".

 

[Whitey23]

If you had not quitting in the Shafer cliche pool you win!

 

[Whitey23]

 

[OttoMets]

It'll be interesting to hear how the Shafer apologists spin that bit of illogic.

 

[Finwad32]

It'll be interesting to hear how the Shafer apologists spin that bit of illogic.

So it's a spin if "Shafer Apologiss" agree with his philosophy vs. letting them score?

 

[FrancoPizza]

I don't get that answer at all. Cliched sure. But it's avoiding the topic.

 

[OttoMets]

So it's a spin if "Shafer Apologiss" agree with his philosophy vs. letting them score?

There's been reasonable logic shared by football fans and coaches alike in this thread.

Shafer didn't offer anything resembling that.

 

[Millhouse]

I think Shafer would say "Hell, no! What kind of message does that send to the kids?

bump

 

[Finwad32]

There's been reasonable logic shared by football fans and coaches alike in this thread.

Shafer didn't offer anything resembling that.

Why should he have to? If I'm a coach I'm not describing my thoughts or philosophies in detail whatsoever publicly.

He believes that letting them score is quitting of sorts, strategic or not, that's his philosophy.

 

[TheCusian]

Bailey got the "I've answered this before" treatment on the call. One word answers.

Kinda lame of him for asking, but kinda lame of Shafer to be so curt.

Obviously Shafer doesn't hold syr.com in high regard.

 

[OttoMets]

Why should he have to? If I'm a coach I'm not describing my thoughts or philosophies in detail whatsoever publicly.

He believes that letting them score is quitting of sorts, strategic or not, that's his philosophy.

That's not a philosophy. That's confusion.

And he's paid to answer reporters' questions. If he wanted to answer that one directly (regarding his philosophy, as you put it), that would have been fine.

Instead he went for the empty-headed non-answer.

 

[Finwad32]

That's not a philosophy. That's confusion.

And he's paid to answer reporters' questions. If he wanted to answer that one directly (regarding his philosophy, as you put it), that would have been fine.

Instead he went for the empty-headed non-answer.

It didn't confuse me, and I'm pretty sure he did answer the question.

Some just don't like the answer.

 

[OttoMets]

It didn't confuse me, and I'm pretty sure he did answer the question.

Some just don't like the answer.

Shafer is confused as to what constitutes quitting.

Again, spouting an empty cliche about quitting and life lessons is not a real answer to the football question that was posed to him.

Interesting spin, though.

 

[Finwad32]

Shafer is confused as to what constitutes quitting.

Again, spouting an empty cliche about quitting and life lessons is not a real answer to the football question that was posed to him.

Interesting spin, though.

Lol, I have a "spin" you have concrete facts that this is an empty cliche, not opinion at all.

Makes sense.

I'm on record prior in this thread saying I'm indifferent to the decision. I just really don't give two shats about how he describes it to the media. Had no trouble understanding the description though.