why is morris getting the ball on pivotal 3rd and 2?

[Full_Rebar]

Phillips wasn't lined up in the backfield I mean.

He was split behind the other two right? I mean it wasn't really deceptive. If I remember right, Hunt took the snap turned and threw to Erv who was nailed as soon as he caught the ball and turned. No motion, no fake, no read.

 

[Scooch]

This is becoming another board meme. If we're talking about Maryland at least, Hunt, PTG and AAM accounted for 46 out of 51 carries (90%). Morris got 3, DMC got 1, and Erv had 1 that was really a pass. On the season Hunt, PTG and AAM have gotten 74% of the carries.

Good data. I'm happy to reconsider my position when confronted with good data. In this case I was really reacting to certain situations, but I'll fully admit that had GM2 ripped off a 20 yard carry I might be saying it was a great use of a "fresh RB" who provided a "change of pace".

Unlike others here I'm willing to change my mind, not stick blindly with a preconceived narrative.

 

[SWC75]

Look, we can string it out to try to figure out the likelihood that the other team scores or gives you the ball back and where after a missed FG try vs a punt and yadda yadda yadda, but SWC's statement was that a Dixon punt is certainly better than a Norton FG try. That's not certain.

That said, you're on one today, so don't let me slow you down.

Nortn is the better option if you are trying to score ON THAT PLAY. But a Dixon punt can set up a safety like we had vs. Central Michigan or it can set us up in great field position on the next possession with a new set of downs if the defense does it's job. You're trying to win the game, not the play.

 

[Dmcnabbrules]

i want West on the field as much as possible, only consistent guy catching the ball downfield

I have been thinking this all weekend. Fleming, Broyld and Ishmael have 0 career receiving touchdowns. I understand Fleming and Ishmael don't have very many games in the careers, but does anyone else in the country have 3 starting wideouts with zero career touchdowns.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Nortn is the better option if you are trying to score ON THAT PLAY. But a Dixon punt can set up a safety like we had vs. Central Michigan or it can set us up in great field position on the next possession with a new set of downs if the defense does it's job. You're trying to win the game, not the play.

If you're trying to get safeties out of your punting game then you're really talking about a low probability play, especially in comparison to the odds of making that field goal. The defense doing its job is great in theory, but so much harder in practice than just valuing the opportunities you have to score points, because the end result of the defense doing its job... is that your offense has to do a lot more to be in position to get points.

 

[Millhouse]

I have been thinking this all weekend. Fleming, Broyld and Ishmael have 0 career receiving touchdowns. I understand Fleming and Ishmael don't have very many games in the careers, but does anyone else in the country have 3 starting wideouts with zero career touchdowns.

good point. if your offense is having trouble scoring touchdowns, play the guys who have scored touchdowns

 

[SWC75]

If you're trying to get safeties out of your punting game then you're really talking about a low probability play, especially in comparison to the odds of making that field goal. The defense doing its job is great in theory, but so much harder in practice than just valuing the opportunities you have to score points, because the end result of the defense doing its job... is that your offense has to do a lot more to be in position to get points.

Punting is about controlling field position and if you analyze games, field position has an awful lot to do with how many points each team scores. I'm not talking about eschewing short or moderate field goals in favor of punting. I'm talking about punting instead of long field goal attempts by an unreliable kicker. If Norton could drill those 40+ yarders, I might agree with you, but he can't.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Punting is about controlling field position and if you analyze games, field position has an awful lot to do with how many points each team scores.

This is why I think punting is such a horrible contradiction. Yes, field position matters - so why are coaches so afraid of maintaining the good field position they already have in favor of taking a chance that 1) they can put the opponent in bad position and then 2) their defense will hold them to that field position so that 3) your offense will get the ball back in good field position, which if you're trading punts means... you get roughly the same field position you sacrificed to begin with? The best way to control field position is to keep the ball.

I think coaches think about this stuff all wrong. They love thinking about field position in terms of where the ball is at the very beginning of a possession. But why, after all of the field they earn on offense, are they so willing to throw away the field position they currently have once they have to get just a couple of yards?

Coaches choose to give up what their team has earned all the time. It's a bad trade. You hear them talk about "losing the locker room" if they "take the game away from the kids" because they make the choice to try to extend a drive and keep the field position they've already earned. A punt's just a turnover that the fraternity has agreed is ok.

I'd love to hear about a coach "losing a locker room" because they didn't go for it on 4th when they needed to. At some point if the coaches don't get smarter maybe some players will.

 

[SWC75]

This is why I think punting is such a horrible contradiction. Yes, field position matters - so why are coaches so afraid of maintaining the good field position they already have in favor of taking a chance that 1) they can put the opponent in bad position and then 2) their defense will hold them to that field position so that 3) your offense will get the ball back in good field position, which if you're trading punts means... you get roughly the same field position you sacrificed to begin with? The best way to control field position is to keep the ball.

Even when you get the same field position it's with a new series of downs. That's quite a difference. And if you try for it on fourth down and don't make it, it's the equivalent of a 30-40 yard loss, or a similar gain for the other team. That's also quite a difference.

Like I said, I don't like the automatic punting philosophy but I understand that there are situations where it is a good idea.

However, if we switch the field goal kicking to Murphy and he proves an effective long range kciker, I'll go with him trying tscore points over Dixon trying to place punts. But right now, from 40+ yards, Dixon is the better option.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Even when you get the same field position it's with a new series of downs. That's quite a difference. And if you try for it on fourth down and don't make it, it's the equivalent of a 30-40 yard loss, or a similar gain for the other team. That's also quite a difference.

Having a new series of downs is overrated after you've given the ball back to your opponent and have given them a chance to score. You might get that new series of downs after they hung 7 on you. It seems way better to just get a new series of downs by making a play to gain the yardage you need and never giving your opponent the chance to score. Punting in the hopes of similar field position for a new series of downs later in the game is just another way for coaches to justify conservative thinking. It spreads out the number of chances that if something goes wrong on a single play, they've got other plays to compensate. That's not great. Basically coaches say they prefer having 3 chances to go 10 yards, instead of one chance to go 4 yards or less usually. Which is weird - the average play nets much better than that. You will get what you need more often than not.

I get that hitting people and tackling is what makes football fun to play, but strategically, playing defense should be a last resort. You're conceding control and positioning yourself to be reactive instead of active. You can't score without the ball. Coaches love being afraid of the ball.

 

[TheCusian]

Having a new series of downs is overrated after you've given the ball back to your opponent and have given them a chance to score. You might get that new series of downs after they hung 7 on you. It seems way better to just get a new series of downs by making a play to gain the yardage you need and never giving your opponent the chance to score. Punting in the hopes of similar field position for a new series of downs later in the game is just another way for coaches to justify conservative thinking. It spreads out the number of chances that if something goes wrong on a single play, they've got other plays to compensate. That's not great. Basically coaches say they prefer having 3 chances to go 10 yards, instead of one chance to go 4 yards or less usually. Which is weird - the average play nets much better than that. You will get what you need more often than not. I get that hitting people and tackling is what makes football fun to play, but strategically, playing defense should be a last resort. You're conceding control and positioning yourself to be reactive instead of active. You can't score without the ball. Coaches love being afraid of the ball.

I agree with all that - (and have pointed out why coaches go conservative despite obvious situations that run to the contrary because the system rewards conservative calls financially) - but when you go for it and miss it, it usually provides a giant wave of momentum for your opponent. It feels like a turnover.

 

[donniesyracuse]

but when you go for it and miss it, it usually provides a giant wave of momentum for your opponent. It feels like a turnover.

That is a common belief. I don't know that it is true. I would like to see data. I feel like just as often a team will go three and out after a big fourth down stop.

 

[Millhouse]

I agree with all that - (and have pointed out why coaches go conservative despite obvious situations that run to the contrary because the system rewards conservative calls financially) - but when you go for it and miss it, it usually provides a giant wave of momentum for your opponent. It feels like a turnover.

Not true. Momentum is bs

 

[TheCusian]

Not true. Momentum is bs

Data heads believe that - players and coaches swear by it.

 

[TheCusian]

Not true. Momentum is bs

Emotion plays a part. Belief you can win. It swings to the defenders just like a turnover.

 

[SmilinBob]

It's a shame we can't confidentally just run straight forward for 2 yards even if the defense knows it's coming. If you're going to get cute with playcalling or subbing players in this scenario it should be a) 2 down territory and the cute play should be a PA deep pass. Otherwise run the killdozer package twice and presume that our power back can fall forward for 2 yards on 2 plays.

Agree and that's where a game plan put in place when this situation happens. Quickly get your butt to the line and snap and drive the ball forward. Very mechanical team and just seems to defeat the purpose of "hurry up".

 

[Millhouse]

Data heads believe that - players and coaches swear by it.

players and coaches are brain damaged

 

[IthacaBarrel]

Next 3 weeks will tell Bills fans everything they need to know. Manuel really looked horrible Sunday

 

[TheCusian]

players and coaches are brain damaged

You can claim momentum is not a thing - but thats a highly debated position. It's simply hard to prove either way.

My opinion? If we as fans can sense the moment when our team loses a bit of the belief that they can win - or gain some (say a first half TD over a top ten opponent) - then the players and coaches can sense that too. I think that's what can fuel upsets. It plays out every week.

---

The punting argument is basically the same thing. It's hard to prove either way - and as I've said proponents often just look at the data and fail to take the coaches livelihood, outside ramifications of high risk plays (negative media attention), etc. Most people will take the cultural "safe and accepted route" to maintain their position (either a job or leadership or respect).

In other words - it's easy to sit back and armchair the crap out of a situation when you're not in the situation. Doesn't mean that the criticism isn't valid - but it needs to be taken into account.

 

[CousCuse]

Next 3 weeks will tell Bills fans everything they need to know. Manuel really looked horrible Sunday

He is not an NFL caliber QB. A veteran like Orton would suit Marrone well , and they will be playoff team. Just worried that there is some love affair with Manuel higher up that is giving Doug pressure to be "fair".

 

[Millhouse]

You can claim momentum is not a thing - but thats a highly debated position. It's simply hard to prove either way.

My opinion? If we as fans can sense the moment when our team loses a bit of the belief that they can win - or gain some (say a first half TD over a top ten opponent) - then the players and coaches can sense that too. I think that's what can fuel upsets. It plays out every week.

---

The punting argument is basically the same thing. It's hard to prove either way - and as I've said proponents often just look at the data and fail to take the coaches livelihood, outside ramifications of high risk plays (negative media attention), etc. Most people will take the cultural "safe and accepted route" to maintain their position (either a job or leadership or respect).

In other words - it's easy to sit back and armchair the crap out of a situation when you're not in the situation. Doesn't mean that the criticism isn't valid - but it needs to be taken into account.

http://freakonomics.com/2011/11/20/football-freakonomics-is-momentum-a-myth-2/

it's interesting that they mention the Bills comeback game as the ultimate story for momentum. when really, they were just a great offense that went for it on 4th down and kicked onside.

it's only highly debated by people who don't read

and the idiots who bring up momentum are one sided about it. "if we fail, they'll get momentum." "yeah but if we succeed we'll get momentum?" "HUH???"

http://grantland.com/features/bill-barnwell-theory-momentum-football/

teams that get the ball after a 4th down stop score less than teams that get the ball after a turnover or punt (which is a turnover). some of that might be the lousy field position if meatheads are willing to go for it only near the goal line but momentum should overcome that if it exists

 

[IthacaBarrel]

He is not an NFL caliber QB. A veteran like Orton would suit Marrone well , and they will be playoff team. Just worried that there is some love affair with Manuel higher up that is giving Doug pressure to be "fair".

Always need a vet back up that can come in and play decent as to not just ruin the game for the team. The Bills have a lot of talent on offense but if your qb can't get out of bed in the morning because he thinks too much then it's worthless. Manuel wasn't that great in college, he won't be very good in the NFL. Miami running into same problem

 

[Millhouse]

Always need a vet back up that can come in and play decent as to not just ruin the game for the team. The Bills have a lot of talent on offense but if your qb can't get out of bed in the morning because he thinks too much then it's worthless. Manuel wasn't that great in college, he won't be very good in the NFL. Miami running into same problem

teams are so worried about getting rid of a guy too soon. but where are all these good young quarterbacks that needed years of sucking to develop? it's not 1983 anymore. college and nfl are less different. if at first you don't succeed in the draft, try and try again. bills can't do that that though. maybe they can roll the dice in round 2 next year.

i liked the manuel pick because it's not a big deal to me if you swing and miss as long as you're willing to try again. seeing a complete moron blow away manuel's numbers at FSU makes me that much more skeptical of manuel

 

[Scooch]

Obviously there is a time and place to punt. What drives me absolutely bonkers is punting when you're inside your opponent's 40.

In so many of those cases you hear a coach rationalize it by claiming that his defense was playing well so he wanted to pin the other team back and tilt the field. Of course if your defense is really playing well then shouldn't that be even more reason to go for it? Because the other team is still 60+ yards away from a score should you fail?

Plus coaches always assume their punter and special teams will be perfect when the data shows that it's common to put the ball in the end zone in that situation, gaining you all of 15-20 yards of field position.

 

[donniesyracuse]

think that's what can fuel upsets. It plays out every week. --- The punting argument is basically the same thing. It's hard to prove either way - and as I've said proponents often just look at the data and fail to take the coaches livelihood, outside ramifications of high risk plays (negative media attention), etc. Most people will take the cultural "safe and accepted route" to maintain their position (either a job or leadership or respect). In other words - it's easy to sit back and armchair the crap out of a situation when you're not in the situation. Doesn't mean that the criticism isn't valid - but it needs to be taken into account.

Everyone understands why coaches operate this way. I think fans can stop accepting this behavior. It's not unfair to ask coaches to make choices that improve their teams' chances of winning.