Flaps2 No. 50 Share Posted November 23, 2022 2017 Herbert runs and get's injured. 2018 and 2019 EVERYONE was complianing about Herbert not running. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Rambis No. 51 Share Posted November 23, 2022 On 11/23/2022 at 7:18 AM, Flaps2 said: 2017 Herbert runs and get's injured. 2018 and 2019 EVERYONE was complianing about Herbert not running. That's a great observation, but I don't think the options here are 1) run the QB or 2) not allow any running. Any more than it is 1) always go for it on 4th down or 2) never go for it on 4th down. It's a question of when and how to run the QB. Runs where the QB gets outside and has a reasonably clear field, generally facing DBs or LBs at worst, and has an opportunity to slide or run out of bounds are one thing. Running a QB between the tackles or into heavy traffic is another. It simply adds a much higher level of risk to the equation. Russell Wilson vs. Josh Allen is a good example. Wilson runs when he has to or there's a clear path, and rarely takes a hit (or at least that's how he played in Seattle). Allen runs at will and often seeks out contact. Allen hasn't gotten hurt yet, but that's probably coming. Until he gets hurt, it's a tremendously effective strategy. If he uses his arm and legs to get them to the Super Bowl, Bills fans will be elated. If he separates his shoulder in the playoffs while getting extra yards or running in traffic, they'll be devastated (again - hey, it's the Bills). Also in question is what the backup situation is like. If you've got a good backup QB, maybe you can take a little more risk. I think the jury is still out on whether we have any capable backup QBs. We've seen nothing of Butterfield, and Thompson has done nothing at all in a very, very limited backup role. It's pure risk-vs-reward. I'm not sure there's a clearly right answer, but the more Nix runs, and the more traffic in which he's running, the greater the chances we'll see Thompson or Butterfield for a lengthy amount of time. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nw777b No. 52 Share Posted November 23, 2022 On 11/22/2022 at 1:45 PM, CalBear95 said: You asked the exact right question: Why would you ever punt if that is the math? Answer: You don’t. But that runs counter to conventional wisdom so it gets dismissed as wrong even though it is mathematically correct. Your ‘flipping the field’ comment is a ‘aversion to loss’ mindset that Romer highlighted as why coaches fundamentally misjudge how to play 4th down (FWIW, studies have shown most people are wired to think this way and is why most people aren’t good at assessing risk) I hope DL said it was the wrong decision in terms of play call because it wasn’t strategically. Sorry, but that's flawed. There are way too many moving parts to leave that decision up to some limited algorithm. It's why insurance companies pay a LOT of money to Actuaries instead of relying on some formula. How gassed was the O line? How long did it take UW to score due to the short field? How slick was the turf at that point in the game? Aversion to risk is a good thing and it has to be a factor when making a decision. Know when to hold em, know when to fold em, know when to walk away, know when to punt. A punt is an offensive play. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalBear95 No. 53 Share Posted November 23, 2022 On 11/23/2022 at 7:20 AM, nw777b said: Sorry, but that's flawed. There are way too many moving parts to leave that decision up to some limited algorithm. It's why insurance companies pay a LOT of money to Actuaries instead of relying on some formula. How gassed was the O line? How long did it take UW to score due to the short field? How slick was the turf at that point in the game? Aversion to risk is a good thing and it has to be a factor when making a decision. Know when to hold em, know when to fold em, know when to walk away, know when to punt. A punt is an offensive play. You are both overthinking and oversimplifying it. Your framework suggests there are so many variables that it’s impossible to really trust the math so ultimately gut feel is the best course. This is just functionally incorrect. That isn’t how analytics work. Analytics is simply a way to understand the game outside of conventional wisdom. Analytics totally changed baseball because it helped people see the game as it actually was. It exposed the framework for executing and a set of probabilities (expected value of decision y). Simple example: never bunt. Like ever. In football’s case, possession is the coin of the realm (hard to score without it). If you believe that then it’s easy to accept punting is giving away a down and should be avoided whenever possible You have a better chance of earning a set of downs with four plays vs three. Also, your strategy changes (example: is 3rd and 6 really an obvious passing down if you know you are going for it on 4th?) It’s counterintuitive because everything you know about football says that giving the Dawgs the ball inside your own 35 is more dangerous than getting the ball away from your goal line. Analytics helps you see the situation as it actually is from a risk perspective and not through an emotional lens (better to take $75 in hand than a coin flip for $150 which is actuality backwards). Anyhow, the horse is in the glue factory on this point. Hear your perspective but (clearly) I don’t share it. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Fischer Administrator No. 54 Share Posted November 23, 2022 Again...as I wrote in the article, you need to take in the full picture of the moment, and not just the analytics. The time left, an inexperienced QB, the downside as well as the upside. I argue that Lanning went against the percentages too often with running a QB between the tackles, but I certainly admit that you have to look at the full scope of the moment as Bellotti would have. 1 Quote Mr. FishDuck Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nautique Duck No. 55 Share Posted November 23, 2022 On 11/22/2022 at 5:21 AM, Quackanadian said: Great article Charles. What also sucks about the W game, is the RBs were running well for most of the game. So why bother with the silly play call? Also, the 4th and 1 call to go for it with Ty in.... just put Bo in for 1 play if that's the case and ice the game... Me thinks Danny L was guilty of "Cristoballin" in this game, as well as the Utah game. Over thinking. Too cute. Cheers. I am surprised you think a quarterback run in the empty set that has resulted in multiple first downs and touchdowns is a silly play call. Lanning already admitted he should have called a timeout to get the word from the staff on if he could enter. He knew Bo wanted to go in, but he hadn’t gotten the clearance from training staff. A timeout would have allowed him time to get that info and get Bo back in the game. The play wouldn’t have worked even if Noah doesn’t slip because they were selling out like crazy to get the running back. I wouldn’t call this cristoballin at all because those were split second decisions, not a result of an inflexible macho mindset. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Fischer Administrator No. 56 Share Posted November 23, 2022 On 11/23/2022 at 11:18 AM, Nautique Duck said: I am surprised you think a quarterback run in the empty set that has resulted in multiple first downs and touchdowns is a silly play call. So we don't keep rewriting the same...please read the article. The link is at the top of the thread. All the reasons he has (and I) are covered there, and partly in this thread. 1 1 Quote Mr. FishDuck Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nw777b No. 57 Share Posted November 24, 2022 On 11/23/2022 at 9:26 AM, CalBear95 said: You are both overthinking and oversimplifying it. Your framework suggests there are so many variables that it’s impossible to really trust the math so ultimately gut feel is the best course. This is just functionally incorrect. That isn’t how analytics work. Analytics is simply a way to understand the game outside of conventional wisdom. Analytics totally changed baseball because it helped people see the game as it actually was. It exposed the framework for executing and a set of probabilities (expected value of decision y). Simple example: never bunt. Like ever. In football’s case, possession is the coin of the realm (hard to score without it). If you believe that then it’s easy to accept punting is giving away a down and should be avoided whenever possible You have a better chance of earning a set of downs with four plays vs three. Also, your strategy changes (example: is 3rd and 6 really an obvious passing down if you know you are going for it on 4th?) It’s counterintuitive because everything you know about football says that giving the Dawgs the ball inside your own 35 is more dangerous than getting the ball away from your goal line. Analytics helps you see the situation as it actually is from a risk perspective and not through an emotional lens (better to take $75 in hand than a coin flip for $150 which is actuality backwards). Anyhow, the horse is in the glue factory on this point. Hear your perspective but (clearly) I don’t share it. You think I believe an actuary uses a gut feeling to determine terms of an insurance policy? Oregon did the very thing you are arguing they should ALWAYS do. It didn't work out. They lost. I had a wise teacher tell our class anytime an axiom includes ALWAYS or NEVER it should ALWAYS be avoided and NEVER be adhered to. "Sensible people will see trouble coming and avoid it, but an unthinking person will walk right into it and regret it later." - Very old proverb Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalBear95 No. 58 Share Posted November 24, 2022 On 11/23/2022 at 5:24 PM, nw777b said: You think I believe an actuary uses a gut feeling to determine terms of an insurance policy? Oregon did the very thing you are arguing they should ALWAYS do. It didn't work out. They lost. I had a wise teacher tell our class anytime an axiom includes ALWAYS or NEVER it should ALWAYS be avoided and NEVER be adhered to. "Sensible people will see trouble coming and avoid it, but an unthinking person will walk right into it and regret it later." - Very old proverb I didn’t say always. I said punting should be avoided as much as possible (bunting is always wrong but that’s a very different dynamic as to why) You seem to be confusing the outcome of a decision with whether the decision leading up to that outcome was the ‘right’ one. If you get a win making low value risk decisions in favor of highest value options you are still making incorrect decisions. That’s also known as getting lucky which isn’t a sustainable paradigm Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
