Basic Strategy - Why don't coaches/players understand it?

[Danoff]

Last night the Steelers played the Jags in what was one of the lower scoring NFL games of all time. The Steelers desperately needed to get two scores within a very short time frame, so they started using their times-out to preserve clock time. They burned all of their times-out doing this and eventually regained the ball.

At about 1.5 minutes left they were making a drive down the field and still needed to get 2 scores. At this point, the steelers are on the field and know that if Jacksonville's offense ever gets the ball back the game is over, they'll simply take a knee and end the game.

Big Ben tosses and interception. The interceptor is running for the end zone. At this point the offense should:

A: Stop the interceptor from getting a TD
B: Let the interceptor run in for a TD

If you chose B, pat yourself on the back, you're smarter than any of the Steelers offense and coaches of both teams. Pitt opted for option A, they stopped the intercepting defensive player just inches short of the goal line, thereby handing the ball to the Jax offense and ending the game. Had the Steelers simply stepped aside they'd have been down another 7 points, but they'd still have the tiniest chance to win the game.

My question is this. Why didn't the coaches take every one of the offensive players aside and say "we don't have enough time on the clock to stop the offense, if Ben throws an interception, help the guy into the end zone". Also, why didn't the Jacksonville Defensive coaches take each of their defenders aside and say "if you intercept Ben on this play, do not run with the ball, simply take a knee and we'll call it a day."

Instead, Jacksonville's Defense stupidly tried to keep the Steelers in the game, and the Steelers offense stupidly worked hard to end the game for themselves.

👍


Like that one? Here's another from the same weekend:

Let's say you're trying to preserve time on the clock. There's 2:15 left on the clock and you have one time out left. Should you:

A: Stop the clock prior to the two minute warning
B: Stop the clock after the two minute warning

If you chose A, you're smarter than many of the NFL coaches in the league. I watched as a team let the clock run down to 2:00. Then, on the next play, they stopped the clock at 1:55 as soon as the play was over. How is that better than stopping the clock at 2:15, and then at the end of the next play, having the clock stop at 2:00?

👍

 

[Speedy Samurai]

Most coaches play to keep it close even if they know it will mean a definite loss. Which is worse, losing by 3 points or losing by 10 points? Neither, they are both losses, but afterwards a coach can point to the score and say 'but we almost won, it was a close game' and hopefully not lose his job, or have a hard time finding another one should he need to. This is why you see so many punts in the NFL.

 

[DQuaN]

I don't really know anything about American Football so I am probably talking nonsense here but, from reading what you just said, what if.....

The defence had let the Interceptor run for a TD. What is to stop him from stopping 1 yard before the end zone and waiting for the clock to tick down? He could then step over for a TD with seconds left.

 

[Danoff]

I don't really know anything about American Football so I am probably talking nonsense here but, from reading what you just said, what if.....

The defence had let the Interceptor run for a TD. What is to stop him from stopping 1 yard before the end zone and waiting for the clock to tick down? He could then step over for a TD with seconds left.

Sure, and that's what he should have done. But the defender was too stupid to realize it, so he was going for the goal. The only problem was that the offense was too stupid to realize they should let him through.

 

[Kylehnat]

This was a situation where Pittsburgh was doomed no matter what. They were already down by two scores. It was already unlikely that they would come back, and the interception clinched it. Sure, if they had let him go, they would have gotten the ball back, but they would then have to score two touchdowns and two two-point conversions in the final minute...against a Jacksonville D that surrendered NO points in that game. Not very good odds. On the other hand, Jacksonville WAS smart after the interception. Rather than pushing ahead for that final yard and getting one last touchdown (which would have given the Steelers the ball with a minute chance that they could come back), they took a knee on the opponent's 2 yard-line, ending the game completely. Unpopular with the crowd, sure, but it was the smarter thing to do. Strategery isn't dead, you know.

 

[Danoff]

This was a situation where Pittsburgh was doomed no matter what. They were already down by two scores. It was already unlikely that they would come back, and the interception clinched it. Sure, if they had let him go, they would have gotten the ball back, but they would then have to score two touchdowns and two two-point conversions in the final minute...against a Jacksonville D that surrendered NO points in that game. Not very good odds.

But I'll take those odds over a 100% gauranteed loss.

On the other hand, Jacksonville WAS smart after the interception. Rather than pushing ahead for that final yard and getting one last touchdown (which would have given the Steelers the ball with a minute chance that they could come back), they took a knee on the opponent's 2 yard-line, ending the game completely. Unpopular with the crowd, sure, but it was the smarter thing to do. Strategery isn't dead, you know.

True, they figured it out at that point. Trust me, I'd be complaining much more if they hadn't. Only two strategic goofs were made, not 3.

On the otherhand, if they HAD decided to go for the score, I wonder if Pitt would have tried to stop them. I'll bet they would have.

When Big Ben was trying to lead his team to a comeback, and the clock was under 2 minutes, everyone on the grass (offense and defense) needed to know what to do in case of an interception. And none of them did.

 

[Kylehnat]

When Big Ben was trying to lead his team to a comeback, and the clock was under 2 minutes, everyone on the grass (offense and defense) needed to know what to do in case of an interception. And none of them did.

True--people need to know what situation they're in. When a team has a lead late, the only enemy is the clock. A lot of teams don't realize this and try to make big plays late to increase the lead. This leads to incomplete passes and turnovers, which don't move the clock, and swing momentum back to the trailing team. I cringe whenever a player makes an interception, effectively ending the game, and then tries to do all sorts of fancy stuff on the return. When you intercept the ball late in the game, GET DOWN!!! Running towards the endzone only increases the chance of a fumble or injury--both bad things. Remember the playoff game last year between the Steelers and Colts? I think it was Troy Polamalu who made a critical interception, but as he was getting off the ground to try to get more yards, he knocked the ball out of his own hands, and the refs ruled it an incomplete pass. The Colts kept the ball, and were able to keep the threat alive. Had Troy just caught the ball, layed on the ground, and waited for someone to touch him, the game would have been sealed.

I'm glad you brought this up, because most teams make bad decisions when all they have to do is run the clock down. Even if you go three-and-out, you can run nearly 2:00 off the clock. While I don't agree with you regarding the PIT/JAX game (it's quite counterintuitive to LET the other team score late in the game when you're already behind), I will say that most teams don't seem to realize when it's more advantageous NOT to score. When you have a lead late in the game, and the ball is in your hands, the other team can't come back. It's a very simple strategy that seems lost on a lot of the league.

 

[Danoff]

I agree with everything you said above. Clock management seems to be a tricky thing for players to get their heads around. I remember one game where San Fransisco had a chance to win (this was a few years back). One of the wideouts (maybe Owens? maybe Streets?) caught the ball downfield within FG range and had an opportunity to score a TD. There was something to the effect of 10 seconds left of the clock and the 9ers needed a FG to tie or win (or something like that).

The receiever ran around trying to get the TD for 10 seconds while my wife and I are screaming at the television "GET DOWN" like he can hear us. Finally he's tackled as the clock expires and gets up to call a timeout.

Too late buddy, you just lost the game.


A bigger pet peeve of mine is when they can't seem to figure out how much time is left on the clock (the announcers have trouble with this as well). I remember watching a Buffalo vs. San Diego game last year. The first half was ending 1:50 seconds left on the clock. Buffalo went into their two minute drill and they were working their way down the field (SD had all their times-out). Buffalo was doing things like getting guys out of bounds, spiking the ball after a long reception. Everything they could figure out. Suddenly, they get the TD!!!

Yay!!!

Oh wait, we left 1:30 seconds on the clock and they have all 3 times-out. SD takes the ball all the way back the field and scores. But THEY left 30 seconds on the clock. Which gave Buffalo enough time to get half way down the field before running out of time.

So Buffalo was spiking the ball, wasting downs, so far in advance, that they had time to score, let SD score, and get the ball BACK and try again.

It was ridiculous. Announcers have the same problem though. They'll start talking about the clock in a 1-score game when there's 5 minutes left and all times-out still in play.

Coaches react the same way to the clock. They'll start throwing long passes and trying to get 40 yard chunks in a 1-score game when they've got more than enough time to take it easy and concentrate on moving the chains. Half the time that's a BETTER idea given that they don't want the other team to have time afterward.

Looks like I went on a little rant there, oh well. I have to give props to Mike Shanahan (sp?) over in Denver though. That's one coach that knows how to handle the clock.

 

[Danoff]

Actually, now that I think of it, the situation gets even more interesting.

In many many football games, one team has a lead and is trying to get a 1st down in order to ensure that they can run the clock down the rest of the way.

In that situation, the defense should be told "if they get past the first down marker, let them go".

 

[Zrow]

Let's say you're trying to preserve time on the clock. There's 2:15 left on the clock and you have one time out left. Should you:

A: Stop the clock prior to the two minute warning
B: Stop the clock after the two minute warning

If you chose A, you're smarter than many of the NFL coaches in the league. I watched as a team let the clock run down to 2:00. Then, on the next play, they stopped the clock at 1:55 as soon as the play was over. How is that better than stopping the clock at 2:15, and then at the end of the next play, having the clock stop at 2:00?

👍

I don't pretend to be a complete expert on football, so explain your decision here. Why use your time out before the 2-minute warning?

 

[Kylehnat]

Yeah, I disagree as well. The whole point of time-outs is to stop the game clock. If you're behind, the 2:00 warning can be used effectively as if it were a time out. Why would you burn your last time out before that, just to save 15 seconds? Having a time out in hand as you run a 2-minute drill can make the difference. It's a severe disadvantage to stage a comeback in the final 1:30 if you have no time outs.

Speaking of strategy, right now my beloved Seahawks are showing massive ineptitude. Up by a ton, all they have to do is run the clock down. Instead they throw 2 interceptions which lead to touchdowns. Fools.

 

[Danoff]

You want to preserve as much time as possible for yourself on offense when the defense is on the field.

Let's say it's 2nd down with 2:15 left on the clock. You have 1 timeout remaining. Your opponents have the ball.

Scenario 1
Opponents get nothing, you let the clock burn down to 2 minutes.
3rd down, your opponents get nothing, you stop the clock with your last timeout at 1:55.
Summary,
You get the ball with 1:55 remaining with 0 times-out.

Scenario 2
Opponents get nothing, you take your time out stopping the clock at 2:10.
3rd down, your opponents get nothing, the clock stops at the 2 minute warning.
Summary
You get the ball with 2:00 remaining with 0 times-out.

Which of those do you prefer?

 

[Omnis]

Danoff, do you honestly think the interceptor would pass up the opportunity to increase his player value and wind up on ESPN just to give the offense clock control?

I 100% agree with you, though. Football players just want glory.

 

[Kylehnat]

Oh okay, I thought the trailing team's offense was still on the field in this scenario. Yeah, it makes more sense to get the ball back before (or at) the two minute warning, if possible.

Though, the real moral of the story is to not waste time outs early in the half (if the quarterback is confused by the defense, he should deal with it, not waste a time out to confer with the coach), so you don't end up in this situation. With 2 or 3 time outs left, every play is still available. No need to hunt for sidelines and waste downs spiking the ball.

 

[FoolKiller]

OK, one of my biggest peeves is the scaredy cat kick. I saw this yesterday in the Steelers-Bengals game. The Steelers are down by 28-17 and with 3:28 left in the game found themselves on the 16 yard line and 4th and 12. If they want to have any chance of winning the game they have to go for it, but out trots the kicking team and BOOM goes the FG for 3 points. I looked at my cat sitting on the sofa next to me and said, "Game over." It is now 28-20 and they STILL have to get two scores to win (or at best a 2 point conversion to tie), but now the Bengals have the ball. The Bengals run-run-run-punt, making the Steelers use all their times-outs stopping the clock.

On their next posession the Steelers spend 2:31 to get to the Bengals 16, again, and Big Ben throws an INT. Palmer takes a knee to end the game.

Going for it at worst would have turned the ball over on downs, but at least they would have appeared to be trying to win. If they had gotten the score they would only need one more posession, instead of two, and had there not been that final INT, they could have won.

No, instead Cower decided to place his bets on being able to get a score with a 2-point conversion to tie and then win in OT.

I don't know how often I see a team down late in the fourth quarter getting close and decide to kick the ball away. I know what coaches are thinking. When it comes time to renegotiate their contract and get evaluated at the end of the year they can show that their losses were close and blame it on any number of things, such as a bad call or the QB recovering from surgery.

Kicking strategy and clock strategy are two things I don't get lately.

 

[Kylehnat]

How about last night's game between the Broncos and Patriots? Down 10 late, and in FG range, Bill Belichick forgoes the obvious FG/onside kick sequence (which keeps them in the game), and has Tom Brady throw (incomplete) on fourth down, taking them out of the game. Bill Freaking Belichick!!! The "coaching genius" can't even see the obvious play!! It's quite bizzare when a bunch of couch potatoes such as ourselves can see the easiest path to victory, and coaches with 7-figure incomes can't. This happens a lot, too.

Basic strategy...is it too basic for the egomaniacs on the sidelines?? Why do coaches intentionally make themselves look stupid, when they could look oh so smart instead?

More basic strategy: Yesterday, during the Giants "comeback", they tried an onside kick, lining up on one side of the field, then running over to the other, hoping to catch the Seahawks off-guard. There were only a couple guys for the Seahawks waiting, but rather than trying to field the kick with 6 or 7 Giants bearing down on them, Jimmy Williams just swatted the ball out of bounds, giving New York no chance of gaining possession. This wouldn't have worked had the kick been further away from the sidelines, but I thought it was quite clever.

By the way, I see FoolKiller is quite the TMQ fan .

 

[FoolKiller]

How about last night's game between the Broncos and Patriots? Down 10 late, and in FG range, Bill Belichick forgoes the obvious FG/onside kick sequence (which keeps them in the game), and has Tom Brady throw (incomplete) on fourth down, taking them out of the game. Bill Freaking Belichick!!! The "coaching genius" can't even see the obvious play!! It's quite bizzare when a bunch of couch potatoes such as ourselves can see the easiest path to victory, and coaches with 7-figure incomes can't. This happens a lot, too.

In this situation he was following TMQ's kick early go for it late philosophy, but being down only one yard I think that they could have tried something a little less risky than a pass, which Brady had only been working 50-50 when a run had a 60+% chance of getting the first down. Heck, Brady even ran for 5 yards on a fourth down conversion in that same posession.

Although, you are right that they had better odds of getting the FG first and then trying an onsides kick.

In all honesty, they were at home and going for it kept the blame from being on Belichick's decision and more on Brady if he screwed up the pass. Had they gotten the FG and then failed to recover the onsides kick or not made the final score then it would look like Belichick's decision cost the game.

With eth way Denver's D was going I would have kicked or at a minmum kept the ball on the ground and then rushed to spike.

By the way, I see FoolKiller is quite the TMQ fan .

Stop me before I blitz again!

I've been reading TMQ every week for three seasons now. In fact, it is what I immediately thought of when I said, "Game over," yesterday.

 

[Kylehnat]

As if we needed validation...

Henrik Bramsnæs from Copenhagen, Denmark writes, "I was watching the New Orleans-Carolina game live on Danish TV. With 1:56 remaining, the Panthers had third-and-7 at the Saints' 43, leading 14-10, and the Saints holding no timeouts. When DeShaun Foster broke into the clear, as soon as he crossed the first down marker I screamed aloud 'Get down!' Had he simply dropped to the turf instead of running for a touchdown, victory would have been secured, as Carolina could have knelt three times and run the clock down to all-naughts. Instead Foster scored to make it 21-10, the Saints got the ball back with 1:45 left and scored a quick touchdown; Carolina had to survive an onside kick to win. Why don't coaches explain to running backs that there are times when they should not score?"

This is an intriguing point. Maybe once a season, there is an endgame situation where a team would be better off if a runner in the clear dropped to his knees -- or, to honor the 1920s rule, came to a stop and said the word "Down!" to the nearest official -- rather than score. The 1997 Buffalo-Indianapolis game, the second-largest regular-season comeback in NFL annals, had a play like this. Once down 26-0, the Bills had rallied to lead the Colts 30-29 with a little more than a minute remaining, the Colts out of timeouts. Antowain Smith carried up the middle and broke into the clear. As soon as he passed the first-down marker, I screamed at the television, "Don't score! Don't score!" Had Smith dropped to the turf, the rest of the game would have been kneel-downs. Instead his touchdown run made it 37-29 with a minute remaining; Indianapolis got the ball back and flew down the field for a touchdown on the final play. That made it 37-35, and Buffalo had to stop a deuce attempt to avoid overtime. One might say to such plays that the runner is more concerned with his yards and touchdown stats than the tactical situation. I think the real explanation is simpler: NFL players are so pumped up on the field, they are incapable of coming to a halt with a touchdown beckoning.

 

[Danoff]

^^ That's what I'm talking about right there. It's not that hard. Just before the play the coach just has to say to the running back... "if you get the first down, stop."

That's it. No biggie, but coaches don't seem to think about it, and I'm not surprised it didn't occur to Foster last weekend.

Still, I was happy to see him go since he was on my fantasy team. For the record, that's twice this season that has occured.

 

[FoolKiller]

^^ That's what I'm talking about right there. It's not that hard. Just before the play the coach just has to say to the running back... "if you get the first down, stop."

That's it. No biggie, but coaches don't seem to think about it, and I'm not surprised it didn't occur to Foster last weekend.

Still, I was happy to see him go since he was on my fantasy team. For the record, that's twice this season that has occured.

TMQ is being nice to players trying to excuse it by saying the players just get excited and worked up, but these guys are professionals. Firts of all, they should be able to control their excitement at this level or they shouldn't be in the pros. Second of all, professionals get paid and have bonuses based on performance. Even if the team loses the player has better stats to bargain his new contract with. If excitement is the cause for players not thinking about time clock strategy I doubt it isn't excitement for playing and getting a big run, it is excitement for those dollars signs he sees in the endzone.

I bet fantasy footbal plays a part in this too. Much like you, danoff, have sort of said, "well he is on my fantasy team, so I liked it," I am sure many fans excuse a player for this kind of thing as long as it gets them a fantasy win. I'm just as guilty of this. Every time I watch the Giants play I think they need to run more (and better) and Eli won't throw INTs as much, but then the next mornning I see between 40-50 points from Eli alone and excuse the pass-wacky offense.

I would be willing to bet money that players check their fantasy stats every week, just to see how they look on paper, because paper is what gets taken into the contract negotiations. They can see one number and judge their performance for the night and even look at what was missing that could have improved the score. If owners were smart they could end all this by showing up at negotiations with video of all the stupid decisions that were done for statistical purposes and not attempts to win a game. I could see it now, "You are correct, the statistics show your client is a big player, however if you would like to look at this video here you will see a series of bonehead moves that increased stats but cost us the game. <watches video clip> Now, what was that opening offer again?"