Possible Slide Explanation

kerouac9

Klowned by Keim
Joined
Feb 14, 2003
Posts
36,515
Reaction score
25,959
Location
Gilbert, AZ
I've been saying this for a minute. We were seeing fewer plays from Budda Baker and more from Byron Murphy because the former was covering up for the weaknesses of the latter (and Marco Wilson and Robert Alford), which worked!

Now we're having to gamble more with the blitz and bring Baker down into the box and try to shorten the clock on opposing QBs.
 

slanidrac16

ASFN Icon
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2002
Posts
15,002
Reaction score
14,417
Location
Plainfield, Il.
Worth considering

Quite frankly I’m more worried about the offense.when a team is averaging 30 points a game it takes a whole lot of pressure off the defense.
It forces teams to play catch up which not only takes your opponent out of their game plan causing mistakes.

If we took a poll I would guess not many would believe we could or would win a 16-13.

However Kingsbury has to realize there are no 30 point plays. He needs to be patient and build on a lead and trust we will get there. That means not throwing 30 yard passes on third and 3 on our first drive. Going for it on 4th down on you own side of the field in the first quarter. The risk is NOT worth the reward.

Getting a first down on your own 20 yard line gets you nothing but 3 more downs. Failing on a decision like that GIVES your opponent points.

We will need to score 30 to 35 points on Monday to even have a CHANCE to win. To me the onus is on the offense.
 

AZman5103

Hall of Famer
BANNED BY MODERATORS
Joined
Sep 8, 2019
Posts
1,673
Reaction score
1,767
Location
Idaho
Secondary has to be a priority this offseason. Murphy, Baker, and Thompson look like legit starters. Wilson has been pretty good, but hasn't done enough to be a guaranteed starter, especially if other talent is available.

Alford has yet again missed time to injury. I feel bad for the guy, but he can't stay on the field and it may be time to move on...even at a reduced salary.

There are going to be some solid vets available in Free Agency. I doubt we can afford a huge name at CB...but bringing in 3 vets who may have lost a step but know all the tricks of the trade could really help us get through next season. Kevin King, Stephen Nelson, Vernon Hargreaves, Mackenzie Alexander?? A couple of those types of guys would really help shore things up.
 

Crimson Warrior

Dangerous Murray Zealot
Joined
Oct 27, 2002
Posts
7,543
Reaction score
7,253
Location
Home of the Thunder
Worth considering


Malcom Butler flaming out was a little unlucky for Keim and the team. But yes, we need much better depth behind Murphy and Wilson going forward. Maybe a nice mid-level FA, and maybe a draft pick too. Keep Hamilton, and I guess Alford as depth.
 

slanidrac16

ASFN Icon
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2002
Posts
15,002
Reaction score
14,417
Location
Plainfield, Il.
Secondary has to be a priority this offseason. Murphy, Baker, and Thompson look like legit starters. Wilson has been pretty good, but hasn't done enough to be a guaranteed starter, especially if other talent is available.

Alford has yet again missed time to injury. I feel bad for the guy, but he can't stay on the field and it may be time to move on...even at a reduced salary.

There are going to be some solid vets available in Free Agency. I doubt we can afford a huge name at CB...but bringing in 3 vets who may have lost a step but know all the tricks of the trade could really help us get through next season. Kevin King, Stephen Nelson, Vernon Hargreaves, Mackenzie Alexander?? A couple of those types of guys would really help shore things up.
Pick your poison. If we could pressure the opposing QB with 4 guys it would help our secondary tremendously.

When we have to blitz with 5 or 6 guys it opens up zones and it damn near makes it impossible to prevent a completion if the rush doesn’t get to the QB.
It also opens gaps against the run.
We NEVER pressure the Qb with just a 4 man rush.
 
Last edited:

AZman5103

Hall of Famer
BANNED BY MODERATORS
Joined
Sep 8, 2019
Posts
1,673
Reaction score
1,767
Location
Idaho
Pick your poison. If we could pressure the opposing QB with 4 guys it would help our secondary out tremendously.

When we have to blitz with 5 or 6 guys it opens up zones and it damn near makes it impossible to prevent a completion if the rush doesn’t get to the QB.
It also opens gaps against the run.
We NEVER pressure the Qb with just a 4 man rush.
I agree, but I guess my point is that we have had to go to practice squad, off the street type guys at CB too many times this season. We need a few more solid NFL vets, even if they are short on potential. I would rather have an 8 year vet who's lost a step filling in for a spot start than a practice squad guy whos never been on the field in the nfl.
 
OP
OP
Harry

Harry

ASFN Consultant and Senior Writer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Posts
10,743
Reaction score
22,497
Location
Orlando, FL
Secondary has to be a priority this offseason. Murphy, Baker, and Thompson look like legit starters. Wilson has been pretty good, but hasn't done enough to be a guaranteed starter, especially if other talent is available.

Alford has yet again missed time to injury. I feel bad for the guy, but he can't stay on the field and it may be time to move on...even at a reduced salary.

There are going to be some solid vets available in Free Agency. I doubt we can afford a huge name at CB...but bringing in 3 vets who may have lost a step but know all the tricks of the trade could really help us get through next season. Kevin King, Stephen Nelson, Vernon Hargreaves, Mackenzie Alexander?? A couple of those types of guys would really help shore things up.
Great draft for CBs, best in years. That said Hamilton & Wilson look promising. They will need to draft at least 1, but the roster has potential but needs experience.
 

Ouchie-Z-Clown

I'm better than Mulli!
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Posts
59,876
Reaction score
51,178
Location
SoCal
Quite frankly I’m more worried about the offense.when a team is averaging 30 points a game it takes a whole lot of pressure off the defense.
It forces teams to play catch up which not only takes your opponent out of their game plan causing mistakes.

If we took a poll I would guess not many would believe we could or would win a 16-13.

However Kingsbury has to realize there are no 30 point plays. He needs to be patient and build on a lead and trust we will get there. That means not throwing 30 yard passes on third and 3 on our first drive. Going for it on 4th down on you own side of the field in the first quarter. The risk is NOT worth the reward.

Getting a first down on your own 20 yard line gets you nothing but 3 more downs. Failing on a decision like that GIVES your opponent points.

We will need to score 30 to 35 points on Monday to even have a CHANCE to win. To me the onus is on the offense.
This. All day this. I’ve been pounding the table on this all year. The risk/reward is so imbalanced it makes zero sense.
 

dreamcastrocks

Chopped Liver Moderator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2005
Posts
45,633
Reaction score
10,826
However Kingsbury has to realize there are no 30 point plays. He needs to be patient and build on a lead and trust we will get there. That means not throwing 30 yard passes on third and 3 on our first drive. Going for it on 4th down on you own side of the field in the first quarter. The risk is NOT worth the reward.

Getting a first down on your own 20 yard line gets you nothing but 3 more downs. Failing on a decision like that GIVES your opponent points.

This. All day this. I’ve been pounding the table on this all year. The risk/reward is so imbalanced it makes zero sense.
You can't say that until the drive is over.

Overall, I agree that the risk isn't worth the reward in most cases, but they could score a TD on the very next play, or 10 plays down the road.

I'm not even mentioning the fact that momentum and getting into a rhythm is a something that is hard to quantify in the decision as well.
 

BulldogCard

Veteran
Joined
Nov 5, 2021
Posts
279
Reaction score
219
Location
AZ
I think the downfall started in the trenches. Noone to disrupt the LOS consistently on D like JJ Watt and on the oline where guard play has been poor at times and injuries at center as well. They covered it up pretty well for a while until Conner, Edmonds and DHop got hurt.
 

Ouchie-Z-Clown

I'm better than Mulli!
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Posts
59,876
Reaction score
51,178
Location
SoCal
You can't say that until the drive is over.

Overall, I agree that the risk isn't worth the reward in most cases, but they could score a TD on the very next play, or 10 plays down the road.

I'm not even mentioning the fact that momentum and getting into a rhythm is a something that is hard to quantify in the decision as well.
I don’t think you get the point.

Succeed and the only thing you’ve guaranteed is 3 more downs. Fail and you’ve virtually guaranteed the other team scores at least a FG (37 yard FG aren’t exactly missed a ton).

And same with momentum. Succeed and and you’ve got some momentum to keep a drive alive. Fail and you’ve ceded momentum to a team that you’ve essentially given points to.
 

slanidrac16

ASFN Icon
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2002
Posts
15,002
Reaction score
14,417
Location
Plainfield, Il.
I don’t think you get the point.

Succeed and the only thing you’ve guaranteed is 3 more downs. Fail and you’ve virtually guaranteed the other team scores at least a FG (37 yard FG aren’t exactly missed a ton).

And same with momentum. Succeed and and you’ve got some momentum to keep a drive alive. Fail and you’ve ceded momentum to a team that you’ve essentially given points to.
Can I like this more than once???
 

daves

Keepin' it real!
Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2003
Posts
3,308
Reaction score
6,377
Location
Orange County, CA
Getting a first down on your own 20 yard line gets you nothing but 3 more downs. Failing on a decision like that GIVES your opponent points.
This. All day this. I’ve been pounding the table on this all year. The risk/reward is so imbalanced it makes zero sense.
You can't say that until the drive is over.
Well, this is exactly what analytics-based decision making is all about. There's a huge amount of data from which the expected points added can be calculated for going for it vs. punting on 4th down, based on a large number of variables, such as field position, score differential, time remaining, and a host of others. Factor into that lots more variables having to do with the team's historical success in similar situations, the opponent's success stopping conversions in these situations, specific matchups available, etc. and you can calculate the right decision from an analytical standpoint. Probably lots of tables are computed before the game, and real-time outputs are available from the analytics guy's software on those Microsoft Surfaces the coaches have.

Then the coach has to factor in momentum, injuries, whether he thinks he has a play with a high probability of success, etc.

Point is, you CAN'T make a blanket statement that going for it isn't very valuable and failing costs points, or that the risk/reward is imbalanced so it makes zero sense. Perhaps that's usually true, but it's not necessarily true. Too many factors go into it, and throughout our lifetimes on which we base all of our intuitions, analytics show that coaches have historically been MUCH too conservative when it comes to going for it on 4th down, and going for 2-point conversions.

But it's human nature to remember the stark costs of failing, and forgetting the value added by succeeding. And coaches get a lot more criticism from failing, than accolades from succeeding. So, coaches and fans continue to lean more toward thinking it's a bad idea to go for it in general, than we should.

This is not an endorsement of any specific decision that Kingsbury has made - just a general observation.

...dave
 

Cards_Campos

ASFN Addict
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Posts
5,596
Reaction score
2,390
All Of this Is accurate. We lost a lot of good players. And when you do that you fall back to the pack and beyond. Full strength we are elite. But that is part of the nfl. Teams that win it are the ones that are healthy or get some Lightening in bottle magic.

I agree in the 30 yard passes on 3rd and 1. I think we got away with it earlier in the season because we would complete most and or if we didn’t our defense would get a turnover. Now we have to be smarter. Get the first down. The funny think is. Arians did this too. A lot! His risk it no biscuit statement was based exactly on this.

But this is the reason why I think it’s dumb to get on KM and KK. Yes the long passes on 3rd and 1 are questionable. But I think with our personal he is saying we are not going to be able to grind out wins for the most part. And that’s not who they are. Bad or good. Kyler isn’t a sit back and check down. I do think that is why McCoy looked good is because he did do that. And yes he did grind out 2 big wins against good teams.

I think players play this game based on what they practice and love doing. We fans sit back and don’t care who scores just win the games. And I don’t think it is that easy. Reason I say that. Look at the Chargers. Talented team. Lost and didn’t look visually upset. I think the game matters but at the end of the day they get in their 100,000 dollar cars and go home.
 

slanidrac16

ASFN Icon
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2002
Posts
15,002
Reaction score
14,417
Location
Plainfield, Il.
Well, this is exactly what analytics-based decision making is all about. There's a huge amount of data from which the expected points added can be calculated for going for it vs. punting on 4th down, based on a large number of variables, such as field position, score differential, time remaining, and a host of others. Factor into that lots more variables having to do with the team's historical success in similar situations, the opponent's success stopping conversions in these situations, specific matchups available, etc. and you can calculate the right decision from an analytical standpoint. Probably lots of tables are computed before the game, and real-time outputs are available from the analytics guy's software on those Microsoft Surfaces the coaches have.

Then the coach has to factor in momentum, injuries, whether he thinks he has a play with a high probability of success, etc.

Point is, you CAN'T make a blanket statement that going for it isn't very valuable and failing costs points, or that the risk/reward is imbalanced so it makes zero sense. Perhaps that's usually true, but it's not necessarily true. Too many factors go into it, and throughout our lifetimes on which we base all of our intuitions, analytics show that coaches have historically been MUCH too conservative when it comes to going for it on 4th down, and going for 2-point conversions.

But it's human nature to remember the stark costs of failing, and forgetting the value added by succeeding. And coaches get a lot more criticism from failing, than accolades from succeeding. So, coaches and fans continue to lean more toward thinking it's a bad idea to go for it in general, than we should.

This is not an endorsement of any specific decision that Kingsbury has made - just a general observation.

...dave
Of course analytics can and should be considered. However, going for it on 4th and 2 on your own 35 yards line diminishes the analytics. It has too because successful results and failed results have to be weighed against each other.
Going for it on 4th and 5 from your opponents 40 yard line is probably okay. A punt into the end zone nets you only 20 yards as opposed to a 56 yard fg. Maybe attempting a FG would analytically be the thing to do but with that you have to consider weather, the score of the game, tome left in the game and your kicker.

Yes , you simply cannot say a team should go for it on 4th and 2 all the time. Nobody really said to much about us going for it on 4th down from our own 20 yard line. I think it was stupid then and I think it is stupid now. That decision is why the Chargers are playing golf this weekend.
 

dreamcastrocks

Chopped Liver Moderator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2005
Posts
45,633
Reaction score
10,826
Well, this is exactly what analytics-based decision making is all about. There's a huge amount of data from which the expected points added can be calculated for going for it vs. punting on 4th down, based on a large number of variables, such as field position, score differential, time remaining, and a host of others. Factor into that lots more variables having to do with the team's historical success in similar situations, the opponent's success stopping conversions in these situations, specific matchups available, etc. and you can calculate the right decision from an analytical standpoint. Probably lots of tables are computed before the game, and real-time outputs are available from the analytics guy's software on those Microsoft Surfaces the coaches have.

Then the coach has to factor in momentum, injuries, whether he thinks he has a play with a high probability of success, etc.

Point is, you CAN'T make a blanket statement that going for it isn't very valuable and failing costs points, or that the risk/reward is imbalanced so it makes zero sense. Perhaps that's usually true, but it's not necessarily true. Too many factors go into it, and throughout our lifetimes on which we base all of our intuitions, analytics show that coaches have historically been MUCH too conservative when it comes to going for it on 4th down, and going for 2-point conversions.

But it's human nature to remember the stark costs of failing, and forgetting the value added by succeeding. And coaches get a lot more criticism from failing, than accolades from succeeding. So, coaches and fans continue to lean more toward thinking it's a bad idea to go for it in general, than we should.

This is not an endorsement of any specific decision that Kingsbury has made - just a general observation.

...dave
exactly.
 

Ouchie-Z-Clown

I'm better than Mulli!
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Posts
59,876
Reaction score
51,178
Location
SoCal
Well, this is exactly what analytics-based decision making is all about. There's a huge amount of data from which the expected points added can be calculated for going for it vs. punting on 4th down, based on a large number of variables, such as field position, score differential, time remaining, and a host of others. Factor into that lots more variables having to do with the team's historical success in similar situations, the opponent's success stopping conversions in these situations, specific matchups available, etc. and you can calculate the right decision from an analytical standpoint. Probably lots of tables are computed before the game, and real-time outputs are available from the analytics guy's software on those Microsoft Surfaces the coaches have.

Then the coach has to factor in momentum, injuries, whether he thinks he has a play with a high probability of success, etc.

Point is, you CAN'T make a blanket statement that going for it isn't very valuable and failing costs points, or that the risk/reward is imbalanced so it makes zero sense. Perhaps that's usually true, but it's not necessarily true. Too many factors go into it, and throughout our lifetimes on which we base all of our intuitions, analytics show that coaches have historically been MUCH too conservative when it comes to going for it on 4th down, and going for 2-point conversions.

But it's human nature to remember the stark costs of failing, and forgetting the value added by succeeding. And coaches get a lot more criticism from failing, than accolades from succeeding. So, coaches and fans continue to lean more toward thinking it's a bad idea to go for it in general, than we should.

This is not an endorsement of any specific decision that Kingsbury has made - just a general observation.

...dave
Everything you state is true. But I think the scenario of going for it at your own 20 has a very simple premise:

Succeed and you still have to march a minimum of 40 yards to even attempt a 57 yard field goal. Fail and you almost guarantee a 37 yard field goal attempt for your opponent. Those two can’t possibly be equal in value.
 

Totally_Red

Air Raid Warning!
Joined
Apr 26, 2005
Posts
8,541
Reaction score
3,855
Location
Iowa
Getting a corner in the draft who can play man coverage would give V.J. a lot more flexibility. Marco may eventually develop into that but nobody else on the current roster is good in that area IMO.
 

oaken1

Stone Cold
Supporting Member
Banned from P+R
Joined
Mar 13, 2004
Posts
16,227
Reaction score
12,459
Location
Modesto, California
Well, this is exactly what analytics-based decision making is all about. There's a huge amount of data from which the expected points added can be calculated for going for it vs. punting on 4th down, based on a large number of variables, such as field position, score differential, time remaining, and a host of others. Factor into that lots more variables having to do with the team's historical success in similar situations, the opponent's success stopping conversions in these situations, specific matchups available, etc. and you can calculate the right decision from an analytical standpoint. Probably lots of tables are computed before the game, and real-time outputs are available from the analytics guy's software on those Microsoft Surfaces the coaches have.

Then the coach has to factor in momentum, injuries, whether he thinks he has a play with a high probability of success, etc.

Point is, you CAN'T make a blanket statement that going for it isn't very valuable and failing costs points, or that the risk/reward is imbalanced so it makes zero sense. Perhaps that's usually true, but it's not necessarily true. Too many factors go into it, and throughout our lifetimes on which we base all of our intuitions, analytics show that coaches have historically been MUCH too conservative when it comes to going for it on 4th down, and going for 2-point conversions.

But it's human nature to remember the stark costs of failing, and forgetting the value added by succeeding. And coaches get a lot more criticism from failing, than accolades from succeeding. So, coaches and fans continue to lean more toward thinking it's a bad idea to go for it in general, than we should.

This is not an endorsement of any specific decision that Kingsbury has made - just a general observation.

...dave
Imo it's mostly due to the evolution of the game.
Couple decades back, teams ran 75% of the ti.e and when they chose to pass they only completed 58% or so.

Made 4th and 4 an automatic punt if you were out of FG range unless there was only a minute on the clock and you were down by 5.

But now teams pass 60%+ of the time and complete at a 70% rate. Fourth and four isn't as daunting.... hell, back in the eighties coaches rarely risked 4th and 2 unless it was an end of game scenario.

Sounds silly but I think the video game mentality has influenced it as well... I played lots of guys in madden who would never punt...we actually made a house rule that punts were mandatory unless you were down by three scores or were inside the two minute warning
 

cardjunkie

Veteran
Joined
Aug 2, 2018
Posts
198
Reaction score
200
Location
AZ
Succeed and you still have to march a minimum of 40 yards to even attempt a 57 yard field goal. Fail and you almost guarantee a 37 yard field goal attempt for your opponent. Those two can’t possibly be equal in value.
Agree 100%. I cannot believe anyone thinks its smart to go for a first down on their own 20 side of the field at the beginning of the game.
 

oaken1

Stone Cold
Supporting Member
Banned from P+R
Joined
Mar 13, 2004
Posts
16,227
Reaction score
12,459
Location
Modesto, California
Everything you state is true. But I think the scenario of going for it at your own 20 has a very simple premise:

Succeed and you still have to march a minimum of 40 yards to even attempt a 57 yard field goal. Fail and you almost guarantee a 37 yard field goal attempt for your opponent. Those two can’t possibly be equal in value.
Right. Imo... unless the game is on the line right damn now... you shouldn't go for it until you get to no man's land... that spot close to midfield where punts give negligible benefits and field goals are mostly impossible.
Anything before that is stupid unless you're in a situation where you absolutely have to score right now.
Situations our coach actually puts us in by casually eating clock when we are down by two scores with 4 minutes left
 
OP
OP
Harry

Harry

ASFN Consultant and Senior Writer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Posts
10,743
Reaction score
22,497
Location
Orlando, FL
Getting a corner in the draft who can play man coverage would give V.J. a lot more flexibility. Marco may eventually develop into that but nobody else on the current roster is good in that area IMO.
I’d say Hamilton has a chance. He’s more aggressive and seems fearless. I have to see more of him, but he should stay.
 

MrYeahBut

4 Food groups: beans, chili, cheese, bacon
Supporting Member
Joined
May 20, 2002
Posts
17,728
Reaction score
12,976
Location
Albq
 

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
534,771
Posts
5,246,091
Members
6,273
Latest member
sarahmoose
Top