[teejers1]

Do you think the Falcons should have run the ball 3 times and tried a FG (assuming no first down) after the Jones catch for a first down late in Q4? 

Or, do you think, there is no right call in that situation, only ones that work (or don't work)?

It's pretty obvious where I stand on this (and other calls closer to our Cardinal hearts).

[teejers1]

Do you think the Falcons should have run the ball 3 times and tried a FG (assuming no first down) after the Jones catch for a first down late in Q4? 

Or, do you think, there is no right call in that situation, only ones that work (or don't work)?

It's pretty obvious where I stand on this (and other calls closer to our Cardinal hearts).

[Hank 91]

The best way to answer this question is to consider another: Do you want to be Super Bowl champions or not? If it's not that important to you, then sure, go ahead and drop back and pass a couple times. If it is important, if you'd like to wear a Super Bowl ring for the rest of your life, then you notice that you're already comfortably in field goal range and you run the ball three times, knowing that the worst-case scenario is a chip shot field goal that will give you a two-possession lead with two minutes to play. But again, all of that is only if you actually want to win the Super Bowl.

[Hank 91]

The best way to answer this question is to consider another: Do you want to be Super Bowl champions or not? If it's not that important to you, then sure, go ahead and drop back and pass a couple times. If it is important, if you'd like to wear a Super Bowl ring for the rest of your life, then you notice that you're already comfortably in field goal range and you run the ball three times, knowing that the worst-case scenario is a chip shot field goal that will give you a two-possession lead with two minutes to play. But again, all of that is only if you actually want to win the Super Bowl.

[Farm93]

Shaw may not have been creative or lucky enough to get a 28-3 lead, but I would have bet good money that any Shaw team, barring injury to the QB, would leave the game with a win.

There were times in the fourth quarter where the Falcons snapped the ball with 20+ seconds on the play clock.  WTF! I was sitting there thinking doesn't anyone on that team have the ability to tell the team to take more time?  Even the Oregon Ducks back in the Kelly Era would stand around and burn down the play clock in the fourth quarter. 

The 3rd and 1, play was awful.  Though the RB blocking was the bigger problem.  3rd and 1!  Even with a pass the ball should not have been in his hands that long.  The other drive with the sack and holding penalty was even more unbelievable.  Better believe Coach Shaw would have run three times after getting that first down to Jones.  Kick the FG, up by 11.  Please take care when exiting the stadium. 

FWIW - Hooper made a great play on that near INT at the end of the 4th quarter.  Recognizing he would not catch the ball he gave the DB a nice push to make sure he could not get both feet down.  Without that play the Patriots win in the 4th quarter much like SC vs Penn State.

I did find the commentary during the early part of the game interesting.  I did not know the Patriots had that kind of tendency rate with different players on the field.  Bet that type of thing is true for Coach Shaw teams too.

[Farm93]

Shaw may not have been creative or lucky enough to get a 28-3 lead, but I would have bet good money that any Shaw team, barring injury to the QB, would leave the game with a win.

There were times in the fourth quarter where the Falcons snapped the ball with 20+ seconds on the play clock.  WTF! I was sitting there thinking doesn't anyone on that team have the ability to tell the team to take more time?  Even the Oregon Ducks back in the Kelly Era would stand around and burn down the play clock in the fourth quarter. 

The 3rd and 1, play was awful.  Though the RB blocking was the bigger problem.  3rd and 1!  Even with a pass the ball should not have been in his hands that long.  The other drive with the sack and holding penalty was even more unbelievable.  Better believe Coach Shaw would have run three times after getting that first down to Jones.  Kick the FG, up by 11.  Please take care when exiting the stadium. 

FWIW - Hooper made a great play on that near INT at the end of the 4th quarter.  Recognizing he would not catch the ball he gave the DB a nice push to make sure he could not get both feet down.  Without that play the Patriots win in the 4th quarter much like SC vs Penn State.

I did find the commentary during the early part of the game interesting.  I did not know the Patriots had that kind of tendency rate with different players on the field.  Bet that type of thing is true for Coach Shaw teams too.

[fullmetal]

If snapping the ball early gives the defense less time to assess and prepare for what's coming next, then the benefits of gaining a first down probably outweigh the 20 sec potentially burned otherwise.

But...you gotta make the first down.

[fullmetal]

If snapping the ball early gives the defense less time to assess and prepare for what's coming next, then the benefits of gaining a first down probably outweigh the 20 sec potentially burned otherwise.

But...you gotta make the first down.

[Farm93]

If snapping the ball early gives the defense less time to assess and prepare for what's coming next, then the benefits of gaining a first down probably outweigh the 20 sec potentially burned otherwise.

But...you gotta make the first down.

Not with 6 minutes left in the fourth quarter.  Slow it down.  In the true spirit of new age and entertaining Big12 and Pac12 teams who cares about winning the game.  The fans want to see the show!  Sonny Dykes should apply to be their OC. 

FWIW - It was not as if the Patriots defense was gassed or anything.  The Falcons only ran a handful of plays all game long.  So why hurry?  Again, even the quick, quick, quick Oregon Ducks under Kelly would often stand at the line waiting for the play clock to get below 5 seconds when they had small fourth quarter leads in close contests.  If Kelly could slow it down certainly the Falcons could have found a way to wait 20 more second before running that play behind the right tackle. 

I wasn't paying that much attention, but at the time I thought it was awful clock management.  Those that love the show and creativity have got to take that downside I guess.  Dykes and Leach each have allowed bigger comebacks, but at least they weren't choking away a big lead in the Super Bowl.

[Farm93]

If snapping the ball early gives the defense less time to assess and prepare for what's coming next, then the benefits of gaining a first down probably outweigh the 20 sec potentially burned otherwise.

But...you gotta make the first down.

Not with 6 minutes left in the fourth quarter.  Slow it down.  In the true spirit of new age and entertaining Big12 and Pac12 teams who cares about winning the game.  The fans want to see the show!  Sonny Dykes should apply to be their OC. 

FWIW - It was not as if the Patriots defense was gassed or anything.  The Falcons only ran a handful of plays all game long.  So why hurry?  Again, even the quick, quick, quick Oregon Ducks under Kelly would often stand at the line waiting for the play clock to get below 5 seconds when they had small fourth quarter leads in close contests.  If Kelly could slow it down certainly the Falcons could have found a way to wait 20 more second before running that play behind the right tackle. 

I wasn't paying that much attention, but at the time I thought it was awful clock management.  Those that love the show and creativity have got to take that downside I guess.  Dykes and Leach each have allowed bigger comebacks, but at least they weren't choking away a big lead in the Super Bowl.

[stupac2]

The Falcons had an MVP quarterback, the best receiver in the game (who, let's not forget, just made what would have forever been compared to the Tyree catch had they won), and a historically great passing attack. While the run had mostly been working, NE had one of the best run defenses in the league and had just stuffed one. Atlanta's center was hurt and they were having trouble running inside.

So, no, trying to throw there is not ridiculous. What was ridiculous were the kinds of throws they were trying. I've read that Ryan held onto the ball for nearly 4 seconds on that 2nd down, and the pressure came right up the middle. That sack is on him. The subsequent two playcalls were also quite bad in that they were low-percentage, throw a screen on 3rd and forever when you're nearly in FG range, FFS.

But, at the same time, THEY HAVE JULIO JONES. I am a Patriots fan. I was not thinking "oh good they're passing here" because, ahem, THEY HAVE JULIO JONES. When you have the best receiver in the game, trying to get something done isn't absurd, but holding onto the ball for 3+ seconds in that situation definitely is.

What's even worse was, as others pointed out, how much time they were leaving. Which is probably also on Ryan (and maybe whoever can speak into his helmet for not noticing that he was leaving way too much time on the clock). But Quinn's challenge on Edelman's subsequent catch was also horrible. The Pats weren't going to get that play off, I don't think, just let it hit 2 minutes and then challenge after your people can look at it and you KNOW you'll win, or don't and keep the TO. But he essentially just called a TO right before the 2 minute warning while the other team was driving trying to tie it! Now that was a mistake.



Also, a sneaky big mistake in the game might've been Belichick not calling for a fair catch kick at the very end. It didn't end up mattering, but I bet Ghostkowski can hit a 75-yarder, that's a normal kickoff spot and I've seen him come darn close to putting it through the uprights when he's not trying to. Even if he misses you know it'll be into the end zone, and you can put your coverage team out there anyway so the risk of a runback is tiny. I think the odds of winning vs losing on that are higher than the fake kneel they ran. (Then again I mostly REALLY wanted to see a fair catch kick in the super bowl, because, come on, they never happen. I think if that punt had been 5 yards shorter we would've seen one.)

[stupac2]

The Falcons had an MVP quarterback, the best receiver in the game (who, let's not forget, just made what would have forever been compared to the Tyree catch had they won), and a historically great passing attack. While the run had mostly been working, NE had one of the best run defenses in the league and had just stuffed one. Atlanta's center was hurt and they were having trouble running inside.

So, no, trying to throw there is not ridiculous. What was ridiculous were the kinds of throws they were trying. I've read that Ryan held onto the ball for nearly 4 seconds on that 2nd down, and the pressure came right up the middle. That sack is on him. The subsequent two playcalls were also quite bad in that they were low-percentage, throw a screen on 3rd and forever when you're nearly in FG range, FFS.

But, at the same time, THEY HAVE JULIO JONES. I am a Patriots fan. I was not thinking "oh good they're passing here" because, ahem, THEY HAVE JULIO JONES. When you have the best receiver in the game, trying to get something done isn't absurd, but holding onto the ball for 3+ seconds in that situation definitely is.

What's even worse was, as others pointed out, how much time they were leaving. Which is probably also on Ryan (and maybe whoever can speak into his helmet for not noticing that he was leaving way too much time on the clock). But Quinn's challenge on Edelman's subsequent catch was also horrible. The Pats weren't going to get that play off, I don't think, just let it hit 2 minutes and then challenge after your people can look at it and you KNOW you'll win, or don't and keep the TO. But he essentially just called a TO right before the 2 minute warning while the other team was driving trying to tie it! Now that was a mistake.



Also, a sneaky big mistake in the game might've been Belichick not calling for a fair catch kick at the very end. It didn't end up mattering, but I bet Ghostkowski can hit a 75-yarder, that's a normal kickoff spot and I've seen him come darn close to putting it through the uprights when he's not trying to. Even if he misses you know it'll be into the end zone, and you can put your coverage team out there anyway so the risk of a runback is tiny. I think the odds of winning vs losing on that are higher than the fake kneel they ran. (Then again I mostly REALLY wanted to see a fair catch kick in the super bowl, because, come on, they never happen. I think if that punt had been 5 yards shorter we would've seen one.)

[BostonCard]

Teejers,

In this particular situation, leading by 8 points with 3:56 left in the game and facing a second and 11 at the New England 23 (remember, Atlanta did run on first down and lost a yard) I would have run.  The case for running is as follows:

* A field goal makes this a two-score game, with under 4 minutes.
* The probability of making a 40 yard field goal is about 80% in the NFL; a 10-yard gain would have increased that to 90% or so, but a 10 yard loss would have reduced the chances to 60%; thus a strategy that minimizes the chance of loss of yardage is crucial.
* Freeman was averaging 6.8 ypc on the day, so even two average caries would have gotten a first down.
* Running the ball would have forced New England to burn two of its time outs.  With the sack, they did use one of the three, but the incomplete pass on third and 33 from the NE 45 meant that New England had two time outs to use in its final drive (it didn't use them, however, and scored with 53 seconds left).
* Prior to the sack on second down, the Atlanta offensive line had allowed Ryan to be sacked 4 times.  A sack and penalty are the two things you can't afford at this point; Atlanta was guilty of both.

The case for passing was pretty weak, but:
* Getting a first down would have left New England without any time outs and probably about 30 seconds less time.
* An 80% chance of making a field goal means your kicker will still miss one in five.
* If the kicker misses the field goal, New England would have gotten the ball back at around the 30 yard line instead of the 9.
* New England was probably geared up to defend the run, though I didn't see the alignment on the sack.
* Matt Ryan had a 74% completion rate on the day, and was averaging 12.3 yards per attempt
* Aren't you the advocate of putting the ball in the hands of your best players?  Ryan and Julio Jones are the best players.

The balance of evidence would have prompted me to run it two more times, hope my kicker doesn't boink it, and dare Brady to somehow score twice with under 4 minutes to go and one time out left.  That being said, the way the game was going, I could have seen him do that.

BC

[BostonCard]

Teejers,

In this particular situation, leading by 8 points with 3:56 left in the game and facing a second and 11 at the New England 23 (remember, Atlanta did run on first down and lost a yard) I would have run.  The case for running is as follows:

* A field goal makes this a two-score game, with under 4 minutes.
* The probability of making a 40 yard field goal is about 80% in the NFL; a 10-yard gain would have increased that to 90% or so, but a 10 yard loss would have reduced the chances to 60%; thus a strategy that minimizes the chance of loss of yardage is crucial.
* Freeman was averaging 6.8 ypc on the day, so even two average caries would have gotten a first down.
* Running the ball would have forced New England to burn two of its time outs.  With the sack, they did use one of the three, but the incomplete pass on third and 33 from the NE 45 meant that New England had two time outs to use in its final drive (it didn't use them, however, and scored with 53 seconds left).
* Prior to the sack on second down, the Atlanta offensive line had allowed Ryan to be sacked 4 times.  A sack and penalty are the two things you can't afford at this point; Atlanta was guilty of both.

The case for passing was pretty weak, but:
* Getting a first down would have left New England without any time outs and probably about 30 seconds less time.
* An 80% chance of making a field goal means your kicker will still miss one in five.
* If the kicker misses the field goal, New England would have gotten the ball back at around the 30 yard line instead of the 9.
* New England was probably geared up to defend the run, though I didn't see the alignment on the sack.
* Matt Ryan had a 74% completion rate on the day, and was averaging 12.3 yards per attempt
* Aren't you the advocate of putting the ball in the hands of your best players?  Ryan and Julio Jones are the best players.

The balance of evidence would have prompted me to run it two more times, hope my kicker doesn't boink it, and dare Brady to somehow score twice with under 4 minutes to go and one time out left.  That being said, the way the game was going, I could have seen him do that.

BC

[OutsiderFan]

This isn't one of those "play calls don't matter" situations.  It was certifiably insane to pass the ball after Jones made his miraculous catch at the 25 or whatever it was.  I'm usually the guy saying you win the game by getting a first down and holding onto the ball in that situation (and that trying to get a first down throwing when they expect run is a smart decision), but the score and clock have to be factored in too.  Given the clock situation and the score, the smartest route was to run the ball, force the Patriots to use their timeouts, and kick the FG to go up by 11.  Anything that deviated from that failsafe FG option was sheer lunacy.

Kyle Shanahan will be derided for the pass play being called, but what about Quinn? He's the head coach.  He's got the power to veto a pass play in that situation.  Doesn't the fact Quinn didn't, make him just as if not more culpable than Shanahan for dialing up a pass play that led to a brobdingnagian sack?  Hell they even could have run the ball on the next play to preserve the FG option instead of getting the holding penalty that knocked them out of FG position.  I hate FGs, but sometimes you do have to embrace them!

[OutsiderFan]

This isn't one of those "play calls don't matter" situations.  It was certifiably insane to pass the ball after Jones made his miraculous catch at the 25 or whatever it was.  I'm usually the guy saying you win the game by getting a first down and holding onto the ball in that situation (and that trying to get a first down throwing when they expect run is a smart decision), but the score and clock have to be factored in too.  Given the clock situation and the score, the smartest route was to run the ball, force the Patriots to use their timeouts, and kick the FG to go up by 11.  Anything that deviated from that failsafe FG option was sheer lunacy.

Kyle Shanahan will be derided for the pass play being called, but what about Quinn? He's the head coach.  He's got the power to veto a pass play in that situation.  Doesn't the fact Quinn didn't, make him just as if not more culpable than Shanahan for dialing up a pass play that led to a brobdingnagian sack?  Hell they even could have run the ball on the next play to preserve the FG option instead of getting the holding penalty that knocked them out of FG position.  I hate FGs, but sometimes you do have to embrace them!

[washingtonismoney]

I think this discussion reinforces why it's so hard to definitively call playcalls or even strategy broadly 'bad' or 'good.' Like the Falcons could've burned more clock -- both shortening the game and resting the defense. But would that have stunted offensive effectiveness? Perhaps!

My point here is that Shaw critics tend to assume you can hold defensive and special teams quality constant while jacking up offensive quality, as if Shaw has an "offensive quality dial" he's unwisely chosen not to turn to 11. Maybe there are some easy gains he can make without compromising defensive quality. But then again...maybe it's tradeoffs all the way down.

One more point: we were told pretty consistently that Kyle Shanahan is a playcalling genius before the game. Now, lo and behold, he are told he made some mistakes in the Super Bowl. Now I imagine good playcallers have bad games, just as, say, good offensive tackles. The problem is, our assessments of good offensive tackles is pretty consistent. It's not with offensive playcalling:

Oct 17 2011 Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/re...e4aacf0ac  -- doesn't specifically cite Shanahan as a great playcaller, but that's the implicatoin of the piece

Oct 31 2011 -- Kyle Shanahan suddenly a bad playcaller: https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/re...0832fbfde8

Oct 2013 -- Kyle Shanahan gets questions for play-calling: http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/kyle-s...y-calling/

Dec 2013 -- Kyle Shanahan should get play-calling responsibilities taken away from him, opine pundits: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dc-s...3627f52612

Jan 2014 -- Kyle Shanahan has unfair bad rep when it comes to playcalling: http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ss...wns_k.html

June 2014: Kyle Shanahan, mastermind play-caller: http://www.clevelandbrowns.com/news/arti...7a849ee078

Nov 2014 -- cut Browns player complains about Kyle Shanahan's playcalling: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000...r-10-games

And so on! The point is: if playcalling is such an important ability, why can observers so rarely consistently identify it in the wild?

[washingtonismoney]

I think this discussion reinforces why it's so hard to definitively call playcalls or even strategy broadly 'bad' or 'good.' Like the Falcons could've burned more clock -- both shortening the game and resting the defense. But would that have stunted offensive effectiveness? Perhaps!

My point here is that Shaw critics tend to assume you can hold defensive and special teams quality constant while jacking up offensive quality, as if Shaw has an "offensive quality dial" he's unwisely chosen not to turn to 11. Maybe there are some easy gains he can make without compromising defensive quality. But then again...maybe it's tradeoffs all the way down.

One more point: we were told pretty consistently that Kyle Shanahan is a playcalling genius before the game. Now, lo and behold, he are told he made some mistakes in the Super Bowl. Now I imagine good playcallers have bad games, just as, say, good offensive tackles. The problem is, our assessments of good offensive tackles is pretty consistent. It's not with offensive playcalling:

Oct 17 2011 Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/re...e4aacf0ac  -- doesn't specifically cite Shanahan as a great playcaller, but that's the implicatoin of the piece

Oct 31 2011 -- Kyle Shanahan suddenly a bad playcaller: https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/re...0832fbfde8

Oct 2013 -- Kyle Shanahan gets questions for play-calling: http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/kyle-s...y-calling/

Dec 2013 -- Kyle Shanahan should get play-calling responsibilities taken away from him, opine pundits: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dc-s...3627f52612

Jan 2014 -- Kyle Shanahan has unfair bad rep when it comes to playcalling: http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ss...wns_k.html

June 2014: Kyle Shanahan, mastermind play-caller: http://www.clevelandbrowns.com/news/arti...7a849ee078

Nov 2014 -- cut Browns player complains about Kyle Shanahan's playcalling: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000...r-10-games

And so on! The point is: if playcalling is such an important ability, why can observers so rarely consistently identify it in the wild?

[winflop]

Matt Ryan is a veteran QB and the league MVP.  The sack happened because their All-Pro Center lost his block, but the league MVP should have been smart enough and sufficiently aware of the context (clock, position, score, etc.) to throw the ball away.

All that being said, the Falcons' play calling in the second half was very Shawgren-esque.

[winflop]

Matt Ryan is a veteran QB and the league MVP.  The sack happened because their All-Pro Center lost his block, but the league MVP should have been smart enough and sufficiently aware of the context (clock, position, score, etc.) to throw the ball away.

All that being said, the Falcons' play calling in the second half was very Shawgren-esque.

[OutsiderFan]

Matt Ryan is a veteran QB and the league MVP.  The sack happened because their All-Pro Center lost his block, but the league MVP should have been smart enough and sufficiently aware of the context (clock, position, score, etc.) to throw the ball away.

All that being said, the Falcons' play calling in the second half was very Shawgren-esque.

Agreed with the first part, but it's a little hard to judge the bolded statement because ATL hardly had the ball at all in the second half.  And by din of fact, the three plays that crushed the Falcons were all pass plays; 2 sacks, a holding penalty, and a lost fumble on one of those sacks.    Stanford usually doesn't lose games by getting in trouble throwing the ball.  It's always when they can't run effectively.

[OutsiderFan]

Matt Ryan is a veteran QB and the league MVP.  The sack happened because their All-Pro Center lost his block, but the league MVP should have been smart enough and sufficiently aware of the context (clock, position, score, etc.) to throw the ball away.

All that being said, the Falcons' play calling in the second half was very Shawgren-esque.

Agreed with the first part, but it's a little hard to judge the bolded statement because ATL hardly had the ball at all in the second half.  And by din of fact, the three plays that crushed the Falcons were all pass plays; 2 sacks, a holding penalty, and a lost fumble on one of those sacks.    Stanford usually doesn't lose games by getting in trouble throwing the ball.  It's always when they can't run effectively.

[CowboyIndian]

Do you think the Falcons should have run the ball 3 times and tried a FG (assuming no first down) after the Jones catch for a first down late in Q4? 

Or, do you think, there is no right call in that situation, only ones that work (or don't work)?

It's pretty obvious where I stand on this (and other calls closer to our Cardinal hearts).

I don't mean to be provocative with you, honest, but what happened yesterday is the perfect argument for Shaw's strategy at the end of the Fiesta Bowl as well as his so-called 'conservatism' that, as so often stated, some people find so frustrating. And, as someone else mentioned here, I'm pretty certain a Shaw-coached team would have emerged from that game yesterday with a win.

[CowboyIndian]

Do you think the Falcons should have run the ball 3 times and tried a FG (assuming no first down) after the Jones catch for a first down late in Q4? 

Or, do you think, there is no right call in that situation, only ones that work (or don't work)?

It's pretty obvious where I stand on this (and other calls closer to our Cardinal hearts).

I don't mean to be provocative with you, honest, but what happened yesterday is the perfect argument for Shaw's strategy at the end of the Fiesta Bowl as well as his so-called 'conservatism' that, as so often stated, some people find so frustrating. And, as someone else mentioned here, I'm pretty certain a Shaw-coached team would have emerged from that game yesterday with a win.

[washingtonismoney]

I don't mean to be provocative with you, honest, but what happened yesterday is the perfect argument for Shaw's strategy at the end of the Fiesta Bowl as well as his so-called 'conservatism' that, as so often stated, some people find so frustrating. And, as someone else mentioned here, I'm pretty certain a Shaw-coached team would have emerged from that game yesterday with a win.

I've never heard -- just general football fandom -- 'conservatism' being used as a compliment. Which is odd! I generally favor aggression, strategically speaking, but you'd think conservatism would have some applications.

[washingtonismoney]

I don't mean to be provocative with you, honest, but what happened yesterday is the perfect argument for Shaw's strategy at the end of the Fiesta Bowl as well as his so-called 'conservatism' that, as so often stated, some people find so frustrating. And, as someone else mentioned here, I'm pretty certain a Shaw-coached team would have emerged from that game yesterday with a win.

I've never heard -- just general football fandom -- 'conservatism' being used as a compliment. Which is odd! I generally favor aggression, strategically speaking, but you'd think conservatism would have some applications.

[teejers1]

"And so on! The point is: if playcalling is such an important ability, why can observers so rarely consistently identify it in the wild?"

WIM, not sure what straw man you're trying to knock down here.  My criticism of playcalling has (almost exclusively for the last several years) been reserved for the AYFKM calls (which, as noted elsewhere, should mean "Are You Falcon Kidding Me?").  These are specific decisions - typically very late in the game - where the "brain trust" has just puked on themselves and greatly reduced their team's chances of success.  They often are very obvious clusters:  at Utah, end game against SC (twice), home against ND (failing to take at least one knee on first and goal), and last Big Game loss.  And now, the Falcons Super Bowl puke.

For the Falcon defenders, Julio Jones was targeted a grand total of 4 (or 5?) times the entire game.  So why would passing to him in that situation be some great idea when you've been neglecting that (or more likely, it's been shut down) all game?  Also, people forget that an incomplete pass is a BAD thing - it may not be horrific (sack, which happened) or all-time-worst (sack/fumble) - but it's bad.  It stops the clock without forcing NE to burn a timeout.  You run it three times, force NE to burn its timeouts, and even if you lose a yard each time (unlikely), you're still talking a 42 yard FG.  In the NFL, that's a pretty good bet.  And if you're up by 11 with just over 3 minutes left . . . well, I like your chances . . . a lot . . . even against Brady/Pats. 

And speaking of Brady, it's hard to argue against Greatest of All Time (I'd have given him the nod before yesterday); however, I think it's also fair to characterize him as the GLOAT:  Greatest, Luckiest of All Time.  Think what his resume would look like if:  (a) bogus tuck rule was called correctly against Raiders, (b) Petey chose to run Beast Mode from the 1 yard line instead of passing (which resulted in a pick), and © Atlanta ran the ball 3 times and tried a FG.

I'd say Brady has 2 Super Bowl Ws and 4 (straight) Super Bowl Ls.  He still might be the best, but that resume looks and feels a lot different without the "head-scratching luck" he has enjoyed.

[teejers1]

"And so on! The point is: if playcalling is such an important ability, why can observers so rarely consistently identify it in the wild?"

WIM, not sure what straw man you're trying to knock down here.  My criticism of playcalling has (almost exclusively for the last several years) been reserved for the AYFKM calls (which, as noted elsewhere, should mean "Are You Falcon Kidding Me?").  These are specific decisions - typically very late in the game - where the "brain trust" has just puked on themselves and greatly reduced their team's chances of success.  They often are very obvious clusters:  at Utah, end game against SC (twice), home against ND (failing to take at least one knee on first and goal), and last Big Game loss.  And now, the Falcons Super Bowl puke.

For the Falcon defenders, Julio Jones was targeted a grand total of 4 (or 5?) times the entire game.  So why would passing to him in that situation be some great idea when you've been neglecting that (or more likely, it's been shut down) all game?  Also, people forget that an incomplete pass is a BAD thing - it may not be horrific (sack, which happened) or all-time-worst (sack/fumble) - but it's bad.  It stops the clock without forcing NE to burn a timeout.  You run it three times, force NE to burn its timeouts, and even if you lose a yard each time (unlikely), you're still talking a 42 yard FG.  In the NFL, that's a pretty good bet.  And if you're up by 11 with just over 3 minutes left . . . well, I like your chances . . . a lot . . . even against Brady/Pats. 

And speaking of Brady, it's hard to argue against Greatest of All Time (I'd have given him the nod before yesterday); however, I think it's also fair to characterize him as the GLOAT:  Greatest, Luckiest of All Time.  Think what his resume would look like if:  (a) bogus tuck rule was called correctly against Raiders, (b) Petey chose to run Beast Mode from the 1 yard line instead of passing (which resulted in a pick), and © Atlanta ran the ball 3 times and tried a FG.

I'd say Brady has 2 Super Bowl Ws and 4 (straight) Super Bowl Ls.  He still might be the best, but that resume looks and feels a lot different without the "head-scratching luck" he has enjoyed.

[teejers1]

To CI, a 37-yard FG from a college kicker - particularly one who is coming off an injury and has already missed a FG earlier in the game - is NOT the same thing as asking an NFL kicker (who was 90+% from 35-45 yards on the season) to make a 40 yarder.  In addition, Shaw didn't just decide "to not pass" and run the ball in the Fiesta Bowl - he stopped playing offense altogether. . . in the middle of a drive where Stanford was going through the Cowboys D like $hit through a goose! 

As I said at the time (and still believe today), the decision to stop playing offense altogether failed to put Stanford in the best position to win.  If you're worried about a pick or a sack, then hand the ball off and get as close as you can for your kicker.  Shaw just decided to stop, and as we watched the clock tick down (and Cowboys fans in the stands murmur with hope), a sense of dread descended on many/most in the Stanford section.

Having said all of the above, I don't put the Fiesta Bowl in the same category as at Utah, the pass play against SC late, or the failure by Harbs to take a knee (or two) against ND because . . . well, at least I can see a smidge of an argument in the Fiesta Bowl (even if I think it is weak and doesn't put the team in the best position to win).

[teejers1]

To CI, a 37-yard FG from a college kicker - particularly one who is coming off an injury and has already missed a FG earlier in the game - is NOT the same thing as asking an NFL kicker (who was 90+% from 35-45 yards on the season) to make a 40 yarder.  In addition, Shaw didn't just decide "to not pass" and run the ball in the Fiesta Bowl - he stopped playing offense altogether. . . in the middle of a drive where Stanford was going through the Cowboys D like $hit through a goose! 

As I said at the time (and still believe today), the decision to stop playing offense altogether failed to put Stanford in the best position to win.  If you're worried about a pick or a sack, then hand the ball off and get as close as you can for your kicker.  Shaw just decided to stop, and as we watched the clock tick down (and Cowboys fans in the stands murmur with hope), a sense of dread descended on many/most in the Stanford section.

Having said all of the above, I don't put the Fiesta Bowl in the same category as at Utah, the pass play against SC late, or the failure by Harbs to take a knee (or two) against ND because . . . well, at least I can see a smidge of an argument in the Fiesta Bowl (even if I think it is weak and doesn't put the team in the best position to win).

[washingtonismoney]

WIM, not sure what straw man you're trying to knock down here.  My criticism of playcalling has (almost exclusively for the last several years) been reserved for the AYFKM calls (which, as noted elsewhere, should mean "Are You Falcon Kidding Me?").  etc.

It's a very simple one, inferred from your argument:

1) You argue: Shaw et al make a lot of egregiously bad calls.
2) Implicit in this is that others make fewer bad calls, and are therefore better playcallers. If everyone is prone to a more-or-less equal number of bad playcalls, then why complain about bad playcalls? It'd be like complaining that Stanford has more instance of meteor showers disrupting games or something.
2a) That is, playcalls are a matter of *skill.* And better playcallers make fewer bad playcalls.
3) If there are better or worse playcallers, then we should be able to identify them.
4) If we're able to identify them, then we should be able to do so *consistently.* For example, Apple is undoubtedly a great business. The broader public has been appreciative of Apple's business acumen for at least a decade, if not longer.
4a) If we thought in 2007 that Apple was a bad business, and then in 2008 that Apple was a great business, and then in 2009 that Apple was a bad business, we'd have to be asking some questions, like: are we good at judging good or bad businesses? Are there such things as good or bad businesses at all?
5) Are certain individuals identified as good or bad playcallers consistently?
6) Maybe! But as I've demonstrated with Kyle Shanahan (or could demonstrate with, say, Lane Kiffin), our opinions about who is a good playcaller seems to shift a lot, in that Shanahan was identified as a Bad Playcaller one month and a Good Playcaller not six months later.
7) This raises the question: is it our opinions about playcallers that are bad? That is, are there actually good or bad playcallers (and we just stink at identifying them)? Or, alternatively, is there no such thing as good or bad playcallers, or is the difference so marginal as to be meaningless?
8) Either way, the fact that we cannot seem to decide who is a Good or Bad Playcaller with any sort of consistency should make us humble in proclaiming certain people as Good or Bad Playcallers. Perhaps if we had the same scrutiny of other coaches as we did Shaw, we would find that they too make a lot of AYFKM calls. Perhaps even as many or more as David Shaw.

[washingtonismoney]

WIM, not sure what straw man you're trying to knock down here.  My criticism of playcalling has (almost exclusively for the last several years) been reserved for the AYFKM calls (which, as noted elsewhere, should mean "Are You Falcon Kidding Me?").  etc.

It's a very simple one, inferred from your argument:

1) You argue: Shaw et al make a lot of egregiously bad calls.
2) Implicit in this is that others make fewer bad calls, and are therefore better playcallers. If everyone is prone to a more-or-less equal number of bad playcalls, then why complain about bad playcalls? It'd be like complaining that Stanford has more instance of meteor showers disrupting games or something.
2a) That is, playcalls are a matter of *skill.* And better playcallers make fewer bad playcalls.
3) If there are better or worse playcallers, then we should be able to identify them.
4) If we're able to identify them, then we should be able to do so *consistently.* For example, Apple is undoubtedly a great business. The broader public has been appreciative of Apple's business acumen for at least a decade, if not longer.
4a) If we thought in 2007 that Apple was a bad business, and then in 2008 that Apple was a great business, and then in 2009 that Apple was a bad business, we'd have to be asking some questions, like: are we good at judging good or bad businesses? Are there such things as good or bad businesses at all?
5) Are certain individuals identified as good or bad playcallers consistently?
6) Maybe! But as I've demonstrated with Kyle Shanahan (or could demonstrate with, say, Lane Kiffin), our opinions about who is a good playcaller seems to shift a lot, in that Shanahan was identified as a Bad Playcaller one month and a Good Playcaller not six months later.
7) This raises the question: is it our opinions about playcallers that are bad? That is, are there actually good or bad playcallers (and we just stink at identifying them)? Or, alternatively, is there no such thing as good or bad playcallers, or is the difference so marginal as to be meaningless?
8) Either way, the fact that we cannot seem to decide who is a Good or Bad Playcaller with any sort of consistency should make us humble in proclaiming certain people as Good or Bad Playcallers. Perhaps if we had the same scrutiny of other coaches as we did Shaw, we would find that they too make a lot of AYFKM calls. Perhaps even as many or more as David Shaw.

[Farm93]

All that being said, the Falcons' play calling in the second half was very Shawgren-esque.

Yup, Shawgren-esque.  Save the 3rd and 1 where the had that sack-fumble.  Or the 2nd & 11 with the big loss sack.  Or the impossibly bad holding penalty on 3rd down.  Those three plays were not very Shawgren-esque.

If you are going to do the conservative play calling while up by 25 that's cool.  Just stick with it for any of those three plays and walk out of the stadium with a Super Bowl win.  Do anything close to decent clock management and you also get out of there with a win.  They were Shawgren-esque for most of the game after they were up 14-0, except for a handful of plays.  In the end, Power O with the lead was not the Falcon's game and when they needed that style they didn't really have it.  Oh well.  I can't imagine how hard that loss would be if I was an Atlanta sports fan.  In the end, I am already thinking about March 18th.

I guess this is also good for NY Giants fans as clearly THEY are Brady's only Super Bowl kryptonite.

[Farm93]

All that being said, the Falcons' play calling in the second half was very Shawgren-esque.

Yup, Shawgren-esque.  Save the 3rd and 1 where the had that sack-fumble.  Or the 2nd & 11 with the big loss sack.  Or the impossibly bad holding penalty on 3rd down.  Those three plays were not very Shawgren-esque.

If you are going to do the conservative play calling while up by 25 that's cool.  Just stick with it for any of those three plays and walk out of the stadium with a Super Bowl win.  Do anything close to decent clock management and you also get out of there with a win.  They were Shawgren-esque for most of the game after they were up 14-0, except for a handful of plays.  In the end, Power O with the lead was not the Falcon's game and when they needed that style they didn't really have it.  Oh well.  I can't imagine how hard that loss would be if I was an Atlanta sports fan.  In the end, I am already thinking about March 18th.

I guess this is also good for NY Giants fans as clearly THEY are Brady's only Super Bowl kryptonite.

[winflop]

[quote author=winflop link=topic=16558.msg188243#msg188243 date=1486420966]
All that being said, the Falcons' play calling in the second half was very Shawgren-esque.

Yup, Shawgren-esque.  Save the 3rd and 1 where the had that sack-fumble.  Or the 2nd & 11 with the big loss sack.  Or the impossibly bad holding penalty on 3rd down.  Those three plays were not very Shawgren-esque.

If you are going to do the conservative play calling while up by 25 that's cool.  Just stick with it for any of those three plays and walk out of the stadium with a Super Bowl win.  Do anything close to decent clock management and you also get out of there with a win.  They were Shawgren-esque for most of the game after they were up 14-0, except for a handful of plays.  In the end, Power O with the lead was not the Falcon's game and when they needed that style they didn't really have it.  Oh well.  I can't imagine how hard that loss would be if I was an Atlanta sports fan.  In the end, I am already thinking about March 18th.

I guess this is also good for NY Giants fans as clearly THEY are Brady's only Super Bowl kryptonite.
[/quote]

Shawgren-esque to be more than overly conservative to me.  It includes calling poor plays for the situation, which would characterize much of the Falcons' 2nd half.  Throwing deep on 3rd & 1 when you are trying to hold onto a lead qualifies.  Calling a deep dropback pass when you are on the edge of field goal range for a 2-score lead with 5 mins left in the game also qualifies.

[winflop]

[quote author=winflop link=topic=16558.msg188243#msg188243 date=1486420966]
All that being said, the Falcons' play calling in the second half was very Shawgren-esque.

Yup, Shawgren-esque.  Save the 3rd and 1 where the had that sack-fumble.  Or the 2nd & 11 with the big loss sack.  Or the impossibly bad holding penalty on 3rd down.  Those three plays were not very Shawgren-esque.

If you are going to do the conservative play calling while up by 25 that's cool.  Just stick with it for any of those three plays and walk out of the stadium with a Super Bowl win.  Do anything close to decent clock management and you also get out of there with a win.  They were Shawgren-esque for most of the game after they were up 14-0, except for a handful of plays.  In the end, Power O with the lead was not the Falcon's game and when they needed that style they didn't really have it.  Oh well.  I can't imagine how hard that loss would be if I was an Atlanta sports fan.  In the end, I am already thinking about March 18th.

I guess this is also good for NY Giants fans as clearly THEY are Brady's only Super Bowl kryptonite.
[/quote]

Shawgren-esque to be more than overly conservative to me.  It includes calling poor plays for the situation, which would characterize much of the Falcons' 2nd half.  Throwing deep on 3rd & 1 when you are trying to hold onto a lead qualifies.  Calling a deep dropback pass when you are on the edge of field goal range for a 2-score lead with 5 mins left in the game also qualifies.

[Phogge]

Nobody is mentioning, unless I missed it, the loss of the coin toss in OT. Brady knew that the Falcons were shell shocked and went through them like Crazy Horse went through the Seventh. The only chance was to win the toss and find Jones and Hooper.

[Phogge]

Nobody is mentioning, unless I missed it, the loss of the coin toss in OT. Brady knew that the Falcons were shell shocked and went through them like Crazy Horse went through the Seventh. The only chance was to win the toss and find Jones and Hooper.

[BigEasyCard]

Nobody is mentioning, unless I missed it, the loss of the coin toss in OT. Brady knew that the Falcons were shell shocked and went through them like Crazy Horse went through the Seventh. The only chance was to win the toss and find Jones and Hooper.

According to this site, the winner of the toss wins NFL overtime games about 54% of the time:

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/12/29/1...ck-receive

Interestingly, in college overtime, the team winning the toss (and choosing defense) wins about 55% of the time.  Here's a link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication...time_Games

While the preferred strategy differs between the NFL and the NCAA, the win probabilities for the preferred strategies are similar.  Before I searched for the above statistics, I expected that the coin toss winner would have a significantly higher win probability in the NFL than college because the NFL system doesn't guarantee a possession to the loser of the coin toss.

Geaux Cardinal!

[BigEasyCard]

Nobody is mentioning, unless I missed it, the loss of the coin toss in OT. Brady knew that the Falcons were shell shocked and went through them like Crazy Horse went through the Seventh. The only chance was to win the toss and find Jones and Hooper.

According to this site, the winner of the toss wins NFL overtime games about 54% of the time:

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/12/29/1...ck-receive

Interestingly, in college overtime, the team winning the toss (and choosing defense) wins about 55% of the time.  Here's a link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication...time_Games

While the preferred strategy differs between the NFL and the NCAA, the win probabilities for the preferred strategies are similar.  Before I searched for the above statistics, I expected that the coin toss winner would have a significantly higher win probability in the NFL than college because the NFL system doesn't guarantee a possession to the loser of the coin toss.

Geaux Cardinal!