[winflop]

I think I've finally seen a worse end game coaching job than David Shaw at the Fiasco Bowl.

Matt Nagy, the soon-to-be-former head coach of the Chicago Bears.

[winflop]

I think I've finally seen a worse end game coaching job than David Shaw at the Fiasco Bowl.

Matt Nagy, the soon-to-be-former head coach of the Chicago Bears.

[lex24]

Curious as to why. Didn’t Chicago miss a 40 yard field goal on the last play that would’ve won the game? What went on before hand. By the way Nagy is not going anywhere he was coach of the year last year

[lex24]

Curious as to why. Didn’t Chicago miss a 40 yard field goal on the last play that would’ve won the game? What went on before hand. By the way Nagy is not going anywhere he was coach of the year last year

[Farm93]

I think I've finally seen a worse end game coaching job than David Shaw at the Fiasco Bowl.

Matt Nagy, the soon-to-be-former head coach of the Chicago Bears.

You haven't seen a lot of football if that Fiesta Bowl was the worst you've ever seen.

Not even the worst end game coaching in the Pac-12 this decade.  Mike Leach probably has four or five games this decade, including one just 5 weeks ago, that would all be far worse than anything Shaw has ever done.   

For whatever reason Mike Leach never seems to do Coug-It vs. Stanford, but he has some epic awful endings against UCLA, UCB and many others.  For starters you can Youtube the ending on 9/21/2019.   There is nothing Shaw has ever done at any point in his career the begins to approach that effort.

Though I am sure the Coug fans appreciate your willingness to overlook the debacle.

[Farm93]

I think I've finally seen a worse end game coaching job than David Shaw at the Fiasco Bowl.

Matt Nagy, the soon-to-be-former head coach of the Chicago Bears.

You haven't seen a lot of football if that Fiesta Bowl was the worst you've ever seen.

Not even the worst end game coaching in the Pac-12 this decade.  Mike Leach probably has four or five games this decade, including one just 5 weeks ago, that would all be far worse than anything Shaw has ever done.   

For whatever reason Mike Leach never seems to do Coug-It vs. Stanford, but he has some epic awful endings against UCLA, UCB and many others.  For starters you can Youtube the ending on 9/21/2019.   There is nothing Shaw has ever done at any point in his career the begins to approach that effort.

Though I am sure the Coug fans appreciate your willingness to overlook the debacle.

[CTcard]

You haven't seen a lot of football if that Fiesta Bowl was the worst you've ever seen.

Not even the worst end game coaching in the Pac-12 this decade. 

Heck, that's not even close to the worst end game Shaw has produced.

I'd have to go way back to last year's finish vs UW to find something worse (at least if I remember the details correctly). With no timeouts and 2+ minutes to drive for a winning score, at least twice Shaw substituted players - thus forcing the refs to give UW time to match the substitutions, wasting a precious 30 seconds or so of critical time.  That's 1/4 of the total time available for the drive.
Not to mention Shaw's over-strong aversion to spiking the ball to save clock.

However, I'm still amazed that despite the near universal griping about Shaw's turtling to sit on leads, I don't think that turtling has ever caused us to come from ahead to lose a game. As you noted, many other coaches would have fared better with a bit of turtling.

[CTcard]

You haven't seen a lot of football if that Fiesta Bowl was the worst you've ever seen.

Not even the worst end game coaching in the Pac-12 this decade. 

Heck, that's not even close to the worst end game Shaw has produced.

I'd have to go way back to last year's finish vs UW to find something worse (at least if I remember the details correctly). With no timeouts and 2+ minutes to drive for a winning score, at least twice Shaw substituted players - thus forcing the refs to give UW time to match the substitutions, wasting a precious 30 seconds or so of critical time.  That's 1/4 of the total time available for the drive.
Not to mention Shaw's over-strong aversion to spiking the ball to save clock.

However, I'm still amazed that despite the near universal griping about Shaw's turtling to sit on leads, I don't think that turtling has ever caused us to come from ahead to lose a game. As you noted, many other coaches would have fared better with a bit of turtling.

[winflop]

So today's screwup: With just under a minute remaining and the ball at the Chargers' 20, Nagy elects to take a knee, run the clock down to 3 seconds, and then the kicker misses a 41-yarder and the Bears lose by 2.

I immediately thought of the Fiasco Bowl because of the similarities. Other mentions of even worse screwups may have been valid but I didn't see them - UW last year immediately comes to mind.

Nagy was very Shaw-esque in his postgame, stating strongly that he had zero thoughts about passing or running. Passing I get, running I don't. They had run for well over 150 yards already and the Chargers defense was gassed. Could have easily moved the ball another 10 yards and given his kicker a chip shot.

Nagy won't survive the season. Nor will Pace. Trubisky will be cut after the season ends. All moves will be addition by subtraction.

[winflop]

So today's screwup: With just under a minute remaining and the ball at the Chargers' 20, Nagy elects to take a knee, run the clock down to 3 seconds, and then the kicker misses a 41-yarder and the Bears lose by 2.

I immediately thought of the Fiasco Bowl because of the similarities. Other mentions of even worse screwups may have been valid but I didn't see them - UW last year immediately comes to mind.

Nagy was very Shaw-esque in his postgame, stating strongly that he had zero thoughts about passing or running. Passing I get, running I don't. They had run for well over 150 yards already and the Chargers defense was gassed. Could have easily moved the ball another 10 yards and given his kicker a chip shot.

Nagy won't survive the season. Nor will Pace. Trubisky will be cut after the season ends. All moves will be addition by subtraction.

[Farm93]

Heck, that's not even close to the worst end game Shaw has produced. 

I'd have to go way back to last year's finish vs UW to find something worse (at least if I remember the details correctly). With no timeouts and 2+ minutes to drive for a winning score, at least twice Shaw substituted players - thus forcing the refs to give UW time to match the substitutions, wasting a precious 30 seconds or so of critical time.  That's 1/4 of the total time available for the drive.
Not to mention Shaw's over-strong aversion to spiking the ball to save clock. 

I definitely agree with that.  Shaw's turtling is often hard to accept. 

I remember those player subs.  Shaw was actually shocked and frustrated that the other team slowly strolled out their subs in a manner that consumed most of the remaining time.  It was hard to believe Shaw didn't have set plays that any group of players on the field could quickly run for that scenario.

The Fiesta Bowl was in a dome with an amazing natural grass kicking surface.   The kick was going to be short and with a reliable kicker.   It didn't happen, but not hard to understand the choice.  It should have been fine.  In the end it might have been a key offseason catalyst for the 3 Rose Bowls in the next 4 years. 

The decade has been more than enough good to accept some turtling and excessively conservative play from time to time.

In those turtling times, I remind myself that the turtling and belief in a power oriented running game probably help Stanford land all of those 4 and 5 star TEs and OL that have offers to programs that often promise the moon but rarely use their TEs or a power run game.

[Farm93]

Heck, that's not even close to the worst end game Shaw has produced. 

I'd have to go way back to last year's finish vs UW to find something worse (at least if I remember the details correctly). With no timeouts and 2+ minutes to drive for a winning score, at least twice Shaw substituted players - thus forcing the refs to give UW time to match the substitutions, wasting a precious 30 seconds or so of critical time.  That's 1/4 of the total time available for the drive.
Not to mention Shaw's over-strong aversion to spiking the ball to save clock. 

I definitely agree with that.  Shaw's turtling is often hard to accept. 

I remember those player subs.  Shaw was actually shocked and frustrated that the other team slowly strolled out their subs in a manner that consumed most of the remaining time.  It was hard to believe Shaw didn't have set plays that any group of players on the field could quickly run for that scenario.

The Fiesta Bowl was in a dome with an amazing natural grass kicking surface.   The kick was going to be short and with a reliable kicker.   It didn't happen, but not hard to understand the choice.  It should have been fine.  In the end it might have been a key offseason catalyst for the 3 Rose Bowls in the next 4 years. 

The decade has been more than enough good to accept some turtling and excessively conservative play from time to time.

In those turtling times, I remind myself that the turtling and belief in a power oriented running game probably help Stanford land all of those 4 and 5 star TEs and OL that have offers to programs that often promise the moon but rarely use their TEs or a power run game.

[BostonCard]

Curious as to why. Didn’t Chicago miss a 40 yard field goal on the last play that would’ve won the game? What went on before hand. By the way Nagy is not going anywhere he was coach of the year last year

I suspect the criticism is the decision to take a knee with a 40-yard field goal rather than try to advance the ball to make it a shorter field goal.

Based on this diagram, the probability of making a 40-yard field goal (snapping from the 23) is about 80%.



Ultimately the question is what is the expected amount you can advance the football with a few extra snaps (probably 5 - 8 yards) and how much does that improve the probability of making a field goal (about 5% by eyeballing) versus the probability of fumbling the football (much less than 5%).  So yeah, bad decision going by the probabilities, but I think the OP exaggerated the impact.

BC

[BostonCard]

Curious as to why. Didn’t Chicago miss a 40 yard field goal on the last play that would’ve won the game? What went on before hand. By the way Nagy is not going anywhere he was coach of the year last year

I suspect the criticism is the decision to take a knee with a 40-yard field goal rather than try to advance the ball to make it a shorter field goal.

Based on this diagram, the probability of making a 40-yard field goal (snapping from the 23) is about 80%.



Ultimately the question is what is the expected amount you can advance the football with a few extra snaps (probably 5 - 8 yards) and how much does that improve the probability of making a field goal (about 5% by eyeballing) versus the probability of fumbling the football (much less than 5%).  So yeah, bad decision going by the probabilities, but I think the OP exaggerated the impact.

BC

[CTcard]

Three things about that chart.

1. My understanding is that in more recent years the probability of hitting a 40 yd FG is much higher than 80%, closer to 90% (though I cannot quite find that data right now).
2. Of course really what matters is the probability of Pineiro hitting that kick. I guess he's a new kicker, so perhaps less than average.
3. The chart indicates a data point of somebody attempting a FG from their own 10. Really?

... and for the nerds,
4. The overall shape looks suspiciously like the order parameter for a second order phase transition, roughly mean field. Ought to be able to come up with a pseudo-intellectual mechanism for that.

[CTcard]

Three things about that chart.

1. My understanding is that in more recent years the probability of hitting a 40 yd FG is much higher than 80%, closer to 90% (though I cannot quite find that data right now).
2. Of course really what matters is the probability of Pineiro hitting that kick. I guess he's a new kicker, so perhaps less than average.
3. The chart indicates a data point of somebody attempting a FG from their own 10. Really?

... and for the nerds,
4. The overall shape looks suspiciously like the order parameter for a second order phase transition, roughly mean field. Ought to be able to come up with a pseudo-intellectual mechanism for that.

[BostonCard]

Here’s the article...

http://www.decisionsciencenews.com/2013/...are-ready/

It looks like the very long field goal attempts are an artifact of the fact that the field goal length is yard line plus 17 yards, but when the field goal is snapped from the teams own side of the field it is actually distance minus 17.  So a 68 yard field goal, which was snapped 51 yards from the goal, was coded as being snapped from 85 yards from the goal line.

Looks like a couple of the others might have been incorrectly reported.

You are right about the kicker specific information, but you wind up with a bias/precision trade off.  You could also take into account field conditions, etc, but in truth you are going to have fewer attempts to make the estimate.

I think the bottom line is that a 40-yard field goal should be made most of the time, but that it probably could have been improved a bit.

BC

[BostonCard]

Here’s the article...

http://www.decisionsciencenews.com/2013/...are-ready/

It looks like the very long field goal attempts are an artifact of the fact that the field goal length is yard line plus 17 yards, but when the field goal is snapped from the teams own side of the field it is actually distance minus 17.  So a 68 yard field goal, which was snapped 51 yards from the goal, was coded as being snapped from 85 yards from the goal line.

Looks like a couple of the others might have been incorrectly reported.

You are right about the kicker specific information, but you wind up with a bias/precision trade off.  You could also take into account field conditions, etc, but in truth you are going to have fewer attempts to make the estimate.

I think the bottom line is that a 40-yard field goal should be made most of the time, but that it probably could have been improved a bit.

BC

[winflop]

A 40 yard FG is not a chip shot, especially with a rookie kicker. Nagy needed to at least try to move the ball another 5 or 10 yards.

[winflop]

A 40 yard FG is not a chip shot, especially with a rookie kicker. Nagy needed to at least try to move the ball another 5 or 10 yards.

[lex24]

Nagybisnt going anywhere. Frankly NFL kickers don’t miss those kicks very often. Bigger issue in Chicago is they blew No 1 pick in Trubisky. 


quote="winflop" pid='259195' dateline='1572273118']

A 40 yard FG is not a chip shot, especially with a rookie kicker. Nagy needed to at least try to move the ball another 5 or 10 yards.

[/quote]

---

---

[lex24]

Nagybisnt going anywhere. Frankly NFL kickers don’t miss those kicks very often. Bigger issue in Chicago is they blew No 1 pick in Trubisky. 


quote="winflop" pid='259195' dateline='1572273118']

A 40 yard FG is not a chip shot, especially with a rookie kicker. Nagy needed to at least try to move the ball another 5 or 10 yards.

[/quote]

---

---

[winflop]

Nagybisnt going anywhere. Frankly NFL kickers don’t miss those kicks very often. Bigger issue in Chicago is they blew No 1 pick in Trubisky. 

The Trubisky pick is on GM Ryan Pace, and when he goes, expect Nagy to go. A new GM is going to pick his own head coach.

Nagy isn't going to be fired just because of the end to the game yesterday. He is the offensive brain trust and the playcalling throughout the game was awful and has been for much of the season. For example, they ran ten plays in the red zone at the end of the half and came away with a FG. Six trips into the red zone yielded one TD, four FGs, and one missed FG. Technically the final drive didn't get into the red zone.

This team has a defense that is capable of going deep into the playoffs. But the offense - led by Nagy and Trubisky - is a bust.

[winflop]

Nagybisnt going anywhere. Frankly NFL kickers don’t miss those kicks very often. Bigger issue in Chicago is they blew No 1 pick in Trubisky. 

The Trubisky pick is on GM Ryan Pace, and when he goes, expect Nagy to go. A new GM is going to pick his own head coach.

Nagy isn't going to be fired just because of the end to the game yesterday. He is the offensive brain trust and the playcalling throughout the game was awful and has been for much of the season. For example, they ran ten plays in the red zone at the end of the half and came away with a FG. Six trips into the red zone yielded one TD, four FGs, and one missed FG. Technically the final drive didn't get into the red zone.

This team has a defense that is capable of going deep into the playoffs. But the offense - led by Nagy and Trubisky - is a bust.

[OutsiderFan]

Apparently, none of you saw how Freddie Kitchens got "FireKitchens" trending on Twitter yesterday.

I've seen enough from the Browns to conclude that if they had a real coach, they would in fact be good.

[OutsiderFan]

Apparently, none of you saw how Freddie Kitchens got "FireKitchens" trending on Twitter yesterday.

I've seen enough from the Browns to conclude that if they had a real coach, they would in fact be good.

[SamuelMcF]

Apparently, none of you saw how Freddie Kitchens got "FireKitchens" trending on Twitter yesterday.

I've seen enough from the Browns to conclude that if they had a real coach, they would in fact be good.

3 straight plays with an offensive turnover. Averaging 10 penalties per game, worst in the league. Hilarious.

Kitchens is in WAY over his head. Shades of Ben McAdoo's garbage tenure with the NY Giants - the QB picked the coach, and look what's happening.

[SamuelMcF]

Apparently, none of you saw how Freddie Kitchens got "FireKitchens" trending on Twitter yesterday.

I've seen enough from the Browns to conclude that if they had a real coach, they would in fact be good.

3 straight plays with an offensive turnover. Averaging 10 penalties per game, worst in the league. Hilarious.

Kitchens is in WAY over his head. Shades of Ben McAdoo's garbage tenure with the NY Giants - the QB picked the coach, and look what's happening.

[BostonCard]

Coaching seems to be a hard thing to do well.  Apparently 50% of coaches are below average.

BC

[BostonCard]

Coaching seems to be a hard thing to do well.  Apparently 50% of coaches are below average.

BC

[Goose]

Coaching seems to be a hard thing to do well.  Apparently 50% of coaches are below average.

BC

If one believes the fan boards, I think you will find 100% of them are incompetent idiots who should be replaced immediately.

[Goose]

Coaching seems to be a hard thing to do well.  Apparently 50% of coaches are below average.

BC

If one believes the fan boards, I think you will find 100% of them are incompetent idiots who should be replaced immediately.

[stupac2]

Coaching seems to be a hard thing to do well.  Apparently 50% of coaches are below average.

BC

There's obviously a lot to it, but there are a bunch of decisions these guys have to make that are, frankly, not that hard to get correct. Like, Andy Reid is a pretty fantastic offensive mind, but punting on 4th and 3 down 7 to a GB team that had been running all over you in the 2nd half was stupid. There are lots of other examples of this sort, obviously poor decisions that are totally inexcusable. That's the frustrating stuff to see as a fan of a team.

[stupac2]

Coaching seems to be a hard thing to do well.  Apparently 50% of coaches are below average.

BC

There's obviously a lot to it, but there are a bunch of decisions these guys have to make that are, frankly, not that hard to get correct. Like, Andy Reid is a pretty fantastic offensive mind, but punting on 4th and 3 down 7 to a GB team that had been running all over you in the 2nd half was stupid. There are lots of other examples of this sort, obviously poor decisions that are totally inexcusable. That's the frustrating stuff to see as a fan of a team.

[cardcrimson]

Coaching seems to be a hard thing to do well.  Apparently 50% of coaches are below average.

BC

And a baseball player who fails two thirds of the time is a hall of famer.

[cardcrimson]

Coaching seems to be a hard thing to do well.  Apparently 50% of coaches are below average.

BC

And a baseball player who fails two thirds of the time is a hall of famer.

[BostonCard]

So, your points are well-taken, of course, and you would think a coach who pursued a win-maximizing strategy would be duly rewarded.  However, there are several things that must also be considered.

The first is that coaches are humans, not automatons.  The coaches are making dozens of high-stakes decisions during the course of a football game, and decision fatigue is a well-characterized phenomenon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_fatigue). At the end of a night of game-changing decisions large and small, coaches will default away to easily available heuristics, one of which is another common human cognitive bias: preserving future choice.  A coach deciding between a win-maximizing choice to go for it on fourth and short on their own side of the field late in the game while trailing, and a punt that allows them to believe that if they force the other team to go three and out they can get the ball back with a minute left, will usually elect not to pursue the option that could result in the game being effectively over.   The widespread prevalence of these poor decisions (at one point in time, ESPN's Tuesday Morning Quarterback had a nearly weekly segment about stupid punting decisions) suggests that this isn't isolated to a few particularly bad coaches, and, in fact, it is the rare coach who breaks from the pack.  Add to that the fact that historically, coaches who took the conservative choice were rarely criticized for it, while those who took the aggressive choice and failed were, and for almost all of the history of football, the "wrong" choice was rewarded.  I think that has started to change with the widespread use of analytics, but old habits die hard.  I do expect to see an increase in the "more correct" strategy being employed going forward, as the next generation of coaches who is more facile with analytics comes to the fore.

I can't remember which coach it was, but I remember reading an article that one NFL coach had embraced analytics and had near real-time analysis provided by an analytics expert to supplement his decision making at key points in the game.  He said he didn't always default to what the computer said, but he said that it helped him a lot in his decision-making, especially in situations where his gut instinct and the computer diverged, by forcing him to question his assumptions.  I would love to see Stanford adopt it, but for all the positives I think of Shaw, this appears to be anathema to him.  You have to take the occasional bad punting decision with all the good he brings to the program.

BC

[BostonCard]

So, your points are well-taken, of course, and you would think a coach who pursued a win-maximizing strategy would be duly rewarded.  However, there are several things that must also be considered.

The first is that coaches are humans, not automatons.  The coaches are making dozens of high-stakes decisions during the course of a football game, and decision fatigue is a well-characterized phenomenon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_fatigue). At the end of a night of game-changing decisions large and small, coaches will default away to easily available heuristics, one of which is another common human cognitive bias: preserving future choice.  A coach deciding between a win-maximizing choice to go for it on fourth and short on their own side of the field late in the game while trailing, and a punt that allows them to believe that if they force the other team to go three and out they can get the ball back with a minute left, will usually elect not to pursue the option that could result in the game being effectively over.   The widespread prevalence of these poor decisions (at one point in time, ESPN's Tuesday Morning Quarterback had a nearly weekly segment about stupid punting decisions) suggests that this isn't isolated to a few particularly bad coaches, and, in fact, it is the rare coach who breaks from the pack.  Add to that the fact that historically, coaches who took the conservative choice were rarely criticized for it, while those who took the aggressive choice and failed were, and for almost all of the history of football, the "wrong" choice was rewarded.  I think that has started to change with the widespread use of analytics, but old habits die hard.  I do expect to see an increase in the "more correct" strategy being employed going forward, as the next generation of coaches who is more facile with analytics comes to the fore.

I can't remember which coach it was, but I remember reading an article that one NFL coach had embraced analytics and had near real-time analysis provided by an analytics expert to supplement his decision making at key points in the game.  He said he didn't always default to what the computer said, but he said that it helped him a lot in his decision-making, especially in situations where his gut instinct and the computer diverged, by forcing him to question his assumptions.  I would love to see Stanford adopt it, but for all the positives I think of Shaw, this appears to be anathema to him.  You have to take the occasional bad punting decision with all the good he brings to the program.

BC

[lex24]

The Browns have stunk since Bynum fumbled in the AFC Championship vs Denver. Why is it always the coach? I don’t know that they have the horses. Chubb is good. I’m not sure Mayfield is. I thought that was a lousy pick at the time - didn’t think he was the best quarterback in the draft.  Certainly not worthy of being number one pick. Plus he’s a jerk which at the quarterback position can hurt a team. I root for him to fail. 

Apparently, none of you saw how Freddie Kitchens got "FireKitchens" trending on Twitter yesterday.

I've seen enough from the Browns to conclude that if they had a real coach, they would in fact be good.

[lex24]

The Browns have stunk since Bynum fumbled in the AFC Championship vs Denver. Why is it always the coach? I don’t know that they have the horses. Chubb is good. I’m not sure Mayfield is. I thought that was a lousy pick at the time - didn’t think he was the best quarterback in the draft.  Certainly not worthy of being number one pick. Plus he’s a jerk which at the quarterback position can hurt a team. I root for him to fail. 

Apparently, none of you saw how Freddie Kitchens got "FireKitchens" trending on Twitter yesterday.

I've seen enough from the Browns to conclude that if they had a real coach, they would in fact be good.