78 replies to this topic

[Mackus]

When we went for it on 4th and 1, we were deep in their territory....which is obviously totally different than giving them the ball at our 40.

 

But we would've had a chip shot FG if we take the points.  Giving them an easy 3 and declining an easy 3 on our end is the same thing, no?

[SportsGuy]

But we would've had a chip shot FG if we take the points.  Giving them an easy 3 and declining an easy 3 on our end is the same thing, no?

Read the edit.

[SportsGuy]

I thought the kick was good, but there was no help for Tucker.  Someone has to beat the lead Pittsburgh man to that spot and blow him up so Tucker can recover the kick.  I don't know about Tucker tipping his hand, maybe he did but I didn't notice that, but if someone is near the ball and can make a block, we recover it.  It's like the front line of the Ravens kick team thought it was going deep or to another side and only Tucker knew it was going straight 10 yards.  Very poorly executed, though I've got no idea who made the mistake or wasn't on the right page, and I doubt we ever find out for sure.

That's the problem with those plays...it has to be executed 100% and if its not, it won't work.

[PD24]

I thought the kick was good, but there was no help for Tucker.  Someone has to beat the lead Pittsburgh man to that spot and blow him up so Tucker can recover the kick.  I don't know about Tucker tipping his hand, maybe he did but I didn't notice that, but if someone is near the ball and can make a block, we recover it.  It's like the front line of the Ravens kick team thought it was going deep or to another side and only Tucker knew it was going straight 10 yards.  Very poorly executed, though I've got no idea who made the mistake or wasn't on the right page, and I doubt we ever find out for sure.

 

He absolutely tipped his hand. The PIttsburgh defender started running over towards where Tucker was kicking the ball, rather than standing still getting ready to run backwards like normally would on a kickoff.

[mweb08]

The Bears got a surprise onsides kick against the Skins, but someone was offsides.

[Mackus]

That's the problem with those plays...it has to be executed 100% and if its not, it won't work.

 

They are recovered over 60% of the time when the are unexpected.  They don't have to be 100% perfectly executed to work.

 

http://www.profootba...percentage-play

[bnickle]

Feel and game situation still dictate to me when to go for it or not. I don't care if we were 60% to recover, I still wouldn't have attempted it.

 

Of course, I don't know watching at home when the Ravens will attempt a surprise onside kick. I can't first guess that, but I can say I wouldn't have attempted it there regardless.

[SportsGuy]

They are recovered over 60% of the time when the are unexpected.  They don't have to be 100% perfectly executed to work.

 

http://www.profootba...percentage-play

Of course they do..unless the other team is totally asleep.

 

Look at what happened yesterday...The Ravens were offsides and Tucker touched it a half yard too early.

 

That has nothing to do with what the other team is doing...That's on the Ravens...that's on execution.

[Mackus]

Of course they do..unless the other team is totally asleep.

 

Look at what happened yesterday...The Ravens were offsides and Tucker touched it a half yard too early.

 

That has nothing to do with what the other team is doing...That's on the Ravens...that's on execution.

 

The execution was far less than 100% perfect.  That's largely why it didn't work.   But you don't have to be utterly flawless to recover an onsides kick.  The kick could be 13 yards instead of 10 and you can still recover it even though it wasn't 100% perfect. 

 

You don't have to have 100% perfectexecution to recover an onsides kick.  That's hyperbole.  You have to execute well, but it's not some amazingly intricate thing that has to be without any room for error to have any hope of it working.  There is plenty of margin.  The Ravens were just well outside that margin yesterday, and that's on the Special Teams coach and the players.

[DuffMan]

It was a prettty good kick the problem was that the ball slowed down just a bit too much right before it went 10 yards.   Tucker caught up to the ball quickly and had to wait a couple of seconds before trying to pick it up.   What I want to know is how the Steeler player didn't get flagged for a helmet to helmet hit?  I saw Tuckers ear got messed up pretty bad, luckily he didn't get a concussion.

 

[SportsGuy]

The execution was far less than 100% perfect.  That's largely why it didn't work.   But you don't have to be utterly flawless to recover an onsides kick.  The kick could be 13 yards instead of 10 and you can still recover it even though it wasn't 100% perfect. 

 

You don't have to have 100% perfectexecution to recover an onsides kick.  That's hyperbole.  You have to execute well, but it's not some amazingly intricate thing that has to be without any room for error to have any hope of it working.  There is plenty of margin.  The Ravens were just well outside that margin yesterday, and that's on the Special Teams coach and the players.

I sort of agree...A lot of recovering an onside kick is luck.

 

Yes, it doesn't have to be 100% but come on, the execution has to be close to perfect.  No real mistakes can be made.

 

In a game that is almost always decided by 3 points, you handed them 3 points...That's terrible.  You can come up with all the percentages you want...they mean nothing.

Game situation, who you are playing, etc...That's what means the most.

[Mackus]

The game situation dictated that it made sense to go for it, IMO.  The defense was playing in a manner where the Steelers getting a TD on a short field wasn't terribly likely, but also in a manner where stopping them deep and forcing a punt wasn't terribly likely.

 

I'd think the Steelers were more likely to score a FG on that drive than typical, since the defense was in bend but don't break mode.  I don't think the extra 35 or so yards of field position really made a ton of difference in the expected points that the Steelers were looking at on that drive.  I had confidence that the defense would hold them to 3 if the Steelers got the ball down into FG range, but I didn't have a ton of confidence that the defense would prevent the Steelers from reaching FG range in the first place, even if they started on their own 20.

 

We didn't hand them 3 points.  We gambled with 40 yards of field position versus an extra possession.  Given how the defense was playing, I think that gamble made plenty of sense.

[SportsGuy]

The game situation dictated that it made sense to go for it, IMO.  The defense was playing in a manner where the Steelers getting a TD on a short field wasn't terribly likely, but also in a manner where stopping them deep and forcing a punt wasn't terribly likely.

 

I'd think the Steelers were more likely to score a FG on that drive than typical, since the defense was in bend but don't break mode.  I don't think the extra 35 or so yards of field position really made a ton of difference in the expected points that the Steelers were looking at on that drive.  I had confidence that the defense would hold them to 3 if the Steelers got the ball down into FG range, but I didn't have a ton of confidence that the defense would prevent the Steelers from reaching FG range in the first place, even if they started on their own 20.

 

We didn't hand them 3 points.  We gambled with 40 yards of field position versus an extra possession.  Given how the defense was playing, I think that gamble made plenty of sense.

And yet...it didn't work..again.

 

I would rather take my chances with the extra 40 yards.

[Mackus]

And yet...it didn't work..again.

 

I would rather take my chances with the extra 40 yards.

 

Again, hindsight.  If you've got 15 and the dealer has a King, and you hit and bust, that isn't a bad decision.

 

The onsides kick was defensible.  It was based on sound logic.  Going for the 4th and goal last week wasn't just defensible, it was inarguably the right decision, IMO.  Going for it on 4th down this week I didn't like, even though it worked.

[bnickle]

Again, hindsight.  If you've got 15 and the dealer has a King, and you hit and bust, that isn't a bad decision.

 

The onsides kick was defensible.  It was based on sound logic.  Going for the 4th and goal last week wasn't just defensible, it was inarguably the right decision, IMO.  Going for it on 4th down this week I didn't like, even though it worked.

No offense, but calling it inarguably the right decision means I would never hire you as an NFL HC. You're being a slave to the numbers.

 

 

It's like poker. You know sometimes it's correct to fold Aces preflop. You know you always have the best odds of winning a hand preflop but there are situations where it is correct to fold them preflop. The analogy isn't really comparable  but it's the first example I could think of where doing something that statistically is right isn't always the best real word decision.

[Mackus]

No offense, but calling it inarguably the right decision means I would never hire you as an NFL HC. You're being a slave to the numbers.

 

 

It's like poker. You know sometimes it's correct to fold Aces preflop. You know you always have the best odds of winning a hand preflop but there are situations where it is correct to fold them preflop. The analogy comparable really but it's the first example I could think of where doing something that statistically is right isn't always the best real word decision.

 

I'm not a slave to the numbers, I just think the odds of converting that 4th and 1 are certainly good enough to risk going for it plus also factoring in the silver linings that are present even if you fail to get the TD.  Even when we're struggling running the ball the chances of converting can't be worse than 1/3 or so (and I'd have pegged them as higher last week).  Those that were saying there was no chance of running it in there are just spouting hyperbole.  Not only did a running play in that situation have some chance of success, there were also tons of passing plays we could have called and made it work.  I never once said I thought it was smart to run it in that situation, just that going for it was obviously the right choice.  The downside is you get nothing, but have them pinned deep and can possibly get a safety or likely a short field on your next drive.  All those things considered made it make perfect sense to go for it from inside the 1 in the middle of the second quarter at home.

[SportsGuy]

I'm not a slave to the numbers, I just think the odds of converting that 4th and 1 are certainly good enough to risk going for it plus also factoring in the silver linings that are present even if you fail to get the TD.  Even when we're struggling running the ball the chances of converting can't be worse than 1/3 or so (and I'd have pegged them as higher last week).  Those that were saying there was no chance of running it in there are just spouting hyperbole.  Not only did a running play in that situation have some chance of success, there were also tons of passing plays we could have called and made it work.  I never once said I thought it was smart to run it in that situation, just that going for it was obviously the right choice.  The downside is you get nothing, but have them pinned deep and can possibly get a safety or likely a short field on your next drive.  All those things considered made it make perfect sense to go for it from inside the 1 in the middle of the second quarter at home.

Yes you are...IMO, you are ignoring what is happening on the field and going to your little book to dictate your decision.

[Mackus]

Yes you are...IMO, you are ignoring what is happening on the field and going to your little book to dictate your decision.

 

No I'm not.  Don't tell me what I'm thinking when I'm very clearly explaining it.  I think it's simplistic beyond reality to have been looking at the situation last week and simply said "we have no chance of running for 1 yard".  They weren't running well, but they were still capable of gaining a yard, they gained two on first down and one on second down.  So the argument that "there was no way they were getting that yard" is bogus.  Also, there isn't any rule against throwing the ball on 4th and goal, which is what I would have preferred.  So there were many options available.  The odds of converting weren't 80%, but they weren't 20% either.  I think the chances of scoring there were certainly high enough to dictate to go for it when considering the extra points you get for a TD compared to a field goal, combined with the mitigated penalty of not getting it since you're likely to get the ball back with great field position if you do fail to get the TD.  That's while considering the game situation and the Ravens lack of ability to control the line of scrimmage, I'm not ignoring that.

[SportsGuy]

No I'm not.  Don't tell me what I'm thinking when I'm very clearly explaining it.  I think it's simplistic beyond reality to have been looking at the situation last week and simply said "we have no chance of running for 1 yard".  They weren't running well, but they were still capable of gaining a yard, they gained two on first down and one on second down.  So the argument that "there was no way they were getting that yard" is bogus.  Also, there isn't any rule against throwing the ball on 4th and goal, which is what I would have preferred.  So there were many options available.  The odds of converting weren't 80%, but they weren't 20% either.  I think the chances of scoring there were certainly high enough to dictate to go for it when considering the extra points you get for a TD compared to a field goal, combined with the mitigated penalty of not getting it since you're likely to get the ball back with great field position if you do fail to get the TD.  That's while considering the game situation and the Ravens lack of ability to control the line of scrimmage, I'm not ignoring that.

Ok...if you aren't being a slave to the numbers, then you are just reading the game situation incorrectly.

 

And btw, if the numbers said that you get a surprise onside 30% of the time, I doubt you would be in favor of it like you are...so, you are being a slave to the numbers, even if that's not your intention.

 

I say this because since you have seen the 60% number, you seem to have been much more in favor of it.

[BSLChrisStoner]

Yes you are...IMO, you are ignoring what is happening on the field and going to your little book to dictate your decision.

 

Ehh, don't agree with that. I posted in the moment that I disagreed with Harbaugh and Mackus's thought on going for the onsides yesterday.... but that disagreement doesn't mean Mackus hasn't thought everything through. That is one of the things I respect most about him as a poster is that he comes to discussions clearly showing an all-encompassing thought process. 

I disagree with his conclusions here, but reasonable minds can disagree. Don't know that my disagreement makes him incorrect, or me correct.


As a side note to Mackus, thanks for researching the odds on an unexpected onsides. Further ammunition to your pov, but I still disagree.