medicineman Posted October 17, 2016 Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 I would just love to know why we can NEVER stop a team from scoring on the first drive of a game. 7 plays 75 yards straight down the field making us look like a joke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orion Posted October 17, 2016 Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 I would just love to know why we can NEVER stop a team from scoring on the first drive of a game. 7 plays 75 yards straight down the field making us look like a joke Um, because we don't have enough high quality players on the DL, LB, S or CB positions. As far as when to do the 2 point conversion...one could argue that you HAVE to try it at some point. If you miss it at the end of the game, you lose. If you miss it after the 1st TD then you know what you need to do to Still try and win the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medicineman Posted October 17, 2016 Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 I get what you are saying Orion, but we should be addressing this in practice and get better at some point. WE ARE NOT AN AWFUL TEAM we do have some decent guys, we just need to find the right fit at the right position. I do see some improvement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miktoxic Posted October 17, 2016 Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 Medicineman, i don't get ur posts at all.In one sentence u say give hue 3 seasons but then wonder why we can't stop a team from scoring.....????In other posts u say quit bitching about the draft but then go on to question why there is no good talent on the team...???I mean, wtf?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medicineman Posted October 17, 2016 Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 Drugs, and beer and weed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medicineman Posted October 17, 2016 Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 still a Browns fan and thanks for reading my posts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted October 17, 2016 Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 It doesn't completely, eliminate the option. Thanks for trying... seriously... I appreciate you took the time. I simply disagree... Go Browns... The Poyer hit was damn scary. League wants to stop head hits but that defenders shoulder pad hit Poyer square in the chest, not leaving anywhere else for his helmet to go but head. At that speed, just damn crazy $$..Good Luck, Jordon (contract season too) I would love to know what a legal block looks like in that situation. As I said in the Tavern... Punt Return Team ST'ers live for that set up. I would just love to know why we can NEVER stop a team from scoring on the first drive of a game. 7 plays 75 yards straight down the field making us look like a joke ... and the start of the 2nd half today as well. But opening drive scoring is not every week... it just seems that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrb12711 Posted October 17, 2016 Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 To repeat, the choice to go for two was a terrible, terrible coaching decision. Simply put (and to repeat), going for one there instead of two means you only need one onside kick to potentially tie the game as you are 8 points downs. Going for two and not getting it means you need two possessions (and thus two onside kicks) because you are down 9. Again, that is literally coaching 101 and Hue failed the test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted October 17, 2016 Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 Chose to replace my mom's hot water tank instead of watching the game, probably a good decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted October 17, 2016 Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 To repeat, the choice to go for two was a terrible, terrible coaching decision. Simply put (and to repeat), going for one there instead of two means you only need one onside kick to potentially tie the game as you are 8 points downs. Going for two and not getting it means you need two possessions (and thus two onside kicks) because you are down 9. Again, that is literally coaching 101 and Hue failed the test. Yes, that is what the announcer was saying. However, if you go for two and DO make it, it's a 7 point game. And then they just get the onside kick and don't have to go for two, they just kick the extra point and tie the game and go into overtime. Without Joe Haden, the already weak secondary was going to get gored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrb12711 Posted October 17, 2016 Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 Yes, that is what the announcer was saying. However, if you go for two and DO make it, it's a 7 point game. And then they just get the onside kick and don't have to go for two, they just kick the extra point and tie the game and go into overtime. Without Joe Haden, the already weak secondary was going to get gored. ..yes, that's theoretically how it would have played out. It doesn't change the fact at all that it was a terrible coaching decision for the reasons noted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted October 17, 2016 Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 Why, because they didn't make the 2 pt conversion? But if they HAD made it, it would have been a brilliant decision? eh......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted October 17, 2016 Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 Why, because they didn't make the 2 pt conversion? But if they HAD made it, it would have been a brilliant decision? eh......... No... would have still been the wrong decision. I can never remember seeing a HC go for 2 first in that situation... never. You play the odds of keeping hope alive. Hue's "you have to go for 2 at some point" just fell flat in his presser. Worse yet he said something about a basis "in information from sources I trust" which I took to be analytics from the FO. Just seemed off key given all his talk downplaying analytics in player decisions and the team being his. Had he said "I was going for the win in regulation" or even "I had a feeling that the Titans were reeling and wanted to strike then" then I would still disagree with the decision, but would credit him for a taking a reasonable stance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted October 17, 2016 Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 One other line of thought occurred to me along the lines of "keep hope alive" which impacted the Browns... the impact on the Titans. Late in the game... with momentum on the side of your opponent following a late score and a successful on-side kick... I'd estimate that the difference in the sphincter factors between defending an 8-point lead and a 9-point lead with 2:07 left is about an order of magnitude. With a 9-point lead the clock is on your side. You play loose simply softening the middle and inviting time-eating, short completions thus making the opponent use their timeouts... AKA a prevent defense. Even if a score is allowed you still have a second on-side kick and roughly 30 yards for the opponent to gain for a winning FG try on your side. The difference between a 7-point and 8-point? Negligible to slim... In both cases you have to defend the entire field to prevent a single score by an opponent in their "2 -minute drill". Even should they score and convert the 2-pt try, you still may have time and timeouts to mount your own final drive to win in regulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasAg1969 Posted October 17, 2016 Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 And if Hue still doesn't see it, well draw your own conclusions about his coaching. Good coaches go back and do two things, recognize mistakes and then ensure they never get repeated. If he can't do the first then there is no hope for the second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoorta Posted October 17, 2016 Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 ..yes, that's theoretically how it would have played out. It doesn't change the fact at all that it was a terrible coaching decision for the reasons noted. Why, because they didn't make the 2 pt conversion? But if they HAD made it, it would have been a brilliant decision? eh......... Sorry- I side with Tour and Ag on this one. You kick first, and go for two on the second. I've almost never seen it done the way Hue played it. You might posit the kick might have been missed- but the odds of that happening are way lower than trying to make a 2 point conversion. The missed two made it a two score game, and effectively- game over. I wuz there Cal. Way to take the wind out of your sails. As was said, the Titans just played soft D after we recovered the onside kick- almost zero probability we were going to recover a couple onside kicks as score twice with less than 2 minutes left. Gutsy move by Hue? Nah STUPID move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orion Posted October 17, 2016 Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 going for one there instead of two means you only need one onside kick to potentially tie the game as you are 8 points downs. Not if you don't make the 2 point conversion, you'd still need the ball again. Going for two and not getting it means you need two possessions (and thus two onside kicks) because you are down 9. But now you KNOW that and you play the game to try and GET 2 possessions. To me, the only difference is Karma. If you wait for the very end to go for 2 then, in theory, you've had momentum on your side......and it makes the end of the game more thrilling and entertaining. At the end of the day, the conversion failure is on Kessler. On a replay from behind the QB view, you could see that Ricardo Louis was WIDE OPEN....but Kessler held the ball and kept running before later throwing it behind him because a defender was coming in from the left. - 'Course, Louis had recently dropped a 1st down so I think Kessler gave one last look to Pryor hoping that he'd be an option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark O Posted October 17, 2016 Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 Sorry- I side with Tour and Ag on this one. You kick first, and go for two on the second. I've almost never seen it done the way Hue played it. You might posit the kick might have been missed- but the odds of that happening are way lower than trying to make a 2 point conversion. The missed two made it a two score game, and effectively- game over. I wuz there Cal. Way to take the wind out of your sails. As was said, the Titans just played soft D after we recovered the onside kick- almost zero probability we were going to recover a couple onside kicks as score twice with less than 2 minutes left. Gutsy move by Hue? Nah STUPID move. I didn't think it was the wrong move. It certainly might have been, I can see both sides of the argument. But the bottom line is we didn't lose this game because of the 2 point decision. This game was lost because the defense got shredded for 28 points and way too many big plays. The long run by Mariotta on the first drive and the 3 long passes on the other scoring drives. Until we have a defense who can hold opponents to less than 4 TD's, it's going to be tough to win much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gumby73 Posted October 17, 2016 Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 Hue's "you have to go for 2 at some point" just fell flat in his presser. Worse yet he said something about a basis "in information from sources I trust" which I took to be analytics from the FO. Just seemed off key given all his talk downplaying analytics in player decisions and the team being his. Had he said "I was going for the win in regulation" or even "I had a feeling that the Titans were reeling and wanted to strike then" then I would still disagree with the decision, but would credit him for a taking a reasonable stance. When I 1st heard this in the presser I paused it. Looked down coaching list to see Pep Hamilton as Asst. HC offense & QB coach. Al Saunders-Senior Offense Asst & WR coach..When i heard "trust" my 1st thought went to Al Saunders? even if i knew ana or lyntics their decision was ass backwards imo.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medicineman Posted October 18, 2016 Report Share Posted October 18, 2016 Well it does show that Hue believes in his guys. Just like the OT game and he wanted to kick. Even though I didn't agree with either call. I guess it is easy being an arm chair QB. If it helps bring the team together then hey do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted October 18, 2016 Report Share Posted October 18, 2016 I was at the game. I had no problem with Hue going for 2 when he did. He either had to do it there, or do it later IF they scored. No second guessing on that . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medicineman Posted October 18, 2016 Report Share Posted October 18, 2016 I was mad at first but after thought like somebody already pointed out, we had to go for 2 at some point so.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrb12711 Posted October 19, 2016 Report Share Posted October 19, 2016 Okay, let's try this with math because it clearly isn't going through to some of you. The average onside kick recovery percentage is roughly 20%. The average success of the 2 point conversion is about 50%. The extra point percentage is 94% (roughly). The Browns are down 15 points, thus need two scores with one successful 2 point conversion. The timing of the game also requires at least one onside kick. This of course removes the variable of scoring a TD which is a constant rate for both You have two scenarios: Option 1 (what occurred): Go for two on the first score-50% Get onside kick-20% Combined, that gives you a 35% chance of success. When you don't get the two point here, then you have to add in: Kicking extra point-94% Getting Onside kick-20% This gives you a combined 57% of succeeding. As such, the combined probability of this occurring in game was about 46%. Option B: The right decision Kicking extra point-94% Getting Onside kick-20% This gives you a combined 57% of succeeding. Go for two to tie the game on the second: 50% As such, the combined probability of this occurring in game was about 54% Removing the low probably variable of a second onside kick statistically gave us a much better chance to win. I literally can't make it clearer than that so I hope to God it goes through for someone here. EDIT: To add, this doesn't even include the fact that you have score another time in scenario A. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted October 19, 2016 Report Share Posted October 19, 2016 Okay, let's try this with math because it clearly isn't going through to some of you. Good effort... that will be completely ineffective... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrb12711 Posted October 19, 2016 Report Share Posted October 19, 2016 Good effort... that will be completely ineffective... What's that logic stuff ever gotten us anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasAg1969 Posted October 19, 2016 Report Share Posted October 19, 2016 What's that logic stuff ever gotten us anyway? A dismantled team and 0-6? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjh2130 Posted October 19, 2016 Report Share Posted October 19, 2016 Okay, let's try this with math because it clearly isn't going through to some of you. The average onside kick recovery percentage is roughly 20%. The average success of the 2 point conversion is about 50%. The extra point percentage is 94% (roughly). The Browns are down 15 points, thus need two scores with one successful 2 point conversion. The timing of the game also requires at least one onside kick. This of course removes the variable of scoring a TD which is a constant rate for both You have two scenarios: Option 1 (what occurred): Go for two on the first score-50% Get onside kick-20% Combined, that gives you a 35% chance of success. When you don't get the two point here, then you have to add in: Kicking extra point-94% Getting Onside kick-20% This gives you a combined 57% of succeeding. As such, the combined probability of this occurring in game was about 46%. Option B: The right decision Kicking extra point-94% Getting Onside kick-20% This gives you a combined 57% of succeeding. Go for two to tie the game on the second: 50% As such, the combined probability of this occurring in game was about 54% Removing the low probably variable of a second onside kick statistically gave us a much better chance to win. I literally can't make it clearer than that so I hope to God it goes through for someone here. EDIT: To add, this doesn't even include the fact that you have score another time in scenario A. In the first scenario if you get the first two point conversion than you don't have to kick the onside kick so eliminate the 20 percent on that and see what gives you the best probability? Because if I'm doing what I think you did50% 2 2pt try No onside kick throw in we have to get a stop at 30% when we know they are running the ball. (40% combined) 94% pat Combined 58% And before it's brought up in the option where you kick the pat first you are always going to onside kick following that because you aren't guaranteed to convert the two point conversion after a second touchdown. So you would onside kick it to try and save as much time and timeouts as possible in the case you do fail two point conversion. Also you added to first one if we don't convert the two point conversion then we would need to get another onside kick. Very true. But the same thing can be said for the second scenario which then makes them have the exact same probability. Which in that case you would want to have as much time as possible and how do you acheive that? By determining what you need as soon as possible which means going for two on the first score. So since the best odds would be to get the two the first time then kick away and play defense it can be argued he made the right call. Many many edits I apologize: I originally had the browns stop following kickoff way to high at 50% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrb12711 Posted October 20, 2016 Report Share Posted October 20, 2016 In the first scenario if you get the first two point conversion than you don't have to kick the onside kick so eliminate the 20 percent on that and see what gives you the best probability? Because if I'm doing what I think you did 50% 2 2pt try No onside kick 94% pat Combined 72% Even if you want to throw in we have to get a stop at 50% when we know they are running the ball. Still combined 61%. And before it's brought up in the option where you kick the pat first you are always going to onside kick following that because you aren't guaranteed to convert the two point conversion after a second touchdown. So you would onside kick it to try and save as much time and timeouts as possible in the case you do fail two point conversion. You have to onside kick the 1st time given the time, that's where everyone else you did falls apart. no way you don't onside kick after the first score, that's just incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjh2130 Posted October 20, 2016 Report Share Posted October 20, 2016 You have to onside kick the 1st time given the time, that's where everyone else you did falls apart. no way you don't onside kick after the first score, that's just incorrect. We had three timeouts and the two minute warning. You don't have to onside kick if you know you only need a touchdown and extra point. Edit to include time. We scored with I believe 2:07 left. If two point converted kick off through end zone which every kicker can do. No time. Run play average 4 seconds call timeout 2:02 left (taking a second off for refs to acknowledge t.o.) next play 4 seconds. Two minute warning 1:58 left. Third down if it's not incomplete pass 1:52 second timeout used. 4th down punt for shits and gigs let's give it 15 seconds which is insanely, long. We have the ball with 1:37 left and a timeout to go give or take 70 yards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrb12711 Posted October 20, 2016 Report Share Posted October 20, 2016 We had three timeouts and the two minute warning. You don't have to onside kick if you know you only need a touchdown and extra point. Edit to include time. We scored with I believe 2:07 left. If two point converted kick off through end zone which every kicker can do. No time. Run play average 4 seconds call timeout 2:02 left (taking a second off for refs to acknowledge t.o.) next play 4 seconds. Two minute warning 1:58 left. Third down if it's not incomplete pass 1:52 second timeout used. 4th down punt for shits and gigs let's give it 15 seconds which is insanely, long. We have the ball with 1:37 left and a timeout to go give or take 70 yards. You're right, and I didn't clarify so fair point. The reason you have to kick the onside there which Hue alluded to without saying (and I agree with) is simple-the defense wasn't going to stop them in that scenario. Hue was smart enough to realize that you have to try to get the ball back via onside because even with those variables I had about 0% faith in the defense holding them for three plays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.