The "official"whose gonna bail Omaha out of jail before kickoff game day thread!!

[Puck]

Originally Posted by rm1369

Sounds like he questions the play call, but not the decision to go for it. He said it was a clear go per their analytics. Said he wanted to put the game away because he didn’t want to face Watson on a 2 pt conversion (which he expected if they scored a TD). He also said you have to count the 4th and 4 call that went for a TD. Basically they netted a point by being aggressive and you can’t just complain when they don’t make it.

Oh I agreed to go for it. 3 points really wouldn't win the game. But the personnel and should have been with Taylor/Brissett in the game.

He should have called a TO to think it over.

[Colts And Orioles]

o


An extremely ballsy call would have been to put Brissett in the game, and have him do a play-action fake. Everybody who was playing (and watching) the game would have been gearing up for a QB sneak.

The risk would have been relying on Brissett to complete a pass to a receiver that likely would have been open ...... the element of surprise would have been strongly in favor of the Colts, but they also would have been attempting it with a QB whom is not particularly reliable in the first place, and who has thrown only 7 passes all season long in the second place.

o

[albany ed]

Originally Posted by TheMugwump

Frank is addicted to danger.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ieicflBG_Y

[Maniac]

`

Originally Posted by rm1369

Sounds like he questions the play call, but not the decision to go for it. He said it was a clear go per their analytics. Said he wanted to put the game away because he didn’t want to face Watson on a 2 pt conversion (which he expected if they scored a TD). He also said you have to count the 4th and 4 call that went for a TD. Basically they netted a point by being aggressive and you can’t just complain when they don’t make it.

Being aggressive at times is fine. At that point in the game, you put your team up by 7 and force them to score a TD AND a 2 point conversion if they want to beat you. If their analytics tells them otherwise, then their analytics is fucking dumb too.

[Racehorse]

Originally Posted by Maniac

1) Reich had no idea that if he failed we would get a safety
2) Safety put us up 6, so a TD beats us. If we just kicked the FG and put us up 7, then they are forced to score a TD and either tie the game or go for two and risk losing. That is a FAR better scenario than being up 4 or 6 after the safety. Not kicking the FG was fucking stupid.

I wasn’t saying the he knew. I am saying that he trusted the defense to get us the ball back, which they did.

[Maniac]

Originally Posted by Racehorse

I wasn’t saying the he knew. I am saying that he trusted the defense to get us the ball back, which they did.

Wait, so he trusted the defense to get us the ball back if we didn't convert the 4th down, but didn't trust them to kick the FG and then get it back? Does he trust them or doesn't he? From that video post game it sounded a lot more like he thought the Texans would drive down and score no matter what, which really isn't saying "I trusted our defense to get it back"

And that was pure dumb luck that the Texans get down to the goal line and then fuck up the snap. Sure the Colts defense jumped on the ball, but they didn't cause that to happen. It was extremely lucky that we got the chance to take advantage of their mistake and get a win after Reich's dumb call.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Maniac

`

Being aggressive at times is fine. At that point in the game, you put your team up by 7 and force them to score a TD AND a 2 point conversion if they want to beat you. If their analytics tells them otherwise, then their analytics is fucking dumb too.

I get disagreeing but the idea it is “fucking dumb” is a little out there. Even the IndyStar analysis that supported kicking seems to show a fairly small advantage by kicking (although they misrepresent their own numbers). First, kicking the field goal would actually lower their win chance by 1.5%. Converting would increase it by 4.5%. So a swing of 6% between kicking and going for it and converting. Going for it and not converting lowered their win % by 9.3%. That’s a net 7.8% difference between kicking and going for it and not converting (not the 10% the article says). The league average conversion rate on 4th and 1 is 56.3%. This hardly the obvious stupid call you are trying to make it out to be.

And none of that takes into account the 3rd string LT and the largely stagnant 2nd half offense. That is a major factor in my support for going for it. .

[Chromeburn]

Originally Posted by Colts And Orioles

o


An extremely ballsy call would have been to put Brissett in the game, and have him do a play-action fake. Everybody who was playing (and watching) the game would have been gearing up for a QB sneak.

The risk would have been relying on Brissett to complete a pass to a receiver that likely would have been open ...... the element of surprise would have been strongly in favor of the Colts, but they also would have been attempting it with a QB whom is not particularly reliable in the first place, and who has thrown only 7 passes all season long in the second place.

o

We seem to never run play action. I don’t know if they are worried the blocking not holding up or what. I’ve seen so many opportunities for it but it never comes.

[Maniac]

Originally Posted by rm1369

I get disagreeing but the idea it is “fucking dumb” is a little out there. Even the IndyStar analysis that supported kicking seems to show a fairly small advantage by kicking (although they misrepresent their own numbers). First, kicking the field goal would actually lower their win chance by 1.5%. Converting would increase it by 4.5%. So a swing of 6% between kicking and going for it and converting. Going for it and not converting lowered their win % by 9.3%. That’s a net 7.8% difference between kicking and going for it and not converting (not the 10% the article says). The league average conversion rate on 4th and 1 is 56.3%. This hardly the obvious stupid call you are trying to make it out to be.

And none of that takes into account the 3rd string LT and the largely stagnant 2nd half offense. That is a major factor in my support for going for it. .

Like I said, in certain circumstances it's fine, but at THAT point in the game, you take the points and get up by 7 points to force the texans hand. The analytics do not always tell the correct picture, that's why it's fine at times, and other times you have to actually think for yourself.

Having a 3rd string LT and a stagnant offense would make me even LESS inclined to go for it, because your chances of converting the 4th and short with backups is less than with starters. Do analytics take that into account? Of course not.

Take the points and make them score the TD and convert the 2 point play if they're going to beat you.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Maniac

Like I said, in certain circumstances it's fine, but at THAT point in the game, you take the points and get up by 7 points to force the texans hand. The analytics do not always tell the correct picture, that's why it's fine at times, and other times you have to actually think for yourself.

Having a 3rd string LT and a stagnant offense would make me even LESS inclined to go for it, because your chances of converting the 4th and short with backups is less than with starters. Do analytics take that into account? Of course not.

Take the points and make them score the TD and convert the 2 point play if they're going to beat you.

The analytics take into account the score and time remaining. They do not take into account the individual players (3rd string LT). We disagree, that’s fine. My only point was that it’s not obviously “fucking dumb”.