BiggieScooby Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 Can't help but think, could taking a little more risk and trying outside of the box thinking help Chan Gailey turn things around? Sure! Will he do it? Probably not. My personal argument is even with 7 guys in the box, CJ, Fred & Tashard could probably get it to 4th & 2 or less on 75% of all offensive possessions simply lining up with 5 offensive linemen, 2 tight ends, and 1 wideout, with Corey McIntrye lead blocking. http://www.thepostga...-revolution-nfl
CFLstyle Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 (edited) This is a great point. I was listening to a program on our sports radio here in Toronto a couple of weeks ago, and they were talking about the psychology of coaches in the NFL, and how they very rarely take risks because they're coaching for their jobs. Generally the textbook has become 'punt or kick on fourth and one', and to be conservative most of the time. So I guess the idea is if they feel like they're going by the textbook they're less likely to be criticized. I thought of this during the Titans game when they kicked a field goal on fourth and one near the red zone, I remember getting very frustrated because the running backs were dominating and it was a high-scoring game. Three points did little good, and they were moving the ball so well, why not keep it going? I keep thinking, if I were a coach, most of the time I'd probably go for fourth and three or less if I'm across midfield -- obviously depending on the score of the game and the situation. Who knows though, maybe it's different in the shoes of an NFL head coach. Basically my mentality on fourth down is this: if you don't think you can get a single yard, or even two or three yards, then why bother playing the game? The average play is much higher than a yard that's for sure. The odds are in your favour. That seems to be Chip's thought process too. Edited November 8, 2012 by CFLstyle
CardinalScotts Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 College football is predictable and a game of mismatches...1 or 2 guys who might make it in the NFL on a guy who isnt even on scholarship.....NFL they are all good
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 If a coach is willing to be unconventional and plan to go for it on 4th down it could change their entire play calling strategy.
Section242 Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 Gailey would rather have Fitz throw than to hand the ball to Spiller or Jackson. It shouldn't even be Spiller or Jackson just Spiller. Mike Schopp always calls for this.
NoSaint Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 This is a great point. I was listening to a program on our sports radio here in Toronto a couple of weeks ago, and they were talking about the psychology of coaches in the NFL, and how they very rarely take risks because they're coaching for their jobs. Generally the textbook has become 'punt or kick on fourth and one', and to be conservative most of the time. So I guess the idea is if they feel like they're going by the textbook they're less likely to be criticized. I thought of this during the Titans game when they kicked a field goal on fourth and one near the red zone, I remember getting very frustrated because the running backs were dominating and it was a high-scoring game. Three points did little good, and they were moving the ball so well, why not keep it going? I keep thinking, if I were a coach, most of the time I'd probably go for fourth and three or less if I'm across midfield -- obviously depending on the score of the game and the situation. Who knows though, maybe it's different in the shoes of an NFL head coach. Basically my mentality on fourth down is this: if you don't think you can get a single yard, or even two or three yards, then why bother playing the game? The average play is much higher than a yard that's for sure. The odds are in your favour. That seems to be Chip's thought process too. There's a balance. Average yardage per play tightens up as each yard gets more important too (for instance on 3rd/4th and 1). Explosive plays being big numbers vs even the worst losses being small also effects that perception. I think generally coaches are overly conservative, but I don't think it's as bad as some of us arm chair GMs make it out to be. You miss a couple of those shots in a row and you can get knocked out of a game real quick.
Dragonborn10 Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 There is a massive difference between fourth and inches and fourth and 2. I can not recall a QB sneak for fourth and inches failing. I'm sure it has but I can not remember a single attempt failing. Fourth and two is much different. That is not a QB sneak play. If it is a run it involves a hand off in the backfield. Not infrequently DB's and safeties are coming off the edge and disrupting the play in the backfield as the defense play man with no safety over the top figuring it will be a run. That being said 4th and 2 on the opponents 37 early in the game I say go for it. How often do you see a punt for a ttouch-backand all you net is 17 yards. If you are playing with a lead sure maybe you try to pin them deep. But a missed FG is worse than failing to get the first down. The best idea is to know ahead of time that if they are facing a fourth and short the QB can go no huddle and try to get the defense to at least burn a time-out or catch them unprepared. Oregon does that very very well.
TheBlackMamba Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 (edited) http://www.thepostga...-revolution-nfl Just read this article on Chip Kelly, and how basically he has revolutionzed college football based on mathematics. He goes for it on 4th and short, almost never kicks fg's or punts, goes for onsides kicks, etc.. all based on mathematics. The article goes on how to mention how the Dolphins went 1-18 in their previous 19 games but implemented the wildcat they went 11-3 on their way to winning the division and making the playoffs. The wildcat was thought of as a gimmick but now 50% of teams run some sort of variation of it. If Chip Kelly were to come to the NFL his style would be though of as a gimmick until he starts winning. Not saying he would come to Buffalo because why would he leave Oregon, where he can field a national championship contender every year, incredible facilities pretty and pretty awesome uni's. (The article also mentions that he turned down Tampa last year because he had "unfinished business" at Oregon. So good luck trying to get him to come to Buffalo) This is exactly what the Bills need to break out of the irrevelant malayse they're in. They need creativity. They need to do something different. If you're going to go 5-11, 6-10, 7-9 do it being creative so than you have something to build of off, instead of finishing .500 or worse EVERY year. This "Moneyball" revolution for footbal would be a great way to attract FA's, coaches, young front office talent to want to be here. I know it will likely never happen but just an idea. Edited November 8, 2012 by TheBlackMamba
CodeMonkey Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 Can you imagine old school Buddy Nix hiring a radical coach like this?
BuffOrange Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 This is a great point. I was listening to a program on our sports radio here in Toronto a couple of weeks ago, and they were talking about the psychology of coaches in the NFL, and how they very rarely take risks because they're coaching for their jobs. Generally the textbook has become 'punt or kick on fourth and one', and to be conservative most of the time. So I guess the idea is if they feel like they're going by the textbook they're less likely to be criticized. This is unequestionably true. Ron Rivera took comparatively little heat for a gutless punt in Atlanta than other coaches have for 4th downs that failed.
inkman Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 Just read this article on Chip Kelly, and how basically he has revolutionzed college football based on mathematics. He goes for it on 4th and short, almost never kicks fg's or punts, goes for onsides kicks, etc.. all based on mathematics. Mathematics dictates teams should kick onsides every time. Does Oregon? The article goes on how to mention how the Dolphins went 1-18 in their previous 19 games but implemented the wildcat they went 11-3 on their way to winning the division and making the playoffs. The wildcat was thought of as a gimmick but now 50% of teams run some sort of variation of it. The wildcat is dying in the NFL because it's much more easily defended in the NFL with bigger faster players at all positions. This is exactly what the Bills need to break out of the irrevelant malayse they're in. They need creativity. They need to do something different. If you're going to go 5-11, 6-10, 7-9 do it being creative so than you have something to build of off, instead of finishing .500 or worse EVERY year. This "Moneyball" revolution for footbal would be a great way to attract FA's, coaches, young front office talent to want to be here. I know it will likely never happen but just an idea. If we're going to use "mathematics", the odds are severely slanted against Chip being a success in the NFL. He will not have the luxury of recruiting every blue chip prospect within 1000 miles because of cool looking Uni's and playing against over matched defenses on a weekly basis.
TheBlackMamba Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 (edited) Mathematics dictates teams should kick onsides every time. Does Oregon? The wildcat is dying in the NFL because it's much more easily defended in the NFL with bigger faster players at all positions. If we're going to use "mathematics", the odds are severely slanted against Chip being a success in the NFL. He will not have the luxury of recruiting every blue chip prospect within 1000 miles because of cool looking Uni's and playing against over matched defenses on a weekly basis. Did you read the article? Or are you just trying to poke holes in it for f#$ks sake? No, he doesn't go for onsides kicks everytime but he opts to do so when the mathematical odds are in his favor. The article wasn't suggesting the wildcat is effective. It was stating that a team that went 1-15 the previous year and started 0-2, used a "gimmick" formation and proceeded to go 11-3 and to a division title. It was something DIFFERENT and CREATIVE to break them out of their 1-17 stetch. Something the NFL hadn't seen before. The article isnt about the spread offense. It's about his style and how its already making it's way into the NFL. The same two astrophysicists that Chip Kelly gets his data from, consulted with Bill Bellichek and Sean Payton (two of the more aggresive coaches in the NFL). Bellicheck and Payton goes for it more often than not on 4th and short. I think an untimely onside kick helped win Payton a Super Bowl... Wouldn't you like to try it out and try something DIFFERENT and CREATIVE for your team? See the thing with the Bills is throughout the last 12 years, they havent done anything creative and have still managed to suck. If you're going to suck, at least be entertaining and try to build on something on your way to no sucking anymore. Edited November 8, 2012 by TheBlackMamba
Sisyphean Bills Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 Mathematics dictates teams should kick onsides every time. Does Oregon? The wildcat is dying in the NFL because it's much more easily defended in the NFL with bigger faster players at all positions. If we're going to use "mathematics", the odds are severely slanted against Chip being a success in the NFL. He will not have the luxury of recruiting every blue chip prospect within 1000 miles because of cool looking Uni's and playing against over matched defenses on a weekly basis. Actually, Oregon doesn't get the best athletes. If you look at how they do in the draft, many of their better players fall well down the draft board. LaMichael James, who was Kelly's most dynamic player at Oregon, went in the 2nd round. Compare that to USC's track record. Still, I tend to agree that it would be rather difficult to recreate the system at the NFL level. You can fake some of the people out of their jocks some of the time, but not the best of the best all of the time.
inkman Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 (edited) Did you read the article? Or are you just trying to poke holes in it for f#$ks sake? I read it. I'm all for the "moneyball" approach using advanced stats for decision making in the NFL. The problem is, Chip Kelley won't have the luxury of having players bigger, faster (and I mean WAYYY faster), and stronger across the board. I'm not arguing that it won't work. It's a hell of a lot easier going for it on 4th and 2 with LeMichael James in your back field going against defenses filled with future grocery store clerks than it is in the NFL going against Ray Lewis, Haloti Ngata, and Ed Reed. I think the old guard in the NFL is antiquated in their decision making. Punting inside your own 40 let alone 50, moronic. Kicking field goals inside your own 5 let alone the 20 yard line, idiotic. Every game there are a dozen times coaches make these calls. If they did the opposite, half the fan base would want them tar and feathered. It will change but it's going to be cultural. It's going to have to come from the top down. It's a lot easier to make these calls with Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers than Ryan Fitzpatrick or Michael Vick. Actually, Oregon doesn't get the best athletes. If you look at how they do in the draft, many of their better players fall well down the draft board. LaMichael James, who was Kelly's most dynamic player at Oregon, went in the 2nd round. Compare that to USC's track record. While I know where you are going with this, I'd still argue that he gets his share of the best COLLEGE athletes. Unfortunately, most of them are not adequately sized for the NFL. Edited November 8, 2012 by inkman
PatsFanNH Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 (edited) BlackMamba, The Phins EXAMPLE is scewed and the writer KNOWS it, The year they introduced the wildcat and "changed" their fortuins was hmm the same year Brady went down with his ACL... Brady stays healthy the Phins are HOME for the playoffs. (I don't think I am being a Pats Homer thinking Brady win ONE more game than Cassell right?) Also 50% of NFL teams use the wildcats, now lets look at the teams that dont and see if we see a comman thread ok? NE Indy Houston Baltimore Pittsburg SD Denver (W Manning) NY Giants Atlanta Green Bay Chicago Detroit Do I have to continue the teams that are contenders dont need the WILDCAT gimmick... IMO this guys style be a disaster and he go 1-15 with a bad club he would inherit. Edited November 8, 2012 by PatsFanNH
filthymcnasty08 Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 BlackMamba, The Phins EXAMPLE is scewed and the writer KNOWS it, The year they introduced the wildcat and "changed" their fortuins was hmm the same year Brady went down with his ACL... Brady stays healthy the Phins are HOME for the playoffs. (I don't think I am being a Pats Homer thinking Brady win ONE more game than Cassell right?) Also 50% of NFL teams use the wildcats, now lets look at the teams that dont and see if we see a comman thread ok? NE Indy Houston Baltimore Pittsburg SD Denver (W Manning) NY Giants Atlanta Green Bay Chicago Detroit Do I have to continue the teams that are contenders dont need the WILDCAT gimmick... IMO this guys style be a disaster and he go 1-15 with a bad club he would inherit. Well played.
bmur66 Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 The math has never been a secret. Problem is no coach in the NFL has the coyones to do it.
NoSaint Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 The math has never been a secret. Problem is no coach in the NFL has the coyones to do it. The math is also not as simple - individual matchups, situational issues, etc..... Make it harder to pull the trigger. Coaches definitely err on the side of conservative but its often a tough call.
Recommended Posts