Game day coaching decisions...why so difficult?

[eball]

This is not a "fire Marrone" thread (it could be) but really just an effort to stimulate discussion about the issues so many of us are constantly frustrated by when we're watching the NFL -- in-game management and coaching decisions. I watch game after game and wonder to myself, "why didn't they do this or that?" It seems so simple, yet time after time these guys get it wrong and fall into the old school, traditional pattern of only doing what has done before, even if easily obtainable data suggests otherwise.

 

Some examples:

 

1. Punting when on the opponent's side of the 50 and it's 4th and <10.

 

It has been empirically shown that the expected success of going for it in these situations outweighs the expected risk, yet almost every coach ignores the data and "plays it safe." Early in games these decisions are less scrutinized, but examples such as Marrone calling for punts the last two weeks are glaringly bad decisions that may have directly impacted the results.

 

2. Not understanding basic risk strategy.

 

A week ago the Bills faced a 4th and 10 from the KC 15, trailing by only four points with over 3:00 on the clock and all three timeouts. Their defense had played lights out the entire game. Clearly, the best strategic play at that point was kicking a FG to get the Bills within a point and allowing their defense to get the ball back. Some will say Marrone was being "aggressive" with the play calling but I think it was desperation. The risk of not scoring at all and giving KC the ball far outweighed an extremely high-risk 4th down play, given the lack of success Orton was having at that point.

 

3. Not preparing a 4th down play in advance when it's 3rd-and-manageable.

 

How many times have we seen something like a 3rd and five on the opponent's side of the field, the team runs one play that doesn't get the first down, and then uses up the whole play clock on 4th down before either calling time out or punting? Why not actually plan to make the first down by calling two plays on 3rd, having the team no-huddle on 4th and perhaps preventing the defense an opportunity to prepare for the play? This lack of foresight and creativity annoys the hell out of me.

 

I know there are countless other examples of decisions like these, but does it really just come down to coaches being "afraid" to be wrong? If I were a head coach in the NFL I would hire a guy who specifically drilled down all of these data points on a weekly basis and had a direct feed to my headset on game days. I would have multiple play packages for 3rd and 4th down ready during the week that my team practiced. Why is this stuff so hard?

 

I wouldn't worry about being "wrong" because I could stand up at any post game press conference and confidently state that my decisions are backed up by statistics -- and not simply a gut "feel."

 

Anyone have thoughts on this? Am I off base? Please try to keep it reasonably intellectual and don't use it as an opportunity to just trash the Bills' staff.

[bananathumb]

Well, I was a head coach of a high school team and called the plays. It IS difficult to prepare, then adapt to game situations, especially if the opposing coach is smarter, better prepared or simply has a better team. I consider myself a failure as a coach, yet still curse guys like Hackett for their calls, because there ARE coaches around like Belichick who are simply better prepared and better at adapting.

For example, BB will figure out the opposition's weak link on D and attack the crap out of it. Other coaches don't seem to do this. On defense, Belichick will figure out the QB's weakness and which OLineman can be beat and attack that spot. In football, coaching is about 50% of the game and let's face it, guys like Jimmy Johnson are smarter than guys like Marv Levy, let alone Douglas Marrone ...

or me!

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

Please try to keep it reasonably intellectual

 

good luck with that

[NoSaint]

Agree. And beyond that if you commit to making the right decisions you'll be able to not just point at stats but results over the course of 2 seasons

[Wayne Cubed]

It still chaps my ass that Marrone said is his opening press conference that the Billd were going to be innovative. Be at the forefront. Have a robust analytics department.

 

Well the analytics say a QB sneak on 4th and inches is 80% successful. Why would you stand up in a press conference after a game and saying going for it in that situation "didn't even cross your mind." An innovator would go for it. They would be thinking on 3rd down that not matter the outcome we have a play ready for 4th down. Not try to draw the other team offsides which is like 20% successful.

 

The going for it on 4th and 10 and not taking the FG doesn't bother me as much. Going for the win is never wrong and the chance of winning % isn't that different.

 

Now the 4th and 6 on Thursday he claims the "numbers were against it". Again he was wrong and I gurantee he didn't look at the numbers because if he did, they say go for it. The Bills were down 2 scores. 2 scores.

[NoSaint]

It still chaps my ass that Marrone said is his opening press conference that the Billd were going to be innovative. Be at the forefront. Have a robust analytics department.

 

Well the analytics say a QB sneak on 4th and inches is 80% successful. Why would you stand up in a press conference after a game and saying going for it in that situation "didn't even cross your mind." An innovator would go for it. They would be thinking on 3rd down that not matter the outcome we have a play ready for 4th down. Not try to draw the other team offsides which is like 20% successful.

 

The going for it on 4th and 10 and not taking the FG doesn't bother me as much. Going for the win is never wrong and the chance of winning % isn't that different.

 

Now the 4th and 6 on Thursday he claims the "numbers were against it". Again he was wrong and I gurantee he didn't look at the numbers because if he did, they say go for it. The Bills were down 2 scores. 2 scores.

 

Agree the whole way.

 

The only thing on the 4 and 10 is if he knows it's 4 down territory I don't know 4 shots in the endzone is the smart way to play it. The chess match of planning 4 moves ahead didn't seem right there, but that's just my opinion.

[mannc]

This is not a "fire Marrone" thread (it could be) but really just an effort to stimulate discussion about the issues so many of us are constantly frustrated by when we're watching the NFL -- in-game management and coaching decisions. I watch game after game and wonder to myself, "why didn't they do this or that?" It seems so simple, yet time after time these guys get it wrong and fall into the old school, traditional pattern of only doing what has done before, even if easily obtainable data suggests otherwise.

 

Some examples:

 

1. Punting when on the opponent's side of the 50 and it's 4th and <10.

 

It has been empirically shown that the expected success of going for it in these situations outweighs the expected risk, yet almost every coach ignores the data and "plays it safe." Early in games these decisions are less scrutinized, but examples such as Marrone calling for punts the last two weeks are glaringly bad decisions that may have directly impacted the results.

 

2. Not understanding basic risk strategy.

 

A week ago the Bills faced a 4th and 10 from the KC 15, trailing by only four points with over 3:00 on the clock and all three timeouts. Their defense had played lights out the entire game. Clearly, the best strategic play at that point was kicking a FG to get the Bills within a point and allowing their defense to get the ball back. Some will say Marrone was being "aggressive" with the play calling but I think it was desperation. The risk of not scoring at all and giving KC the ball far outweighed an extremely high-risk 4th down play, given the lack of success Orton was having at that point.

 

3. Not preparing a 4th down play in advance when it's 3rd-and-manageable.

 

How many times have we seen something like a 3rd and five on the opponent's side of the field, the team runs one play that doesn't get the first down, and then uses up the whole play clock on 4th down before either calling time out or punting? Why not actually plan to make the first down by calling two plays on 3rd, having the team no-huddle on 4th and perhaps preventing the defense an opportunity to prepare for the play? This lack of foresight and creativity annoys the hell out of me.

 

I know there are countless other examples of decisions like these, but does it really just come down to coaches being "afraid" to be wrong? If I were a head coach in the NFL I would hire a guy who specifically drilled down all of these data points on a weekly basis and had a direct feed to my headset on game days. I would have multiple play packages for 3rd and 4th down ready during the week that my team practiced. Why is this stuff so hard?

 

I wouldn't worry about being "wrong" because I could stand up at any post game press conference and confidently state that my decisions are backed up by statistics -- and not simply a gut "feel."

 

Anyone have thoughts on this? Am I off base? Please try to keep it reasonably intellectual and don't use it as an opportunity to just trash the Bills' staff.

Agree on example 1. You are wrong about example 2; the numbers favor going for it on fourth down there, but only slightly. There were numerous threads on this last week so I won't belabour the point. I simply don't understand your point on example 3 and I don't recall seeing Marrone doing it. Why would it matter anyway? A better example is teams lining up with an empty backfield on 3d and 3 in a situation where they are (or should) go for it on 4th. That really bugs me.

[plenzmd1]

I really think it comes down to passing blame and keeping a job. Again, not my thesis, but Eaterbrook's, and i have come around to his way of thinking.

 

I posted in another thread from Marones Press conference on Friday. In essence he said of the punt on 4th" i did not want to take the game away from the players"

 

In other words, i made the right decision, the players just could not execute.

 

He followed it up with" i believe all of my colleagues that are head NFL coaches would make the same decision"

 

IN other words, don't fire me for something everyone else would do...again not my fault..

 

BTW, pervasive at every level. I was at the Richmond game yesterday vs JMU in what amounted ta an elimination game for the FCS playoffs.

 

Richmond down 48-20, 4th and 6 from their 43, 2 minutes left in 3rd quarter. Boom goes the punt as Easterbrook would say, game over, I left right there, Richmond lost game 55-20

Edited November 16, 2014 by plenzmd1

[eball]

Agree on example 1. You are wrong about example 2; the numbers favor going for it on fourth down there, but only slightly. There were numerous threads on this last week so I won't belabour the point. I simply don't understand your point on example 3 and I don't recall seeing Marrone doing it. Why would it matter anyway? A better example is teams lining up with an empty backfield on 3d and 3 in a situation where they are (or should) go for it on 4th. That really bugs me.

 

Point 3 is just an overall sense of knowing what you want to do in advance and reacting quickly rather than giving your opponent a chance to prepare.

 

As for point 2, I agree it's a close call but the circumstances dictated kicking the FG. Much easier to drive 25-35 yards for a game-winning FG attempt than having to drive 60-70 for game-winning TD. Odds of success on 4th and 10 were slight. And as NoSaint points out, the whole strategy from the 15 was horrid to begin with (four throws to the end zone).

 

I really think it comes down to passing blame and keeping a job. Again, not my thesis, but Eaterbrook's, and i have come around to his way of thinking.

 

I posted in another thread from Marones Press conference on Friday. In essence he said of the punt on 4th" i did not want to take the game away from the players"

 

In other words, i made the right decision, the players just could not execute.

 

He followed it up with" i believe all of my colleagues that are head NFL coaches would make the same decision"

 

IN other words, don't fire me for something everyone else would do...again not my fault..

 

And for those reasons, I don't want him as the Bills head coach. By going for it you're actually giving the players the power to win the game. That "taking the game away from the players" line is the most cowardly b.s. I've ever heard.

[26CornerBlitz]

Point 3 is just an overall sense of knowing what you want to do in advance and reacting quickly rather than giving your opponent a chance to prepare.

 

As for point 2, I agree it's a close call but the circumstances dictated kicking the FG. Much easier to drive 25-35 yards for a game-winning FG attempt than having to drive 60-70 for game-winning TD. Odds of success on 4th and 10 were slight. And as NoSaint points out, the whole strategy from the 15 was horrid to begin with (four throws to the end zone).

 

 

 

And for those reasons, I don't want him as the Bills head coach. By going for it you're actually giving the players the power to win the game. That "taking the game away from the players" line is the most cowardly b.s. I've ever heard.

 

Marrone is firmly entrenched in old school coaching mentality. He cannot escape the clutches of outdated thinking with regard to in game decision making. Rather than use analytics as a key part of their "process", he has instead eschewed taking advantage of the available data that could lead to more aggressive decision making to enhance the team's chances of winning in certain key situations that arise. IMO, it's rather pathetic given what we were sold in his initial presser after being hired by the Bills. Next!

[jr1]

He's afraid of his wife yelling about the mortgage if he takes a chance and gets fired because of it

[Big Turk]

Probably because there are so many things going on they are managing in realtime, plus the fact being raised in the environment they have been raised in makes it more difficult to step back and think outside of it.

 

It's like trying to figure out how to get out of a forest while being in the middle of it while we as fans are sitting up in a helicopter looking down saying how easy it is to get out. It might be, but we also might not see the fallen trees blocking the path, impassable areas, and rocks in the way that might need to change your plan.

 

Basically we sit on the outside looking over everything without knowing any of the details involved with being on the ground

[NoSaint]

Probably because there are so many things going on they are managing in realtime, plus the fact being raised in the environment they have been raised in makes it more difficult to step back and think outside of it.

 

It's like trying to figure out how to get out of a forest while being in the middle of it while we as fans are sitting up in a helicopter looking down saying how easy it is to get out. It might be, but we also might not see the fallen trees blocking the path, impassable areas, and rocks in the way that might need to change your plan.

 

Basically we sit on the outside looking over everything without knowing any of the details involved with being on the ground

But at what point does he have a compass that he decided he doesn't like using? There's a guide there for him and he disregards it.

 

I agree it's hard to change the thought process, especially in real time of a game but.... When you ignore the tools at hand you deserve to be challenged on the approach

[GunnerBill]

Agree the whole way.

 

The only thing on the 4 and 10 is if he knows it's 4 down territory I don't know 4 shots in the endzone is the smart way to play it. The chess match of planning 4 moves ahead didn't seem right there, but that's just my opinion.

 

That's what I didn't get. Fine take a shot on 1st down... then if it fails you have to think.... "I have 3 downs to get 10 yards" it also has the advantage that if it works you have killed a bit of clock and are giving KC the ball back with very little time left. They were playing deep protecting the endzone... there was underneath stuff there to be had. It was dreadful play calling.

[KD in CA]

1. Punting when on the opponent's side of the 50 and it's 4th and <10.

 

It has been empirically shown that the expected success of going for it in these situations outweighs the expected risk, yet almost every coach ignores the data and "plays it safe." Early in games these decisions are less scrutinized, but examples such as Marrone calling for punts the last two weeks are glaringly bad decisions that may have directly impacted the results.

 

Coaching herd mentality. It's even worse in baseball and you see it constantly (i.e., the 'closer' MUST pitch the 9th inning no matter how good the existing pitcher is going). It's essentially caving to the weakest part of human nature by not taking your best shot at success and totally infuriating.

[Prickly Pete]

Probably because there are so many things going on they are managing in realtime, plus the fact being raised in the environment they have been raised in makes it more difficult to step back and think outside of it.

 

It's like trying to figure out how to get out of a forest while being in the middle of it while we as fans are sitting up in a helicopter looking down saying how easy it is to get out. It might be, but we also might not see the fallen trees blocking the path, impassable areas, and rocks in the way that might need to change your plan.

 

Basically we sit on the outside looking over everything without knowing any of the details involved with being on the ground

 

Then how come some coaches consistently manage to make the right decision, and Marrone doesn't?

 

It's not arbitrary, it's being prepared. If he can't handle it himself, get an assistant to help.

 

I was all for considering it a 4-down situation in the KC game. I would have been pissed if he didn't go for it. BUT, chucking it into the end zone 4 plays in a row was stupid (some of that was likely Orton's fault).

Edited November 16, 2014 by HoF Watkins

[Gray Beard]

For calling plays, how much is on the coach and how much is on the QB? When a long throw to a well covered receiver running along the sideline is the third down drive killer, was that play called from the sideline, or did the QB think he could make that work? (it very rarely works). When there are twice as many pass plays as runs (or vice-versa) , was that because of the QB changing plays at the line, or was it called that way? When it is check down after check down, was that the intention, or is that the best that the QB thinks he can get? When running into the line or slowly developing draw plays are called over and over, is that the coach or the QB who doesn't realize what is going on?

 

I tend to think that Hackett draws up some nice plays, but they aren't getting executed. Is that because of fundamental QB limitations, or O-Line limitations, or is it because the guy designing the plays isn't necessarily the best guy for calling plays?

 

I think on this forum, half the people will say it is the QB limitations, and half will say it is the OC limitations. I wonder what the real story is.

[Prickly Pete]

For calling plays, how much is on the coach and how much is on the QB? When a long throw to a well covered receiver running along the sideline is the third down drive killer, was that play called from the sideline, or did the QB think he could make that work? (it very rarely works). When there are twice as many pass plays as runs (or vice-versa) , was that because of the QB changing plays at the line, or was it called that way? When it is check down after check down, was that the intention, or is that the best that the QB thinks he can get? When running into the line or slowly developing draw plays are called over and over, is that the coach or the QB who doesn't realize what is going on?

 

I tend to think that Hackett draws up some nice plays, but they aren't getting executed. Is that because of fundamental QB limitations, or O-Line limitations, or is it because the guy designing the plays isn't necessarily the best guy for calling plays?

 

I think on this forum, half the people will say it is the QB limitations, and half will say it is the OC limitations. I wonder what the real story is.

 

Yep.

It's hard to lay everything on the OC, when he is working within the limitations of the QB (and has to appease the head coach).

 

With the repeated runs in to the middle of the line though, if it is the QB, it's up to the OC or head coach to get the QB in line.

[Big Turk]

Then how come some coaches consistently manage to make the right decision, and Marrone doesn't?

 

It's not arbitrary, it's being prepared. If he can't handle it himself, get an assistant to help.

 

I was all for considering it a 4-down situation in the KC game. I would have been pissed if he didn't go for it. BUT, chucking it into the end zone 4 plays in a row was stupid (some of that was likely Orton's fault).

 

Considering Watkins was wide open running underneath on one of the early downs that would have resulted in a first down or possibly a touchdown, a lot was on Orton

[Prickly Pete]

Considering Watkins was wide open running underneath on one of the early downs that would have resulted in a first down or possibly a touchdown, a lot was on Orton

 

Yeah, that's why I mentioned Orton. Thanks very much.