can't argue with this

[BuffOrange]

I thought it was against New England in a game we really needed to win - we were leading the division and I think he punted from the 32.

511059[/snapback]

 

Yes, it was from the 32 and we were trailing 17-3. Bellicheck went for it in the same situation on the following possession and they scored a TD.

[JDG]

If that's the case, explain the 4th and whatever against the chiefs.

511115[/snapback]

 

If I was the Chiefs, I actually would have punted on 3rd Down in that situation.....

 

JDG

[BuffOrange]

1) Easterbrook errors of the week #1:

 

"Seven-man blitz, each Eagle handing out cards that say, 'Please score an easy touchdown.'"

 

Right, the fact that big blitzes are such a bad idea explains why Pittsburgh consistently has one of the worst defenses in the League.

 

2) Easterbrook errors of the week #2:

"David Carr heave-hoes into triple coverage,"

 

Uhhh.... has anyone ever seen an NFL defense order "triple coverage" - on a *sideline route*?    How *does* that work, exactly?

 

3) Easterbrook errors of the week #3:

Trailing the defending champions 24-17, the United States Saints had second-and-10 on the New England 22 with 15 seconds remaining, no timeouts. On both of the game's final snaps, Aaron Brooks heave-hoed into the end zone, incomplete. But the end zone is where the Patriots expected the Saints to throw -- there were a half-dozen defenders in the end zone on both plays. Throw underneath and give somebody a chance to run it in!

 

I can't believe that Easterbrook was even stupid enough to write this.

 

4) Easterbrook error of the week #4:

Preposterous Punt Bonus: Trailing 9-0, Nick Saban ordered a punt from the Cleveland 33. Game scoreless, Jim Haslett ordered a punt from the New England 32. The Bills, Dolphins and Saints all punt in opposition territory, and let's see how this daring strategy works out -- hmm, the teams are a combined 9-21.

 

Well, let's see, on the opening drive of the game, the Saints have 4th and 13 from the NE 32.  They can either go for it, attempt a 50 yard FG into the wind, or punt.  The Saints punt and down the ball on the 2.  *Right Call*.

 

Down 9-0 in the 1st quarter, the Fish face 4th and 20 from the Cleveland 38.  They can either go for it, attempt a 56 yard FG, or punt.  They punt, and it goes out of bounds at the 10.  *Right Call.*

Anyhow, I'm bored.  Debunking Easterbrook is like shooting fish in a barrel....

511028[/snapback]

 

I agree with your first 3 points and the fact that he stretches things to make his point - for example - he never points out blitzes that work, or "safe" defenses that get burned.

But I do agree with him that punting from inside the 40 is usually "Dawgged". The fact that those punts were downed or went out of bounds inside the 10 is results-oriented and really doesn't matter. Before you punt you have to realize there's at least a 50/50 chance of it resulting in a touchback and a mere 15-18 yards net.

[MRW]

I agree with your first 3 points and the fact that he stretches things to make his point - for example - he never points out blitzes that work, or "safe" defenses that get burned.

But I do agree with him that punting from inside the 40 is usually "Dawgged".  The fact that those punts were downed or went out of bounds inside the 10 is results-oriented and really doesn't matter.  Before you punt you have to realize there's at least a 50/50 chance of it resulting in a touchback and a mere 15-18 yards net.

511135[/snapback]

He does have a point about punts when you have makeable first down or you're in desparation mode toward the end of a game - but JDG's examples above are the exact opposite of that. You don't go for it on 4th and more than 5 unless you absolutely have to.

[todd]

I agree with your first 3 points and the fact that he stretches things to make his point - for example - he never points out blitzes that work, or "safe" defenses that get burned.

But I do agree with him that punting from inside the 40 is usually "Dawgged".  The fact that those punts were downed or went out of bounds inside the 10 is results-oriented and really doesn't matter.  Before you punt you have to realize there's at least a 50/50 chance of it resulting in a touchback and a mere 15-18 yards net.

511135[/snapback]

 

15 to 18 yards net is still more than one first down for the other team. That's an important way to look at it.

[Tortured Soul]

1) Easterbrook errors of the week #1:

 

"Seven-man blitz, each Eagle handing out cards that say, 'Please score an easy touchdown.'"

 

Right, the fact that big blitzes are such a bad idea explains why Pittsburgh consistently has one of the worst defenses in the League.

 

2) Easterbrook errors of the week #2:

"David Carr heave-hoes into triple coverage,"

 

Uhhh.... has anyone ever seen an NFL defense order "triple coverage" - on a *sideline route*?    How *does* that work, exactly?

 

3) Easterbrook errors of the week #3:

Trailing the defending champions 24-17, the United States Saints had second-and-10 on the New England 22 with 15 seconds remaining, no timeouts. On both of the game's final snaps, Aaron Brooks heave-hoed into the end zone, incomplete. But the end zone is where the Patriots expected the Saints to throw -- there were a half-dozen defenders in the end zone on both plays. Throw underneath and give somebody a chance to run it in!

 

I can't believe that Easterbrook was even stupid enough to write this.

 

4) Easterbrook error of the week #4:

Preposterous Punt Bonus: Trailing 9-0, Nick Saban ordered a punt from the Cleveland 33. Game scoreless, Jim Haslett ordered a punt from the New England 32. The Bills, Dolphins and Saints all punt in opposition territory, and let's see how this daring strategy works out -- hmm, the teams are a combined 9-21.

 

Well, let's see, on the opening drive of the game, the Saints have 4th and 13 from the NE 32.  They can either go for it, attempt a 50 yard FG into the wind, or punt.  The Saints punt and down the ball on the 2.  *Right Call*.

 

Down 9-0 in the 1st quarter, the Fish face 4th and 20 from the Cleveland 38.  They can either go for it, attempt a 56 yard FG, or punt.  They punt, and it goes out of bounds at the 10.  *Right Call.*

Anyhow, I'm bored.  Debunking Easterbrook is like shooting fish in a barrel....

511028[/snapback]

Actually, the Saints-Pats game proves his point exactly. As a ten-point underdog with nothing to play for, the Saints can afford to take chances. If they miss the field goal, the Patriots have 60 yards to go, but it gives the Saints a shot at points. With the perfect punt, they had 98 yards to go. And you know what? They went 98 yards and scored a touchdown. Play like you want to win, not like you're afriad to lose.

[MRW]

Actually, the Saints-Pats game proves his point exactly.  As a ten-point underdog with nothing to play for, the Saints can afford to take chances.  If they miss the field goal, the Patriots have 60 yards to go, but it gives the Saints a shot at points.  With the perfect punt, they had 98 yards to go.  And you know what?  They went 98 yards and scored a touchdown.  Play like you want to win, not like you're afriad to lose.

511431[/snapback]

That makes a good soundbite, but it doesn't really tell you much about how to coach a game. Facing 4th and 13, punting is an acceptable strategy at the beginning of a game, isn't it? That's pursuing a strategy to help you win, not like you're "afraid to lose".

[JDG]

He does have a point about punts when you have makeable first down or you're in desparation mode toward the end of a game - but JDG's examples above are the exact opposite of that.  You don't go for it on 4th and more than 5 unless you absolutely have to.

511419[/snapback]

 

And what drives me nuts about Easterbrook is that he writes so arrogantly as this know-it-all every week, as if somehow this guy with a degree in political science sitting on a couch is *so* much smarter than the guys who put 80-100 hours per week into this stuff - when in fact he is so consistently wrong.

 

Remember this was just a randomly selected week - I don't think that I've read Easterbrook at all this year, but I took brandon's challenge sight unseen. I once bet a friend of mine that I could find at least one glaring error in any randomly selected Easterbrook TMQ column, and I haven't lost that bet yet.

 

JDG

[JDG]

Actually, the Saints-Pats game proves his point exactly.  As a ten-point underdog with nothing to play for, the Saints can afford to take chances.  If they miss the field goal, the Patriots have 60 yards to go, but it gives the Saints a shot at points.  With the perfect punt, they had 98 yards to go.  And you know what?  They went 98 yards and scored a touchdown.  Play like you want to win, not like you're afriad to lose.

511431[/snapback]

 

This is one bit of football conventional wisdom that I hate.

 

Presumably you think that the decision to either kick, punt, or go for it in this situation gives you the best chance of winning. Why would you make a decision that you feel gives you a lesser chance of winning whether you are 1-10 or whether a playoff birth is on the line?

 

JDG

[realtruelove]

Didn't Gregg-o do the same thing during his final year?  Punt from... oh hell I can't remember... like the 40?

510759[/snapback]

 

 

From the 32.

[Tortured Soul]

This is one bit of football conventional wisdom that I hate.

 

Presumably you think that the decision to either kick, punt, or go for it in this situation gives you the best chance of winning.  Why would you make a decision that you feel gives you a lesser chance of winning whether you are 1-10 or whether a playoff birth is on the line?

 

JDG

511473[/snapback]

That's exactly the point. TMQ is advocating going against conventional wisdom - which is to punt, if, as you said, the kick would be into the wind. The conventional wisdom is to play it as if New England doesn't have a huge advantage (read: wasn't a ten-point favorite) and that you should be able to stop them if they have to start from the two. Also, as TMQ likes to repeat, this wil save you from criticism in the press. But he says that it makes more sense not to play it safe, but to take chances because the probability of those chances paying is much higher than coaches think. And showing your team that you have enough faith in them to take chances is more than a sound bite. When the defense went on the field after Gregg Williams punted from the 32 (netting 15 yards, btw), you're telling me they didn't give up hope that the offense could score? They sure played that way, giving up a quick touchdown.