Minimum Risk Gambles

[Oldfan]

I believe it does matter. Yes, it's better to have you opponent start at the 2 instead of the 27. But if you get stymied, you emotionally suck the wind out of your team and give it to you opponent.

By "stymied" you mean that if your opponent starts at his own two and scores, it's deflating?

Well sure, but it's still a good idea to have him start there and take your chances.

[Morneblade]

By "stymied" you mean that if your opponent starts at his own two and scores, it's deflating?

Well sure, but it's still a good idea to have him start there and take your chances.

By stymied I mean you get to the 2 yard line and get 0 points. It sucks the wind out of your team and gives it to the opposing team. Sometimes it's worth the risk, but other times it's not. But getting zero points after getting to the 2 yard line never gave a team a spark.

[Oldfan]

By stymied I mean you get to the 2 yard line and get 0 points. It sucks the wind out of your team and gives it to the opposing team. Sometimes it's worth the risk, but other times it's not. But getting zero points after getting to the 2 yard line never gave a team a spark.

Oh, I see what you mean. Yeah, I guess that's something to consider, but I think that other factors will weigh more heavily.

What is the score? Are you home or away? How does your personnel match up with your opponent?

Generally, the Romer study is only evidence that more coaches should be going for it in that situation...not evidence that it's always a good idea.

If your side needs to gamble, you have a 43% chance of picking up a TD on fourth and goal at the two if yours is an average NFL offense. And, if you fail, your opponent has 98 yards to go.

[Morneblade]

Oh, I see what you mean. Yeah, I guess that's something to consider, but I think that other factors will weigh more heavily.

What is the score? Are you home or away? How does your personnel match up with your opponent?

Generally, the Romer study is only evidence that more coaches should be going for it in that situation...not evidence that it's always a good idea.

If your side needs to gamble, you have a 43% chance of picking up a TD on fourth and goal at the two if yours is an average NFL offense. And, if you fail, your opponent has 98 yards to go.

I agree that home/away and the score, as well as when in the game are also important factors. A gamble like that earlier in the game is usually not as deflating as it would be late in a game, for instance.

[the burgundy and gold]

yawnnnnnnnnnnnnn

post padder.

i really wish gibbs was a little more aggressive sometimes on 4thand 1s. it seems like he never really goes for it.

[Om]

True enough.

But it's a Catch -22. If you don't have a QB like Brady, there's more need to gamble.

Hmm. Maybe a Catch-44. If you don't have a QB like Brady, your chances of succeeding on those gambles declines.

Ah, what did Heller know anyway?

[Oldfan]

=the burgundy and gold ---i really wish gibbs was a little more aggressive sometimes on 4thand 1s. it seems like he never really goes for it.

At 16, you are too young to remember Gibbs 1.0. He was old school conservative on fourth-down calls even then. But he was at the cutting edge of innovative offense. It was fun to watch.

[Om]

At 16, you are too young to remember Gibbs 1.0. He was old school conservative on fourth-down calls even then.

http://www.superbowl.com/history/recaps/game/sbxvii

Washington had tied the score at 10-10 with 1:51 left on a 4-yard touchdown pass from Joe Theismann to wide receiver Alvin Garrett. Mark Moseley started the Redskins' scoring with a 31-yard field goal late in the first period, and added a 20-yard kick midway through the third period to cut the Dolphins' lead to 17-13.

Riggins, who was voted the game's most valuable player, gave Washington its first lead of the game with 10:01 left when he ran 43 yards off left tackle for a touchdown in a fourth-and-1 situation.

We may have different definitions of "old school." In mine, going for it in the 4th quarter of your first Super Bowl, in a defensive struggle, close to midfield, trailing by 4 ... was about as ballsy a call as I've ever seen. I watched from between my fingers and trying not to barf as I recall.

[Oldfan]

http://www.superbowl.com/history/recaps/game/sbxvii

We may have different definitions of "old school." In mine, going for it in the 4th quarter of your first Super Bowl, in a defensive struggle, close to midfield, trailing by 4 ... was about as ballsy a call as I've ever seen. I watched from between my fingers and trying not to barf as I recall.

You need to clarify. Are you saying that Joe Gibbs was NOT conservative on fourth down calls in Gibbs 1.0 and that your evidence of a notable exception proves that my general statement was false?

[Om]

You need to clarify. Are you saying that Joe Gibbs was NOT conservative on fourth down calls in Gibbs 1.0 and that your evidence of a notable exception proves that my general statement was false?

Without going back and looking at a representative sample of his calls on 4th down throughout his first stint, neither one of us can make an informed judgment call on whether he was "old school conservative" on 4th downs or not.

Your sense is he was ... I'm not sure I agree. I think he was a master opportunist with an uncanny sense of when to pull in his horns and when to gore the **** out of somebody.

What I do know is that in the single biggest, most crucial 4th down call any Redskins fan can remember in franchise history, he not only didn't go old school conservative, he bet the house, the yard, the garage and the dog.

"Notable exception" indeed.

[Oldfan]

Without going back and looking at a representative sample of his calls on 4th down throughout his first stint, neither one of us can make an informed judgment call on whether he was "old school conservative" on 4th downs or not.

In my opinion, Joe Gibbs is now and always has been old school conservative on fourth down calls. That opinion was formed by watching every play of every game he coached.

If you disagree then say so and we'll leave it there. I can't support my position with stats. But when I state an opinion like that, it's a general statement, and your pointing out one exceptional play, no matter how memorable, proves nothing.

[Om]

In my opinion, Joe Gibbs is now and always has been old school conservative on fourth down calls. That opinion was formed by watching every play of every game he coached.

If you disagree then say so and we'll leave it there. I can't support my position with stats. But when I state an opinion like that, it's a general statement, and your pointing out one exceptional play, no matter how memorable, proves nothing.

Obviously you were stating an opinion, and equally obviously I made it clear mine differs from yours. Not sure how you missed the implication. And for what it's worth, I too watched every play of every game he coached--many of them repeatedly on tape over the years.

Also for what it's worth, I didn't suggest that noting one VERY notable exception "proved" anything. I just figured at least one of us should actually come up with something to support their opinion.

[Oldfan]

Also for what it's worth, I didn't suggest that noting one VERY notable exception "proved" anything. I just figured at least one of us should actually come up with something to support their opinion.

Bull.

You took a cheap shot at my general statement.

[Om]

Bull.

You took a cheap shot at my general statement.

You lost me.

Which statement in particular are you talking about, and where exactly 's the "cheap shot?"

Sounds to me like maybe your skin is a little too thin for a guy who likes to stir it up as much as you do.

[Oldfan]

Sounds to me like maybe your skin is a little too thin for a guy who likes to stir it up as much as you do.

Thin-skinned? Me? Man, you're talking to a veteran of internet debate. This stuff keeps my blood pumping.

I probably shouldn't admit this, but the truth is that I love it when guys take cheap shot exceptions to my general statements. It's a sign that I've previously gotten under their skin and they want me bad.

I think it's good for both of us when we try to keep each other humble. Don't you?

[Riggo#44]

I probably shouldn't admit this, but the truth is that I love it when guys take cheap shot exceptions to my general statements. It's a sign that I've previously gotten under their skin and they want me bad.

Isn't that the definition of trolling? To do little but incite?

[Oldfan]

Isn't that the definition of trolling? To do little but incite?

Oh my. Did I tweak your ego too?

[Om]

Thin-skinned? Me? Man, you're talking to a veteran of internet debate. This stuff keeps my blood pumping.

I probably shouldn't admit this, but the truth is that I love it when guys take cheap shot exceptions to my general statements. It's a sign that I've previously gotten under their skin and they want me bad.

I think it's good for both of us when we try to keep each other humble. Don't you?

As someone who claims to be an internet debate veteran, you'll not be surprised when I point out that you studiously avoided a direct question, probaby because you knew you'd run out of legit responses and needed to change the subject.

You've twice noted the "cheap shot" I supposedly took. You brought it up, my friend. Follow through instead of moonwalking.

[HailSkinz1]

As someone who claims to be an internet debate veteran, you'll not be surprised when I point out that you studiously avoided a direct question, probaby because you knew you'd run out of legit responses and needed to change the subject.

You've twice noted the "cheap shot" I supposedly took. You brought it up, my friend. Follow through instead of moonwalking.

Okay girls, can you get back to the topic at hand and continue this over PMs or something? :doh:

Pointing to one play as evidence to support an opposing opinion is as ridiculous as getting bent out of shape over it.

My memory tells me that Gibbs was more conservative as he coached. My thinking always was that when he was forming his great teams (i.e. 1981 thru 1983), he wanted to instill confidence in them that they wouldn't be stopped by anyone. Once he developed the great teams, he knew he didn't have to take risks, even minimal ones, as much.

So, in my opinion, you're both right! Now hug each other and move on.

Hail,

H

[[[ghost]]]

yawnnnnnnnnnnnnn

Way to boost your post cound and embarass yourself at the same time. It surprises me that someone as stupid as you can multitask.

As for the actual post, that was not only a very good point, but extremely well written. I don't know if you wrote it yourself or what, but thats a pretty interested way to win. Gamble at the right time. Don't gamble too much for no apparent reason.

[Riggo#44]

Oh my. Did I tweak your ego too?

Not really, I care little what a self-proclaimed "Internet Debate Veteran" thinks. I thought I would point that out - seeing as you didn't bother to actually answer how it wasn't trolling.

Considering every time you are called out, you tweak the argument, backpedal or just incite through insults. Sounds like an Internet Troll Veteran to mea.

[Oldfan]

As someone who claims to be an internet debate veteran, you'll not be surprised when I point out that you studiously avoided a direct question, probaby because you knew you'd run out of legit responses and needed to change the subject.

You've twice noted the "cheap shot" I supposedly took. You brought it up, my friend. Follow through instead of moonwalking.

When I write, I give my readers credit for some intelligence. I don't feel it necessary to point out the obvious and I don't really think it's necessary here but I will.

When someone states a general rule or makes a general statement, it's quite easy to find an exception. When an opponent in debate points out that exception, it's a common logical fallacy. And that's what I'm calling a "cheap shot exception."

But you knew that.

[[[ghost]]]

Isn't that the definition of trolling? To do little but incite?

I think you said it best.

Oh my. Did I tweak your ego too?

You do realize that no one here is getting angry about a poor old loser being sensitive about how Om embarassed him. Let it go. If it makes you feel any better, I can pretend that you hurt my feelings, since thats what it sounds like is your goal in life.

[zoony]

Of course, the better your QB is, the miminumer ( :paranoid: ) the risk becomes. When you have one of the best QB's to ever play the game executing your fourth down gambles, I suspect being bold is a little less of a gamble, and a lot less stressful than, say, if you don't.

That's it exactly. Close the thread. End of subject.

Fact is, Bellicheck would look pretty effing stupid with Brunell behind center. :2cents:

When you have the most clutch, fearless, calm-under-fire, not-human, deadly accurate passer in the history of the NFL, well... DUH, you go for it on the 34.

When you have 90% of the other QB's in the league, you don't.

....

[Oldfan]

Not really, I care little what a self-proclaimed "Internet Debate Veteran" thinks. I thought I would point that out - seeing as you didn't bother to actually answer how it wasn't trolling.

Considering every time you are called out, you tweak the argument, backpedal or just incite through insults. Sounds like an Internet Troll Veteran to mea.

You value your opinions pretty highly to think that I need to defend myself.