Minimum Risk Gambles

[zoony]

It doesn't matter. I was making my own point.

And here we have it, straight from the horse's mouth.

This statement should be in small white type under his username.

....

[zoony]

Except that he had Bledsoe behind center until he got injured ...

...and previously as the head coach of the Cleveland Browns he brought in a free agent QB by the name of Vinny Testaverde...

That's not that far off from Brunell IMO.

Do the names Bernie Kosar, Vinnie Testeverde and Drew Bledsoe ring any bells?

After reading these 2 responses, coupled with Bellicheck's 36-44 record in Cleveland, and his losing record in New England prior to Tom Brady falling into his lap... I kind of thought to myself, "Will Oldfan even show his face again in this thread?"

But then, I read this response.

Do any of those QBs resemble a "game manager" QB who plays not to lose?

If it wasn't clear the first time, by "not limiting his options" I was talking about the type of QB and not the quality. Kosar, Testaverde and Bledsoe would be unlikely to throw the ball away on fourth and six if the receiver wasn't wide open.

I hope everyone finally get's the joke at this point. Oldfan is pulling a Tony Clifton on all of us. :laugh:

I gotta admit Oldfan, I wasn't sure at first. But now, I must say, you've replace Pittman4Two in my mind as an internet legend. Classic stuff! :laugh:

You da man :notworthy

[Oldfan]

Om -- Incorrect. I presented one piece of evidence (something you have yet to do) in support of my stated opinion, and I offered it as nothing BUT a single piece of evidence. Your only response, since you apparently don't have anything of substance to support your opinion, has been to try repeatedly to undercut what I used in support of mine by calling it something it was not and then attacking it. ....You know your fallacies, right? Name that one.

You knew full well that I could not support my opinion with statistics. When you presented one play as evidence, whether it was to attack my position or support yours, you implied that it was worthy of consideration in the argument. It was not because it was grossly insufficient. Yet, you seem to believe that you've made a better argument because I can't match it (at least not without extensive research using subjective grading).

He's been far more conversative this time around. For any number of reasons, some of which we can reasonably speculate about---like not having a Tom Brady or even a Joe Theismann in his prime at his disposal for instance---and some we can only guess at. Like the currently popular one that he's just a scared old geezer now.

In Gibbs 1.0, the man drove me batty...not with his fourth down calls but with his conservatism on second and one. Regardless of the scoreboard, Joe almost always ran off-tackle to pick up the first down. Thus abandoning the advantage of the best down and distance situation in the game.

I think Parcells beat Joe head-to-head by being less conservative on second and one and fourth and one.

And no, I have no statistics to support those opinions.

[Riggo#44]

Yet, you seem to believe that you've made a better argument because I can't match it (at least not without extensive research using subjective grading).

So that would mean he won the debate - doesn't it - oh "Veterean Internet Debater!"

In Gibbs 1.0, the man drove me batty...not with his fourth down calls but with his conservatism on second and one. Regardless of the scoreboard, Joe almost always ran off-tackle to pick up the first down. Thus abandoning the advantage of the best down and distance situation in the game.

I think Parcells beat Joe head-to-head by being less conservative on second and one and fourth and one.

Gibbs 1.0 drove you batty? You mean a Hall of Fame coach, in his prime, drove you batty, b/c of his conversatism on 2nd-and-1. Are you serious? So 3 Super Bowl wins weren't enough for you?

And no, I have no statistics to support those opinions.

So what's to say you're not talking out of your arse?

[Taurus82]

good post. Something different.

[Oldfan]

Henry --- You qualified that 'true enough' with [ teams without a Tom Brady have more need to gamble]..I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion...

Logical deduction: teams without a premier QB are more likely to be down on the scoreboard or facing an opponent with superior personnel.

...especially considering the basis for your entire arguement that gambling on offense is effective is that Belichek gambles and succeeds.

No. The basis for my argument is that minimum risk gambles are smart when facing a team on the road with better personnel. There are other times too when gambing is smart, but I didn't present that argument.

Personally, I'm a big fan of conservative playcalling. But that's just me. I can't stand guys like Easterbrook who average things out and hold them up as proof that gambling is the way to go (I think TheDane touched on this.)

Yours is an interesting idea, but I'd need more than the evidence you've put forth so far to change my mind.

I gave you the Romer study (992 out of 1,100 wrong decisions) which doesn't support the idea that going for it would always be right, but it is powerful evidence that the conservative coaches "wisdom" that we have come to accept as smart football should be highly suspect.

[Om]

You knew full well that I could not support my opinion with statistics. When you presented one play as evidence, whether it was to attack my position or support yours, you implied that it was worthy of consideration in the argument. It was not because it was grossly insufficient. Yet, you seem to believe that you've made a better argument because I can't match it (at least not without extensive research using subjective grading).

So what you're saying is ... since you cannot or will not provide any evidence supporting your opinion, any evidence I might present in support of mine is not "worthy of consideration in the argument."

I think I understand now.

In Gibbs 1.0, the man drove me batty...not with his fourth down calls but with his conservatism on second and one. Regardless of the scoreboard, Joe almost always ran off-tackle to pick up the first down. Thus abandoning the advantage of the best down and distance situation in the game.

I think Parcells beat Joe head-to-head by being less conservative on second and one and fourth and one.

And no, I have no statistics to support those opinions.

Interestingly, and probably not surprisingly, I don't have the same recollection at all.

In fact, I've been writing for years that I'd never seen anyone more of a cold-blooded assassin than Joe Gibbs was in that kind of situation. If he sensed the momentum swinging his way or saw a perceived opening, which happened quite a bit in those days, it got to where I could predict that he'd cross up the opposition by attacking deep on an obvious running down.

At the risk of bringing up a specific supporting point or two and thus rendering my opinion "not worthy of consideration" ...

In the 2nd quarter of SB XXII--just before Gary Clark scored the second of the 5 consecutive touchdowns on a deep sideline pass on what I believe was a 3rd and short--either Dierdorf or Michaels referred to a conversation with the Denver coaches leading up to the game in which they were told by the staff that Denver had had to spend all week "preparing for things they'd never seen before." If memory serves, the point was directly related to how Gibbs' offense was not only dangerous, but totally unpredictable given down and distance.

I also recall writing, in the wake of the 52-13 dismantling of SF in Oct 2005, that I'd seen signs of that boot-on-the-neck mentality again ... this time when just after a pick in SF's end, already up by a score or two, Gibbs didn't pound it at them but immediately went deep middle to Sellers (for Pete's sake) for the TD that broke the game open. I can dig up the post if you want. As I recall, I wasn't the only one who thought the same thing.

All of which goes back to the point I tried to make before. When he feels good about the team he's working with, Gibbs has always struck me as a whole lot closer to nasty than conservative. Which is why, given how crappy we were in 2006, I think he went into a bit of a shell. I fully expect that to change if his offense gets back up to speed though, and he trusts his D enough to take some chances.

Then again, maybe just needs a Tom Brady to execute all those 4th downs for him. You know, like he does for Belichick.

[Henry]

Gibbs 1.0 drove you batty? You mean a Hall of Fame coach, in his prime, drove you batty, b/c of his conversatism on 2nd-and-1. Are you serious? So 3 Super Bowl wins weren't enough for you?

Yeah. Uh. This is why you lost me, Oldfan.

If Gibbs I was really conservative, and he won 3 SBs that way ... what are we talking about here? Your personal taste? Style points?

If I remember correctly, Parcells and his free-wheeling ways STILL haven't been able to match Gibbs' three trophies. So while head-to-head records are great and all (though I'd like to point out Gibbs II is 3-3 vs. Parcells IV) when comparing those two and their relative strategies, it would make more sense to conclude Gibbs' approach was more effective.

[Riggo#44]

Yeah. Uh. This is why you lost me, Oldfan.

If Gibbs I was really conservative, and he won 3 SBs that way ... what are we talking about here? Your personal taste? Style points?

If I remember correctly, Parcells and his free-wheeling ways STILL haven't been able to match Gibbs' three trophies. So while head-to-head records are great and all (though I'd like to point out Gibbs II is 3-3 vs. Parcells IV) when comparing those two and their relative strategies, it would make more sense to conclude Gibbs' approach was more effective.

AND to add to it - despite having less talent, at least on the defenseive side of the ball - Gibbs has one 3 of the last 4. But don't let facts get in the way of your opinion there Dr. Z!

[EersSkins05]

I have never seen a thread where one guy got so many people riled up about something that mattered so little.

[Dan T.]

I have never seen a thread where one guy got so many people riled up about something that mattered so little.

Really. How did this degenerate from an interesting argument about the conventional NFL wisdom of 4th down play into a bunch of monkeys flinging poop at each other? Sad. :doh:

[SHYSTER411]

I kind of find the poop slinging amusing, and Kyle Farnsworth sucks..... a lot.

[Riggo#44]

Really. How did this degenerate from an interesting argument about the conventional NFL wisdom of 4th down play into a bunch of monkeys flinging poop at each other? Sad. :doh:

The originator's schmarminess and it's the offseason...what else is there to talk about right now?

[Oldfan]

So that would mean he won the debate - doesn't it - oh "Veterean Internet Debater!"

He won the debate because he thinks he made the better argument?

Gibbs 1.0 drove you batty? You mean a Hall of Fame coach, in his prime, drove you batty, b/c of his conversatism on 2nd-and-1. Are you serious? So 3 Super Bowl wins weren't enough for you?

I admit I'm a demanding SOB. Watching The Tuna eat Joe's lunch wasn't easy to take.

So what's to say you're not talking out of your arse?

About what? If I make an argument, prove me wrong. Trying to do it with ridicule, as you and others are doing here, just doesn't cut it. That's just immature.

[Om]

I have never seen a thread where one guy got so many people riled up about something that mattered so little.

Dude. It's a message board.

And anyway, this aint "riled." At the moment, it's OF getting pummeled because he obviously likes it.

[zoony]

In fact, I've been writing for years that I'd never seen anyone more of a cold-blooded assassin than Joe Gibbs was in that kind of situation.

I remember a regular season game against the Chicago Bears... maybe the 1989 or 1990 season, IIRC.

Anyways, I remember it was a relatively close game thru 2 quarters and then the Redskins went up with a score.

What followed shocked the entire stadium... an onside kick that the Redskins recovered. The Redskins took the ball down the field and basically put the game out of reach with another TD.

But the Redskins STILL didn't relent. I don't remember the details, but Monk and Clark were running wild all over the Bears' secondary, and the game turned into a blowout. It caused Mike Ditka to pop a blood vessel in his forehead during the post game press conference :laugh: He called out his DB, etc.

A few others strictly from memory:

A 4th and goal play against the Eagles at the Vet. On 1st, 2nd, and 3rd down, the Redskins ran off-tackle EVERY SINGLE play. Each time, they were stopped. But each time, they probably gained an inch or two. It got so that they had 4th down and probably 6 inches. Gibbs decided to go for it, on the road, against a GREAT Eagles defense (probably one of the best defenses in NFL history. Anyone remember that front 4? Yikes.). Doug Williams faked the off-tackle handoff, the entire Eagles' defense bit on the fake, and DW rolled out untouched on the naked bootleg and walked right into the endzone.

A naked bootleg? Are you kidding me? That had to be one of the ballsiest calls I've ever seen. Just ONE suspicious defender, JUST ONE, could have blown up that entire play.

I also remember a 4th down play against the Eagles (again, on the road) where Doug Williams faked the handoff and threw a lob pass over the middle to a wide open TE (I think it was Jimmy Johnson, can't remember his name). Anyways, the TE bobbled the ball and miraculously came down with it, even though the ball was overthrown. Gibbs said later that the play was designed to go for a TD, as NOBODY followed JJ into the backfield. If he had caught the ball in stride it would have been a sure 6 points.

The reason that call was so risky was that we were running the ball WELL that day, extremely well. And we could have (and would have) gotten the first by simply running the ball. But instead, Gibbs calls a hi-risk pass. Again, one suspicious DB or LB could have blown that play up.

Ahhh... memories.

[Riggo#44]

He won the debate because he thinks he made the better argument?

If you can't discredit his argument, you've lost. That's what a debate is.

I admit I'm a demanding SOB. Watching The Tuna eat Joe's lunch wasn't easy to take.

I really don't have to say anything else...

About what? If I make an argument, prove me wrong. Trying to do it with ridicule, as you and others are doing here, just doesn't cut it. That's just immature.

We have. Repeatedly. You then ridicule, backpedal, tweak the argument, or just discount whatever evidence is presented as "not relevant." You are stuck in your view, and will not change your mind. That's just immature.

So honestly what's the point?

[Om]

If I make an argument, prove me wrong. Trying to do it with ridicule, as you and others are doing here, just doesn't cut it. That's just immature.

Got it.

No ridiculing, and no using supporting evidence.

[zoony]

We have. Repeatedly. You then ridicule, backpedal, tweak the argument, or just discount whatever evidence is presented as "not relevant." You are stuck in your view, and will not change your mind. That's just immature.

So honestly what's the point?

:laugh:

Tony Clifton, I told you already.

[Dan T.]

So, should more NFL teams go for it on 4th down?

[Riggo#44]

Got it.

No ridiculing, and no using supporting evidence.

So...we're supposed to make stuff up and talk out of our asses?

Is that it, Om? Did the Penguin tell you to do this?

[Dan T.]

I say teams should free up a roster space by not carrying a punter, and ALWAYS go for it on 4th down.

Discuss.

[Om]

So...we're supposed to make stuff up and talk out of our asses?

Is that it, Om? Did the Penguin tell you to do this?

Don't ask me, ask OF. They're his damn rules.

[Riggo#44]

Don't as me, ask OF. He's the one setting the rules here.

Note: Rules subject to change without notice.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

its clear that gibbs doesnt have the faith in our current team that he did in his first tenure teams. im sure gibbs would still make those kinda nutty calls if he thought our team could execute. i honestly dont think he does, especially with our shaky QB play this year, it would have been bad for jasons development to start trying whacky stuff with him being so fragile in his first year.