Minimum Risk Gambles

[Morneblade]

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.

Here is the problem with you Oldfan. You take the premise that "if you make an arugument, prove me wrong". However, you never actually give anything that actually proves your point. If you're such a "internet debate veteran", you should now that proof lies on you to prove your point. If you make it, you better back it up.

Like CJ being good for 4 points. Prove it.

Likewise, you tend to bash anyone elses viewpoint, even if they do give facts supporting it. We had a good one going, and even though you failed to give any support for your view. While I needed to talley all 40 SB's to even have my point acknowledged, which that defence is actually more important to winning a SB than offence.

Which of course was raised by some people (including you) saying we should get CJ with the #6 pick this year. And that would get us to the playoffs with our 31st ranked defence.

And it still wasnt good enough for you. Which leads me to believe that you're not very bright. Because smart people are well, smart enough to learn and smart enough to know when they are wrong. Either that or you are to subborn to admit it.

[Dan T.]

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.

Without getting into the argument whether Gibbs 1.0 was more daring with 4th down calls ( :doh: ), given the dominating power game those Skins teams had with Riggo and the Hogs, he had better odds of success on 4th and short back then!

[Oldfan]

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

I think I lost you before this. Probably when I challenged your belief in conservative strategies.

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

Earlier, I made the point that teams up against opponents with better personnel needed to take minimum risk gambles? Well, reverse that. Teams with the superior personnel should play conservatively as a rule.

In their head-to-head matchups, Parcells was the one who needed to gamble for the most part and he did rather successfully.

The second and one calls that drove me batty came when we were losing on the scoreboard when an intermediate range pass might have gained 20-30 yards at minimal risk.

If you don't complete the pass, you can run for the first on third down or even fourth down if you're in plus territory.

[Morneblade]

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

Discuss.

Well, then we could free up more space by cutting a longsnapper too, and only get a kicker who has a great leg for kickoffs, and not some guy that can actually kick field goals, because we dont need them either! :laugh:

[Om]

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

Not sure one can really answer that with a yes or no, brother. For some teams and in certain situation it probably makes sense, and for others in different situations it probably doesn't.

And there are probably two dozen different factors we could come up with off the top of our heads we'd probably want to consider if we were going to take the subject seriously. I'll start with a couple, just for instance ...

Is my OL more of a run block group or a pass block group?

Has my passing game created enough of a threat so the opposition can't stack 9 or ten guys on the line with impunity?

Does my running back have a knack for finding the smallest of seams at full speed, or is he a guy who tends to hesitate just a split second looking to break one?

Does my team suck?

Can I take chances because my D is usually fresh due to my good ball control O, or do I have to protect them because I'm not converting enough 3rd downs and putting them back out there too often?

Feel free to add more ...

[SHYSTER411]

Well, then we could free up more space by cutting a longsnapper too, and only get a kicker who has a great leg for kickoffs, and not some guy that can actually kick field goals, because we dont need them either! :laugh:

As long as someone can kick the extra point I like this strategy.

[Oldfan]

Riggo#44 -- If you can't discredit his argument, you've lost. That's what a debate is.

So to you, giving one play to support his position was a valid argument? And my pointing out that it was insufficient evidence did not discredit it?

Are you sure there's not just a tad of bias affecting your thought process here?

[Morneblade]

As long as someone can kick the extra point I like this strategy.

2 point convertions eveytime.

:point2sky

[Riggo#44]

So to you, giving one play to support his position was a valid argument? And my pointing out that it was insufficient evidence did not discredit it?

Im still waiting for your evidence...until then you're talking out your ass.

Are you sure there's not just a tad of bias affecting your thought process here?

Nope, no bias. Well unless you count a bias towards facts, and there have been more than one example with recent posts, then yes I am biased...

[SHYSTER411]

2 point convertions eveytime.

:point2sky

Yeah, I definitely like it. Its pure genius.

[Oldfan]

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

Oh, absolutely.

I suggest you Google for fourth down bellman equation.

It's part of a study done in the growing field of behavioral economics. The real reason for the study has to do with why people make decisions.

We could take this discussion further and talk about how the scoreboard factors into the decision. For example, suppose you were to play a 30 minute game on a neutral field with a team of equal caliber but the other team got ten points on the scoreboard before play began. Would this affect your gameplan? It should.

Now reverse it. You are the team getting the ten-point edge. What does that do to your game plan?

You see, the kind of situations I've described happen in every game at halftime.

I think the gameplan and your appropriate strategy, whether to gamble or play it safe, change with every swing on the scoreboard. Yet the cliche we hear..."stick to the gameplan"... is taken as conventional wisdom.

[Oldfan]

Here is the problem with you Oldfan. You take the premise that "if you make an arugument, prove me wrong". However, you never actually give anything that actually proves your point.

I think you need help in recognizing an argument when you hear one. Try Post One.

[Riggo#44]

I think need help in recognizing an argument when you hear one. Try Post One.

Oh I get it now. Whatever he comes up with is fact, unless we can prove him wrong. If we can't prove him wrong, then the statement MUST be fact. Regardless of any supporting evidence on his part.

[Morneblade]

I think need help in recognizing an argument when you hear one. Try Post One.

Of which thread, and for which argument?

[Oldfan]

Of which thread, and for which argument?

Look, I'd like to take your posts seriously because you do make valid points at least occasionally, but stuff like this is just juvenile.

Now...are you going to tell me that you couldn't guess that I was referring to this thread? Seriously.

[zoony]

Oh I get it now. Whatever he comes up with is fact, unless we can prove him wrong. If we can't prove him wrong, then the statement MUST be fact. Regardless of any supporting evidence on his part.

But don't forget, if you do provide evidence that makes his theories incorrect, then one of the following occurs:

1. It is not so much 'evidence', but a thinly-veiled personal attack.

2. The evidence is stupid.

3. The evidence is ignored.

etc. Feel free to add if I missed any.

[Oldfan]

But don't forget, if you do provide evidence that makes his theories incorrect, then one of the following occurs:

1. It is not so much 'evidence', but a thinly-veiled personal attack.

2. The evidence is stupid.

3. The evidence is ignored.

etc. Feel free to add if I missed any.

You're pretty good at gutless broadsides like this that can't be disproven.

Why don't you go back to Post One. There's an argument for a theory on the table. Let's see what you can do with it.

Who knows? I could be wrong and you might be the one to prove it.

I seriously doubt it, but hell, stranger stuff happens.

[zoony]

You're pretty good at gutless broadsides like this that can't be disproven.

Why don't you go back to Post One. There's an argument for a theory on the table. Let's see what you can do with it.

Who knows? I could be wrong and you might be the one to prove it.

I seriously doubt it, but hell, stranger stuff happens.

I dunno, I didn't think there was anything gutless about it. I pretty much posted what I thought. And if you were in the room, I would say as much to you in person.

Where does gutless come into it?

As for proving you wrong, not gonna happen. Not because it can't be done... it has. But because you refuse to hear it. Pretty much everyone in this thread has shown your example to be a bad one.

What's next, a thread about how the West Coast Offense is unstoppable, using Joe Montana and Bill Walsh circa 1985 as your example?

Try as you might, you will just never be able to judge coaching decisions without taking into account the personnel on the field. I have no doubt that Bellicheck goes for it on 4th down more than most coaches. If I had Brady, I probably wouldn't even punt. That doesn't "prove" that Bellicheck is a superior coach who understands the odds better than most.

In my mind, it "proves" that Bellicheck is very fortunate to have the greatest QB to ever play the game fall out of the sixth-round sky and hit him on the head. His record as a loser in Cleveland for 5 years and his losing record in New England prior to Brady taking the helm is my evidence. What's yours?

It's simple really. You're confusing cause and effect. Everyone in this thread sees it except you. Carry on.

.....

[Henry]

I think I lost you before this. Probably when I challenged your belief in conservative strategies.

Can I classify this under the category of thinly-veiled personal attack/cheap shot?

[Oldfan]

Can I classify this under the category of thinly-veiled personal attack/cheap shot?

Can we negotiate? I'll accept very, very mild T-VPA/CS.

[Oldfan]

zoony ---

As for proving you wrong, not gonna happen. Not because it can't be done... it has. But because you refuse to hear it.

I make my arguments for intelligent readers with open minds not to persuade my opponents that they're wrong. I suggest you do the same. If I am as stubborn as you portray me, then I'll look like an ass to those readers. But if you do nothing but ridicule me and insist that you are right, you're the one who will look like a stubborn ass.

Try as you might, you will just never be able to judge coaching decisions without taking into account the personnel on the field. I have no doubt that Bellicheck goes for it on 4th down more than most coaches. If I had Brady, I probably wouldn't even punt. That doesn't "prove" that Bellicheck is a superior coach who understands the odds better than most.

The counter-argument you just made, I readily conceded to Om when he made it with fewer words than you used. So, your point is granted.

In my mind, it "proves" that Bellicheck is very fortunate to have the greatest QB to ever play the game fall out of the sixth-round sky and hit him on the head. His record as a loser in Cleveland for 5 years and his losing record in New England prior to Brady taking the helm is my evidence. What's yours?

This point is irrelevant because I was not trying to prove that Belichek isn't fortunate to have Brady as a QB.

I gave you a definition for a minimum risk gamble and described when it might apply in a football game. If you found a logical flaw in that part of my presentation, then tell me about it.

I referred you to the results of the Romer study which offers pretty solid evidence that NFL coaches are making the conservative calls on fourth down far too often. If you have a problem with that, let's hear about it.

Now, unless I hear some solid counter argument on the foregoing points, I have made an argument that, on its face, makes the Belichek example a smart move Brady or no Brady. In fact, it suggests that Saunders and Campell should go for it given the same situation.

Now, as to why Belichek gambles, I think this explanation is more likely to be true than yours: Belichek, as a D coordinator in New York, learned when to gamble in football games from Bill Parcells while Tom Brady was still caught in the throes of puberty. The David Romer study in 2002 confirmed the intelligence of their approach.

My theory about Parcells and his fourth down gambles was confirmed by Phil Simms. It offers a plausible explanation for the quick turnarounds the man was able to make in New York and New England as well as his head-to-head dominance over Joe Gibbs in the 80s.

[Morneblade]

Look, I'd like to take your posts seriously because you do make valid points at least occasionally, but stuff like this is just juvenile.

Now...are you going to tell me that you couldn't guess that I was referring to this thread? Seriously.

Sorry, got called into work

I find it best to doublecheck and make sure I knew what you were refering to. I'd rather do that than make assumptions.