Not really comparable at all quite frankly...
The comparison is that they done quit. In other words, the two things discussed -- ESPN Win Probability and SHUTTING THINGS DOWN - are not really related. I only say that because I couldn't find and example and there were two easy to find COUNTER examples from this week, including one I was watching at the moment.
Recall these are the still UNANSWERED questions I posed several pages back
I agree that statistically its unlikely and it may be in single digits BUT teams keep playing when there is a a chance.
So, are you saying you would've applauded Bowles for four kneel downs at 1:48?
Can you name another game where the behind NFL team did that only down two scores?
That ^^^ matters because the claim is some version of Bowles negligence" or "Bowles malpractice." LMAO, it's NOT either to align with the standard (ie NOT quitting). Negligence/Malpeiactice would be "kneels downs at 1:48." Not a single NFL coach (OR PLAYER . . hat tip to WT) that I could find appears to be looking at ESPN Analytics and saying "we have a 98.9 probability so . . lets just kneel down."
As an aside and/or just to move off the topic of Godwin . . .
. . .one curiosity in the NFL these days is how much alternative stats supplant basic human experience.
In this thread, ESPN Win Probability is trumping actual CONSISTENTLY OBSERVED basic human experience. The stat is saying "the game is over" but not a single person ACTUALLY INVOLVED (eg Bengals and Bears coaches, players etc) involved is acting that way and IN FACT the lead changes hands multiple times . .. when the stat said the game was over.
Its like looking at an orange cat and saying its black because 98.9% of cats in the vicinity are known to be black. Your own experience and EYES say its ORANGE. . . its ORANGE. lol
In football terms "He was WRONG to not go for it on 4th down (even though we got the ball back in good field position and scored a FG) because ESPN Analytics SAYS THAT IS THE RIGHT PLAY."
Except the analytic MODEL doesn't say its the right play. It says "given the variable I have combined for this MODEL, going for it is more likely than the alternative to produce a certain outcome . . over time." "Over time" and "variables" (one of which is "more aggressive" that the typical NFL coach lmao) and "model" being the key points. The actual HC making the decision in the REAL WORLD is not trying to make the statistical right choice. . . over time. The HC is trying to win THE ACTUAL GAME (singular).
But you see football fans all day swear by the "analytic." Began with PPF. Useful and interesting stuff, but only a limited piece without more info.
The Bengals and the Bears both ignored the probabilities. That's how football is played every game
Correct.
We have this insatiable need to blame someone for stuff that just happens in the course of a game.
The Jets lost to Tampa, but go look at the probability bounce in that game once they returned that kick for a TD. It’s football. The ball bounces in crazy ways and people sometimes get hurt. Don’t hate the player, hate the game.
You truly are Ralph Wiggum.
You truly are someone who wants our head coach fired and can't get his head around having success. It's weird...
The Bengals and the Bears both ignored the probabilities. That's how football is played every game
Correct.
We have this insatiable need to blame someone for stuff that just happens in the course of a game.
The Jets lost to Tampa, but go look at the probability bounce in that game once they returned that kick for a TD. It’s football. The ball bounces in crazy ways and people sometimes get hurt. Don’t hate the player, hate the game.
You truly are Ralph Wiggum.
You truly are someone who wants our head coach fired and can't get his head around having success. It's weird...
Even though I've praised Bowles recently... Weird take.
Not really comparable at all quite frankly...
The comparison is that they done quit. In other words, the two things discussed -- ESPN Win Probability and SHUTTING THINGS DOWN - are not really related. I only say that because I couldn't find and example and there were two easy to find COUNTER examples from this week, including one I was watching at the moment.
Recall these are the still UNANSWERED questions I posed several pages back
I agree that statistically its unlikely and it may be in single digits BUT teams keep playing when there is a a chance.
So, are you saying you would've applauded Bowles for four kneel downs at 1:48?
Can you name another game where the behind NFL team did that only down two scores?
That ^^^ matters because the claim is some version of Bowles negligence" or "Bowles malpractice." LMAO, it's NOT either to align with the standard (ie NOT quitting). Negligence/Malpeiactice would be "kneels downs at 1:48." Not a single NFL coach (OR PLAYER . . hat tip to WT) that I could find appears to be looking at ESPN Analytics and saying "we have a 98.9 probability so . . lets just kneel down."
I would not applaud 4 kneel downs. I would expect the backups to come in and compete, just like the Ravens did.
It's actually pretty bush league to have the opponent bring in the backups after the starters have been serving us up... Get the stop and use all three time outs (no issue with that), then bring our starters out with less than two minutes to go down two scores with no time outs.
Also remember how hard onside kicks were last year.
I literally said, as the starters came out, that it was a bad idea. My brother was playing me in FF and had Godwin and was down like 10 and wanted him out there so he could win... And I was like "we need to bench the starters and not risk injury".
Because beating the Ravens has little effect on our season. It's nice but beating Falcons the following week is more important.
And guess how that turned out?
Quinn says what the overwhelming majority of the football world already knows:
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/46836266/commanders-dan-quinn-says-left-jayden-daniels-too-long
Quinn says what the overwhelming majority of the football world already knows:
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/46836266/commanders-dan-quinn-says-left-jayden-daniels-too-long
Way to break the big story Biggs
Classy Quinn
"Head coach Dan Quinn was asked about Daniels being on the field in his postgame press conference and said the injury did not happen on a designed run for the quarterback and “if we run it 50 times, it’s either hand off or a throw 50 times.” On Monday, though, Quinn said he erred by not paying enough attention to the possibility of Daniels scrambling on Sunday night.
“I know many of you have been asking about the thought process of Jayden being in the game in that situation,” Quinn said. “I get that. I’ve been thinking about it honestly nonstop too. For me, the answer is ‘I missed it.’ . . . Of course he could scramble. It’s Jayden, it’s what he’s special at. That’s 100 percent on me.”
Not really comparable at all quite frankly...
The comparison is that they done quit. In other words, the two things discussed -- ESPN Win Probability and SHUTTING THINGS DOWN - are not really related. I only say that because I couldn't find and example and there were two easy to find COUNTER examples from this week, including one I was watching at the moment.
Recall these are the still UNANSWERED questions I posed several pages back
I agree that statistically its unlikely and it may be in single digits BUT teams keep playing when there is a a chance.
So, are you saying you would've applauded Bowles for four kneel downs at 1:48?
Can you name another game where the behind NFL team did that only down two scores?
That ^^^ matters because the claim is some version of Bowles negligence" or "Bowles malpractice." LMAO, it's NOT either to align with the standard (ie NOT quitting). Negligence/Malpeiactice would be "kneels downs at 1:48." Not a single NFL coach (OR PLAYER . . hat tip to WT) that I could find appears to be looking at ESPN Analytics and saying "we have a 98.9 probability so . . lets just kneel down."
I would not applaud 4 kneel downs. I would expect the backups to come in and compete, just like the Ravens did.
It's actually pretty bush league to have the opponent bring in the backups after the starters have been serving us up... Get the stop and use all three time outs (no issue with that), then bring our starters out with less than two minutes to go down two scores with no time outs.
Also remember how hard onside kicks were last year.
I literally said, as the starters came out, that it was a bad idea. My brother was playing me in FF and had Godwin and was down like 10 and wanted him out there so he could win... And I was like "we need to bench the starters and not risk injury".
Because beating the Ravens has little effect on our season. It's nice but beating Falcons the following week is more important.
And guess how that turned out?
I get your point, but IF the Ravens back ups came in its because they were in the lead. In other words, there is a phrase for taking guys out when you are in the lead its called "GARBAGE TIME."
What is the phrase for taking guys out when your NOT in the lead? If its anything other than your last possession (Cowboys interception just last night) its called QUITTING
I AM OKAY WITH YOUR ARGUMENT IF IT IS THSAT BOWLES SHOULD HAVE QUIT BEFORE 1:48
But the argument is that he was "negligent" and that is not true BECAUSE what you guys are saying is that he should have done something that it appears no NFL coach does. Thats why I asked the SECOND QUESTION:
Can you name another game where the behind NFL team did that only down two scores?
I cannot. It may have happened. I gave about a half dozen examples ranging from last night (Cowboys) to this weekend (Bengals and Bears) several years (Vikings and Rams) back . . with some very top coaches . . not one did what you guys say Bowles should have done.
so maybe the problem is your argument (negligent). Maybe its "bush league" or whatever, but i said its unrealistic hindsight. AGAIN, so one say anything if Godwin is NOT hurt, let alone if we win
I would not applaud 4 kneel downs. I would expect the backups to come in and compete, just like the Ravens did.
Fire, I think DH said there would never be agreement on this between thew "two camps" and he is right. So, let me just leave you and your 'camp" a parting thought.
When you are working on an argument, self-scouting it to see how it stands up to scrutiny, one of the worst RED FLAGS is when your argument runs COUNTER to a truth, a maxim or even a time-honored deeply held belief.
That is a sure sign - logically speaking - that there is a flaw in your argument.
You and Biggs and DH are all arguing some version of "BOWLES SHOULD HAVE QUIT."
DH and Biggs say the probabilities were a loss. You say the Ravens pulled their starters, so we should have too. Each of those equals "even though the game is not actually over, it was functionally over, so quit trying to win." It is a FACT though that the game was NOT over. There was 1:48 to go.
So, each of your arguments runs counter to THE SINGLE MOST WIDELY ACCEPTED MAXIM IN ALL SPORTS . . . never quit.
Thats why it also runs coun ter to your everyday observation. The Cowboys didnt quit last night. Neither did the Bengals or Bears this weekend. Sean McVay didnt quit. Kevin O'Connell did not quit. Dann Quinn did not quit. He said. Bowles did not quit.
IN HINDSIGHT . . . sure . . but you are all saying IN REAL TIME that Bowles should have done something that almost no one would ever do IN REAL TIME because it is a fundamental truth in all sports that you don't quit.
You are all arguing for the opposite of the general rule of sports.
Thats the red flag . . if your self-scouting.
Literally while it was happening I said empty the bench which completely negates the "hindsight" argument
PFT agrees
"This isn’t specifically about Commanders coach Dan Quinn. He’s just the latest example of it.
NFL coaches need to better protect their quarterbacks.
For quarterbacks who are playing, it’s critical that they avoid unnecessary contact. It’s a constant issue for players like Tua Tagovailoa. Know when to get down, when to throw the ball away, when to get out of bounds.
Their coaches also need to know when to get them the hell out of the game.
The starting quarterbacks are the most important players on their rosters. The better the quarterback, the more important the quarterback. The more important it is for the quarterback to be available."
Do you not agree?
yes i agree
lolz