DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Coaching Search Continued

You go up by four and that game is essentially over.

I heard Peter King talking on the radio today about just this. He was saying that the Broncos had something like a 60% chance of winning had they gone for it on the 4th and short, instead of option to kick their field goal. Even when they MADE the field goal, the win rate dropped to 23%, and it turned out to be one of the worst drops in win percentage of any game this season.

But like you said, it's all about taking the ultra-conservative approach to make yourself look better. If the field goal misses, it's the kickers fault. If the defense gives up a touchdown, it's the their fault. But if the team can't get 1 yard on 4th down, it's the coach's fault.

I look at "that game". Our D had given up one TD the entire game. They had given up three FG's in that same game. Denver had scored less than 20 points six times this year. Your opponent and the situation matter.

Now if we're up against Drew Brees I understand, but given the scenario the outcome was we didn't make the first down and our D stopped them. They would have stopped them with a four point lead too.

Once again you look at the situation. Our D had only given up 16 points the entire game. Instead you give them the opportunity to only go a part of the field and score three to win the game.

You can talk about what you would like to have seen happen. But that's not what happened. We gave them the opportunity to score a FG to win the game instead of them needing a TD to win the game. Our D gave up one TD the entire game. They had given up 3 FG's. Going for it on 4th and 1 isn't a one size fits all proposition.

I really didn't want to enter the fray here because I'm so happy to be winning games I'm not gonna b!tch about how we win them. lol

nobody would really fault Dorsey for sticking with the status quo and trying to see what another season or two brings.

Once again you look at the situation. Our D had only given up 16 points the entire game. Instead you give them the opportunity to only go a part of the field and score three to win the game.

You can talk about what you would like to have seen happen. But that's not what happened. We gave them the opportunity to score a FG to win the game instead of them needing a TD to win the game. Our D gave up one TD the entire game. They had given up 3 FG's. Going for it on 4th and 1 isn't a one size fits all proposition.

I agree 100%. I'm not mad about the decision to go on fourth, but it's never what I would have done in that game.

I think all these "fancy" statistics, especially the "chance of winning the game" stats are out of hand. Every situation is different. One of the things I think is most often overlooked is the effect momentum has on the outcome of games. In a close, low scoring game, I never want to lose momentum... them stopping us on 4th gives them just that.

I definitely don't need stats to understand the difference between making Case Keenum march 75 yards for a TD and wondering if a kicker can make a long FG in Mile High after a few first downs.

I don't understand why people think it's so unlikely that Case Keenum could march 75 yards (or less, depending on the kickoff return) for a touchdown, yet they act like it's a sure thing he could march 50 yards for a reasonable 47 yard field goal. This not even taking into account he'd most likely not even have the chance to attempt the latter, because we'd normally convert on 4th and 1 anyway. Or that the kicker could possibly miss a field goal (Brandon McManus, the Broncos kicker, is 13/27 career from 50+ yards, 25/33 from 40-49).

These are not really things you can rely on intuition for. Game models with real NFL data works much better, and again, you can adjust those for situations specific to that game. In fact, I encourage it. I hope somebody on the "kick FG" side of things presents one here so I can pick it apart. Much easier to do that than make one yourself, I can assure you.

As it relates to the coaching search: I look at this as a huge positive for Williams. By now, I assume most if not all NFL coaches know that the analytics suggest to be more aggressive in these situations. What we need is somebody with courage to follow through, to take on the inevitable criticism when they correctly go for a 4th down, fail to convert, and lose a game as a result (or in this case, win and be criticized anyway.)

To those convinced that Williams is the ideal choice:

1.) What if Dorsey disagrees? Should the Haslams overrule him?

It's speculation that Dorsey is opposed to Williams, but there's reason to believe it could be the case. For starters, Dorsey has spent his entire professional career with organizations that have committed to offensive-minded head coaches. And that's dating back to the 1980s. The desire for offensive coaches has only increased through the years.

Secondly, Dorsey came to Cleveland with a long list of core competencies for rebuilding and sustaining a franchise, including the profile of a successful head coach. I doubt Williams was part of that list, and I would be surprised if Dorsey abandoned those beliefs because the Browns beat a few below-average football teams.

Again, maybe Dorsey identifies with Williams after working with him and values his leadership, but I think it's reasonable to assume some reservations.

2.) Kitchens is not guaranteed to be a part of the Browns' long-term future.

If the Browns continue to progress as an offense in 2019 - and I think that's another reasonable assumption with an offseason of development - then Kitchens is almost certainly gone in 2020. When an offensive assistant shows offensive development and success, that assistant is fast-tracked for one of the league's annual openings.

So, sure, I understand the desire for continuity for the best thing we've had in a while, but the tandem of Williams and Kitchens is only guaranteed for the next twelve months. As such, it should not be viewed as a tandem hire. You are hiring Williams, period. Because, after 2019, it's entirely possible that Williams is searching for a new coordinator for our franchise quarterbacks, and I've got reservations about that.

For that reason, I'd be more inclined to interview/promote Kitchens to head coach if the foremost goal is to ensure a stable environment for the most important person in the franchise in Baker. It would be a meteoric rise, but not unprecedented, and Kitchens is familiar with the personnel and sets the same kind of no-nonsense approach as a Parcells disciple.

To be clear:

I'm not ruling Williams out of the job. He's done quite well, and might be the best option, but he should still have to beat a field of qualified candidates in a fair, thoughtful process. He should not be handed the job as a reward for short-term results. Again, as far as I'm concerned, this is a long-term appointment. That outlook includes 2019, but it doesn't ignore 2021 or even 2023.

The goal isn't to be good. The goal is to be great. As long-suffering Browns fans, it's great to see good football, but that's not the endgame. The endgame is hoisting a seven-pound football made of sterling silver.

Did you really completely ignore the true meaning of my post?

Gawd, this board sucks!

Did you really completely ignore the true meaning of my post?

Gawd, this board sucks!

I do not think there is one set answer and that each situation is unique onto itself.

I would always advocate the analytics and data studies. Any way to gain an edge is a positive. However, I would also look at how big the data base is.

I would also consider who the kicker was. Is he reliable? Untested? Has he choked before? Is he on a roll or struggling? I would NOT assume the kick is a given.

I would also consider that even if I did make the first down that that also does NOT guarantee a TD. Could there be a fumbled snap? An illegal procedure or two? A fumble by the RB or QB? A fumble by a receiver that goes out of the end zone for a touchback? A holding call? A holding call?

Long story short.........nothing is guaranteed. All options must be considered.

I would then further consider how well my D is playing.

How good is their FG kicker?

How dynamic is their offense?

What are the conditions for a possible FG attempt? Rain? Wind? Snow? Muddy field? Dome? Wet ball? High altitude? Below sea level?

I would consider the oppositions QB and WR combination. How likely are they to break a big play?

I would consider my pass rush vs their pass blockers. The QBs ability to buy time. Timeouts remaining.

There is more, but the thing is that I would have to process all of that information and evaluate it in a very short period of time.

Tough call.

I would have kicked the FG, but that doesn't mean it would be the right decision. It's just what I would have done knowing the time, personnel, field conditions, score, etc.

Personally, I think too much acclaim and blame is assigned to these decisions by Monday Morning Analysts.