Is Harbaugh on the Hot Seat Yet

[darklight1216]

36 minutes ago, FerrariFan87 said:

It's getting warmer... another losing season and I think Mr. B. cleans house.

I agree that the seat is warming, but I'm curious as to whether you think "another losing season" means they have to win this year or next season.

33 minutes ago, atomicfront said:

I don't really care whether he gets fired or not.  I would be less inclined to fire him if he hadn't cleaned house after the Super Bowl win.  He didn't have any loyalty to his players who gave him success; why should I have loyalty to him now?   It's not like he is an offensive or defensive genius.  

I'm not sure how much of that is Harbs responsibility. Lewis and Birk retired and Reed was offered too much by another team (as was Kruger). 

Jacoby Jones and Ray Rice later made there own beds etc...

Plus, alot of the big name talent from the SB weren't exactly spring chickens. They would've needed to be replaced sooner rather than later.

28 minutes ago, Moderator 3 said:

Has anyone considered the possibility that these "aggressive" calls are an organizational decision?  Pretty much everyone in the FO has expressed a desire to score more touchdowns as opposed to settling for FGs.  Perhaps John has the full support of Ozzie and Steve in these choices.

I really hadn't considered that. 

Food for thought...

 

I hope the lesson has been learned.

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

Wait, so going for it on 4th and 1 is why we lost?

It wasnt giving up a 65 yard TD on a 2 yard slant on 4th and 1 with just over a minute left in the game??

So, of the offense gets the lead with under 2 minutes left... so all the defense had to do is keep the Giants from marching 75 yards in 1:40, and when they do it in 1 play basically - its the coaches fault?

 

Life isnt a fantasy. If we kick a FG theres no way to guarantee everything else pans out the way it did. What is fact and known is that WE WERE WINNING with less than 2 minutes.

[GrimCoconut]

3 hours ago, Moderator 3 said:

Has anyone considered the possibility that these "aggressive" calls are an organizational decision?  Pretty much everyone in the FO has expressed a desire to score more touchdowns as opposed to settling for FGs.  Perhaps John has the full support of Ozzie and Steve in these choices.

Patience is an important quality. I'll be the first to admit I wasn't a fan of Pees for a time because I felt like the defense failed to meet expectations but he's turned it around. I thought he had a system that was too complicated and this was evident due to the safety play being so bad with constant confusion. Then Eric Weddle comes and the defense is supposedly simplified and the defense looks like it belongs top 10 again. 

I'm not saying I was entirely right because I was also wrong as I wanted a better DC. That said, had we fired Pees like I finally wanted after last season we may not have the success we do now even with Suggs apparently in a wheelchair (an exaggeration to show that our pass rushers are old and not as effective as they once were). It just shows the benefit of patience and if we were patient with Pees I can't imagine the same patience isn't there for John Harbaugh. 

Edited October 17, 2016 by GrimCoconut
Clarification on wheelchair bit

[The Raven]

Going for it on 4th and 1 on the goalline is almost always the right call, according to a number of studies based on statistics and probability. I know logic and statistics make people uncomfortable, but.....

http://www.advancedfootballanalytics.com/index.php/home/research/game-strategy/120-4th-down-study

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/62665328

http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/a-new-study-on-fourth-downs-go-for-it/

Men lie, women lie, numbers don't. And the numbers say go for it.

Edited October 17, 2016 by The Raven

[FerrariFan87]

2 minutes ago, The Raven said:

Going for it on 4th and 1 on the goalline is almost always the right call, according to a number of studies based on statistics and probability. I know logic and statistics make people uncomfortable, but.....

http://www.advancedfootballanalytics.com/index.php/home/research/game-strategy/120-4th-down-study

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/62665328

http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/a-new-study-on-fourth-downs-go-for-it/

Men lie, women lie, numbers don't. And the numbers say go for it.

Yes, but based on our woeful offensive line situation, flow of the game, and how they looked on the previous 3 attempts, going for it was the wrong decision, and it ultimately cost us the game... horrid defense notwithstanding.

[rmcjacket23]

6 minutes ago, FerrariFan87 said:

Yes, but based on our woeful offensive line situation, flow of the game, and how they looked on the previous 3 attempts, going for it was the wrong decision, and it ultimately cost us the game... horrid defense notwithstanding.

Don't understand this logic. If you're acknowledging that our offensive line isn't very good and thus it is difficult for us to drive the ball and score points, why are you settling for a FG that still keeps you behind on the scoreboard?

The entire premise of kicking a FG there is the notion that you will have another opportunity to get more points later. But if our offense is struggling to move the ball, how would that assumption make sense?

Especially when you've got a good idea that the Giants are going to score again... probably at least 6 more points. By definition, you're likely not going to get a better TD scoring opportunity the rest of the game than the one presented right in front of you.

If anything, I think the opposite of what you said should be true. I'd expect a prolific offense, one that feels it could move the ball down the field multiple times and score, to kick the FG. Because they have a good idea they'll be back in a similar spot again. Can't even vaguely say that for the Ravens, and certainly can't think that way when the defense is struggling.

 

[Willbacker]

18 hours ago, flynismo said:

Is that what I said, or are you putting words in my mouth?

No the point is Harbs would do it every time and you think he can do no wrong. How many times has he decided to forsake the pts. Sometimes it works but theres way too many times it don't. And its cost us. A 4th down stop by the D is always an emotional lift  no matter where they at on the field

[flynismo]

2 hours ago, The Raven said:

Going for it on 4th and 1 on the goalline is almost always the right call, according to a number of studies based on statistics and probability. I know logic and statistics make people uncomfortable, but.....

http://www.advancedfootballanalytics.com/index.php/home/research/game-strategy/120-4th-down-study

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/62665328

http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/a-new-study-on-fourth-downs-go-for-it/

Men lie, women lie, numbers don't. And the numbers say go for it.

I was all the way with you til you dropped that bomb, ha. It is well known that there are three types of lies:

1. Lies 2. Damn lies 3. Statistics

[flynismo]

49 minutes ago, Willbacker said:

No the point is Harbs would do it every time and you think he can do no wrong. How many times has he decided to forsake the pts. Sometimes it works but theres way too many times it don't. And its cost us. A 4th down stop by the D is always an emotional lift  no matter where they at on the field

Again, putting words in my mouth.

Just a thought experiment: can you name a time where Harbaugh went for it on 4th down (you can include faked FGs) and it worked and resulted in points -- either immediate points off the play, or later on in the drive? No cheating, don't google it. This isn't a test, not trying to prove anyone wrong, I just want to demonstrate a point to you. Name three examples of it, if you can, if you can't, that's fine too.

Edited October 17, 2016 by flynismo

[Willbacker]

48 minutes ago, flynismo said:

Again, putting words in my mouth.

Just a thought experiment: can you name a time where Harbaugh went for it on 4th down (you can include faked FGs) and it worked and resulted in points -- either immediate points off the play, or later on in the drive? No cheating, don't google it. This isn't a test, not trying to prove anyone wrong, I just want to demonstrate a point to you. Name three examples of it, if you can, if you can't, that's fine too.

Go ahead. Prove your point cuz Id have to google. Info like that doesn't totally stick in my brain. Too much other things ticking in there lol

Now I think a better thing to do is whenever we can kick a reasonable FG(say 40 yds) and pass it up you give me examples of when we got 7 cuz a later FG doesn't count and then I give you examples of when we get 0. This has to be when we don't need the TD.

Would hate to have to do all this work but the last 2 yrs of play should be enough.

Oh btw with at least a quarter left should we go for it everytime on 4th and goal at the one when we're within lets say 10 pts?

Edited October 17, 2016 by Willbacker

[Nightman]

If Harbaugh is let go, expect someone like the Browns to pick him and when he faces the Ravens, he'll want beat the stuffing out of us.

[PurpleCity5]

7 hours ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Don't understand this logic. If you're acknowledging that our offensive line isn't very good and thus it is difficult for us to drive the ball and score points, why are you settling for a FG that still keeps you behind on the scoreboard?

The entire premise of kicking a FG there is the notion that you will have another opportunity to get more points later. But if our offense is struggling to move the ball, how would that assumption make sense?

Especially when you've got a good idea that the Giants are going to score again... probably at least 6 more points. By definition, you're likely not going to get a better TD scoring opportunity the rest of the game than the one presented right in front of you.

If anything, I think the opposite of what you said should be true. I'd expect a prolific offense, one that feels it could move the ball down the field multiple times and score, to kick the FG. Because they have a good idea they'll be back in a similar spot again. Can't even vaguely say that for the Ravens, and certainly can't think that way when the defense is struggling.

 

It was the right decision. You score then you take the lead, you fail to score and you have them backed up at the 1 pretty much giving you a good chance of getting you the ball back anyways. When your defense is playing that awful, then you have to go for it. 

[BmoreBird22]

16 hours ago, The Raven said:

Going for it on 4th and 1 on the goalline is almost always the right call, according to a number of studies based on statistics and probability. I know logic and statistics make people uncomfortable, but.....

http://www.advancedfootballanalytics.com/index.php/home/research/game-strategy/120-4th-down-study

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/62665328

http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/a-new-study-on-fourth-downs-go-for-it/

Men lie, women lie, numbers don't. And the numbers say go for it.

I'll admit I only read the first one, and even then briefly, but with reading it, I still disagree with the idea to go for it, for a few reasons.

The Ravens were down by four, so a field goal for the Giants would have made it a 7 point game just to tie. A field goal means that it's still a winnable game if the Ravens get a touchdown, or they could just hold the Giants because according to the graph, there's maybe a 0.5 EP outcome if they start at their own 25. They're more likely to punt than score, according to that graph. 

I also look at the prior two weeks where two coaching decisions loomed very large at the end of the game. It is all speculation based on all things remaining equal, but in hindsight, they weren't the best choices.

I just didn't feel it was the best choice of play or the best decision.

[jimmypowder]

A double digit losing losing this year and Harbaugh is gone. Guaranteed. 

[OLD SCHOOL SMASH BALL]

Name 3-5 College head coaches you think are smarter than Harbaugh? Or would improve our team by being here? Forget Nfl retreads

[ravens rule]

4 hours ago, jimmypowder said:

A double digit losing losing this year and Harbaugh is gone. Guaranteed. 

Are u really counting  last season tho ?

[RayRayRaven]

On ‎10‎/‎16‎/‎2016 at 9:44 PM, JO_75 said:

Something tells me Harbaugh knows the 2012 pattern... explains why he went for it

really? you think harb was playin the history from 2012?  harb is a gut coach and his gut tells him to go for it more likely than not You go for it when you're trying to ice it not when you are on the road and your team is fighting for points.  If he does that again he should be yelled at

[OLD SCHOOL SMASH BALL]

12 hours ago, BmoreBird22 said:

I'll admit I only read the first one, and even then briefly, but with reading it, I still disagree with the idea to go for it, for a few reasons.

The Ravens were down by four, so a field goal for the Giants would have made it a 7 point game just to tie. A field goal means that it's still a winnable game if the Ravens get a touchdown, or they could just hold the Giants because according to the graph, there's maybe a 0.5 EP outcome if they start at their own 25. They're more likely to punt than score, according to that graph. 

I also look at the prior two weeks where two coaching decisions loomed very large at the end of the game. It is all speculation based on all things remaining equal, but in hindsight, they weren't the best choices.

I just didn't feel it was the best choice of play or the best decision.

This plus 10, well written... take the freakin points, keep the game within Tuckers reach, what moron gambles away game after game, when points are at a premium

[RayRayRaven]

On ‎10‎/‎17‎/‎2016 at 4:18 PM, Willbacker said:

No the point is Harbs would do it every time and you think he can do no wrong. How many times has he decided to forsake the pts. Sometimes it works but theres way too many times it don't. And its cost us. A 4th down stop by the D is always an emotional lift  no matter where they at on the field

i have to say on games I've watched harb has had a tough time of iit going on 4th down  If he takes the points we are likely 5-1 not that we are really a 5-1 team cuz every game has been hard to watch  Now the schedule gets tough

[RayRayRaven]

1 minute ago, OLD SCHOOL SMASH BALL said:

This plus 10, well written... take the freakin points, keep the game within Tuckers reach, what moron gambles away game after game, when points are at a premium

bad line best kicker in the game that's all that needs to be said

[OLD SCHOOL SMASH BALL]

Just got to watch 4th and goal fail again on Nfl replay, I forgot it was at the beginning of the 4th quarter too... would have been 17-16......dang what could have been, ugh, smh again

[PurpleHorseman]

Maybe warm but not hot

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

On 10/18/2016 at 9:01 AM, BmoreBird22 said:

I'll admit I only read the first one, and even then briefly, but with reading it, I still disagree with the idea to go for it, for a few reasons.

The Ravens were down by four, so a field goal for the Giants would have made it a 7 point game just to tie. A field goal means that it's still a winnable game if the Ravens get a touchdown, or they could just hold the Giants because according to the graph, there's maybe a 0.5 EP outcome if they start at their own 25. They're more likely to punt than score, according to that graph. 

I also look at the prior two weeks where two coaching decisions loomed very large at the end of the game. It is all speculation based on all things remaining equal, but in hindsight, they weren't the best choices.

I just didn't feel it was the best choice of play or the best decision.

Here's my issue with your post.

You use the analytics to support the idea of taking the 3, because with them starting on their own 25 it's more likely they'll punt than score.

But ignore the analytics that say 100% going for the TD on 4th and 1 at the 1 is the right call.

 

Plus, if you kick the FG and then give up a TD you now need a TD plus a 2 pt conversion. If you score the TD, you're up 3. A FG for them only ties, and TD for them means you win with a TD.

Kick the FG and then give up a FG? Still need to score a TD. So, if you kick the FG and then give up ANY points at all you still need to score a TD to win. So, if you're going to have to score a TD to win most likely, why would you pass up the opportunity from the 1 yd line in favor of trying to score from your own 25?

The way the game was going, with Jimmy out and no pass rush, we were absolutely going to need a TD to win. You're not going to get a better chance than from inside the 1 yard line. Not to mention West had already punched it in from there earlier in the game. Everything screams go for it from game flow, to analytics, to past results. I just dont get this whole, well take the FG and live to fight another day.... ESPECIALLY on the road. You need to score points on the road to win. And quite frankly, if you cant score from the 1 yd line you dont deserve to win.

 

And besides all of it - all the subjective minutia we can go back and forth on - and regardless of how you feel about it.... it worked out that we scored a TD to take the lead with less than 2 minutes left. 

Maybe we're up more if we take the FG, maybe we're down 3 TDs had we done that - theres no way to know so its pointless to argue.

What we do know, is that with everything playing out exactly like it did - we had the lead. We just need the defense to stop them from marching down the field from their own 25 (btw the same scenario you're suggesting we should have settled for, by taking the FG with a 1 pt deficit... if we couldnt manage that scenario with a 3 point lead, why should we assume that it would end positively for us while we're losing??) 

 

Edited October 19, 2016 by BOLDnPurPnBlacK

[BmoreBird22]

1 hour ago, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

Here's my issue with your post.

You use the analytics to support the idea of taking the 3, because with them starting on their own 25 it's more likely they'll punt than score.

But ignore the analytics that say 100% going for the TD on 4th and 1 at the 1 is the right call.

 

Plus, if you kick the FG and then give up a TD you now need a TD plus a 2 pt conversion. If you score the TD, you're up 3. A FG for them only ties, and TD for them means you win with a TD.

Kick the FG and then give up a FG? Still need to score a TD. So, if you kick the FG and then give up ANY points at all you still need to score a TD to win. So, if you're going to have to score a TD to win most likely, why would you pass up the opportunity from the 1 yd line in favor of trying to score from your own 25?

The way the game was going, with Jimmy out and no pass rush, we were absolutely going to need a TD to win. You're not going to get a better chance than from inside the 1 yard line. Not to mention West had already punched it in from there earlier in the game. Everything screams go for it from game flow, to analytics, to past results. I just dont get this whole, well take the FG and live to fight another day.... ESPECIALLY on the road. You need to score points on the road to win. And quite frankly, if you cant score from the 1 yd line you dont deserve to win.

 

And besides all of it - all the subjective minutia we can go back and forth on - and regardless of how you feel about it.... it worked out that we scored a TD to take the lead with less than 2 minutes left. 

Maybe we're up more if we take the FG, maybe we're down 3 TDs had we done that - theres no way to know so its pointless to argue.

What we do know, is that with everything playing out exactly like it did - we had the lead. We just need the defense to stop them from marching down the field from their own 25 (btw the same scenario you're suggesting we should have settled for, by taking the FG with a 1 pt deficit... if we couldnt manage that scenario with a 3 point lead, why should we assume that it would end positively for us while we're losing??) 

 

Uh, no, no where in there does it say that 100% of the time that going for it is the right call. The author pooled some data and said that he'd suggest going for it, but there isn't a way to say that it is 100% the "right call". Feel free to explain to me how you arrived at that explanation because statistics and data are easily misinterpreted.

Also, the expected points from the 1 yard line is about 5.5, which is likely why he drew that conclusion. However, we SHOULD expect to see a higher EP from the one yard line because you're more likely to score if you've got four chances at the end zone from the one. 

Also, this data can't account for the fact that the Ravens had three prior failed plays from within the two yard line. It also can't take into account personnel or anything like that.

However, let's go back to the graphs for a minute. Let's say the Ravens kick the field goal and go down by 1. Then, Justin Tucker is likely to boot it out of the end zone. Again, the EP from that point is about 0.5, so they're not even likely to score a field goal, which leaves the Ravens down by 1 point still with a punt. 

If we go back to the game stats, the Giants had about 430 yards of total offense, 140 of which came from two fluke plays to OBJ. One was literally caused by two players tripping up on each other. In the second half, the Giants literally had ONE drive (out of like six or seven) that went on for longer than seven plays. Assuming it took three plays to get a first down, the Giants were punting four plays later. Their average yards per drive, taking out the two huge touchdowns, was 30 yards per drive. Assuming a touchback, that puts them at the Ravens 45, well out of field goal range. 

Was it the right call? I do not think so and there is nothing that will convince me otherwise.

And this isn't to say I think Harbaugh is on the hot seat. Marvin Lewis endured how many mediocre seasons in Cinci? He made the playoffs twice in like eight years before Andy Dalton/AJ Green and was the king of the 8-8 season. He was a Jeff Fisher clone. I don't think Harbaugh gets fired unless the Ravens lost 13 straight.

Edited October 19, 2016 by BmoreBird22

[usmccharles]

I don't get why the 4th down call is still being debated.  It's clearly preference as there is no right or wrong other than the fact that we didn't get the td so it's wrong,  I'd we got the td it would be right.   It would be better to just make it's own thread and start a poll

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

8 minutes ago, BmoreBird22 said:

Uh, no, no where in there does it say that 100% of the time that going for it is the right call. The author pooled some data and said that he'd suggest going for it, but there isn't a way to say that it is 100% the "right call". Feel free to explain to me how you arrived at that explanation because statistics and data are easily misinterpreted.

Also, the expected points from the 1 yard line is about 5.5, which is likely why he drew that conclusion. However, we SHOULD expect to see a higher EP from the one yard line because you're more likely to score if you've got four chances at the end zone from the one. 

Also, this data can't account for the fact that the Ravens had three prior failed plays from within the two yard line. It also can't take into account personnel or anything like that.

However, let's go back to the graphs for a minute. Let's say the Ravens kick the field goal and go down by 1. Then, Justin Tucker is likely to boot it out of the end zone. Again, the EP from that point is about 0.5, so they're not even likely to score a field goal, which leaves the Ravens down by 1 point still with a punt. 

If we go back to the game stats, the Giants had about 430 yards of total offense, 140 of which came from two fluke plays to OBJ. One was literally caused by two players tripping up on each other. In the second half, the Giants literally had ONE drive (out of like six or seven) that went on for longer than seven plays. Assuming it took three plays to get a first down, the Giants were punting four plays later. Their average yards per drive, taking out the two huge touchdowns, was 30 yards per drive. Assuming a touchback, that puts them at the Ravens 45, well out of field goal range. 

Was it the right call? I do not think so and there is nothing that will convince me otherwise.

100% was in reference to the number of sources I've come across whose research suggests going for it on 4th and 1 (pretty much every reputable source I could find says going for it in that situation is the right call). And when the result of converting said 4th down results in 7 points, it's even more suggested to go for it.

Focus on the "100%" comment all you want. My question was, why ignore the analytics that say go for it, and then use analytics in support of what theyre expected to do from the 25. Likewise too, if the analytics dont account for the fact that we failed 3 straight times - the expected points from the 25 doesnt account for the fact that we were without Jimmy Smith and had a hard time stopping them in the 2nd half.

But, even then we're going to far. I don't know whose analysis or metrics youre using that cite .5 EP from the 25... but Id venture to guess the same resource suggests going for it on 4th and 1 from the 1. So, if we're to accept their expertise and use it to support your opinion - then it would only make sense to accept their analysis in going for it.

If we dont accept that first conclusion, we cant accept anything that follows from it.

All im saying, and my only issue was - if we're going to follow analytics and statistics, then follow it. If we're going to be subjective, using anecdotal evidence and trends from the game itself (personnel, prior successes/failures, etc...) then lets do that. But, it doesnt make much sense to ignore certain aspects, and use others.

Either theyre an expert and we accept their conclusions. Or theyre flawed and we dont. Because the same formulas and metrics used to determine the Giants unlikelihood of scoring any points when starting from the 25 likely determined its also in a teams best interest to go for it.

Im not trying to change your opinion necessary - i know that wont happen... which is why i said my only issue with your post was using analytics here and not there - not necessarily the conclusion you come to.

 

The analytics would have to go much deeper anyways. For taking the FG to make sense, we'd have to be more likely to kick another FG AND hold the Giants scoreless than we were to punch in the TD from the 1. Bc if we allow even a Giants FG, we either need 2 FGs again or a TD... and we're much more likely to score on 1 play from the 1 yd line than we are on any drive wiht pretty much any starting position.

While the Giants EP might be 0.5 from the 25... our accumulative EP for our remaining drives would have to net more than +1 over the Giants EP the rest of the way. And with the way they were moving the ball, I just dont see any evidence in favor of that. But different strokes for different folks.

 

What say you about or decision to go for it on 4th down from our own 35 with 3 minutes left?

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

11 minutes ago, usmccharles said:

I don't get why the 4th down call is still being debated.  It's clearly preference as there is no right or wrong other than the fact that we didn't get the td so it's wrong,  I'd we got the td it would be right.   It would be better to just make it's own thread and start a poll

Youre right in that its pure preference. I'm simply debating some of the arguments against it...

And while the preference is subjective and therefore debatable... what isnt is the fact that even with going for it - we took the lead with less than 2 minutes left. So, what i think some dont understand is why the call is being used as a reason for the loss.

Thats my biggest question. Regardless of opinion, we had a lead with less than 2 minutes with the Giants on their own 25... and even got them into a 4th down. We absolutely should win in that scenario, so nothing before that imo is what lost the game.

And even giving up the TD; if Joe hits a wide open Wallace we've got 2 shots at the end zone from inside the 10... another great opportunity to win the game. 

So, I just dont see how Harbs decision to go for it is being used as the excuse for losing. He took a calculated gamble. Whether you like it or not, we still should have won the game without converting.

[BmoreBird22]

1 hour ago, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

100% was in reference to the number of sources I've come across whose research suggests going for it on 4th and 1 (pretty much every reputable source I could find says going for it in that situation is the right call). And when the result of converting said 4th down results in 7 points, it's even more suggested to go for it.

Focus on the "100%" comment all you want. My question was, why ignore the analytics that say go for it, and then use analytics in support of what theyre expected to do from the 25. Likewise too, if the analytics dont account for the fact that we failed 3 straight times - the expected points from the 25 doesnt account for the fact that we were without Jimmy Smith and had a hard time stopping them in the 2nd half.

But, even then we're going to far. I don't know whose analysis or metrics youre using that cite .5 EP from the 25... but Id venture to guess the same resource suggests going for it on 4th and 1 from the 1. So, if we're to accept their expertise and use it to support your opinion - then it would only make sense to accept their analysis in going for it.

If we dont accept that first conclusion, we cant accept anything that follows from it.

All im saying, and my only issue was - if we're going to follow analytics and statistics, then follow it. If we're going to be subjective, using anecdotal evidence and trends from the game itself (personnel, prior successes/failures, etc...) then lets do that. But, it doesnt make much sense to ignore certain aspects, and use others.

Either theyre an expert and we accept their conclusions. Or theyre flawed and we dont. Because the same formulas and metrics used to determine the Giants unlikelihood of scoring any points when starting from the 25 likely determined its also in a teams best interest to go for it.

Im not trying to change your opinion necessary - i know that wont happen... which is why i said my only issue with your post was using analytics here and not there - not necessarily the conclusion you come to.

 

The analytics would have to go much deeper anyways. For taking the FG to make sense, we'd have to be more likely to kick another FG AND hold the Giants scoreless than we were to punch in the TD from the 1. Bc if we allow even a Giants FG, we either need 2 FGs again or a TD... and we're much more likely to score on 1 play from the 1 yd line than we are on any drive wiht pretty much any starting position.

While the Giants EP might be 0.5 from the 25... our accumulative EP for our remaining drives would have to net more than +1 over the Giants EP the rest of the way. And with the way they were moving the ball, I just dont see any evidence in favor of that. But different strokes for different folks.

 

What say you about or decision to go for it on 4th down from our own 35 with 3 minutes left?

Actually, it's a fallacy that the Ravens weren't stopping the Giants in the second half without Jimmy. From my count, the Ravens played seven drives without Jimmy Smith and only one went longer than seven plays. That one drive was a field goal. One of the two touchdowns comes because two players tangle their feet together. Other than that, the Ravens were stopping them better than I think people realize. It is true that Odell Beckham had a much better game, including 140 yards on two catches, but the Ravens could have definitely made a stop, like they did on the next drive in pretty short order.

No, these don't determine likelihoods and that's the issue with using these to determine whether it was the right call or not. It gives you EXPECTED POINTS. That's the big issue that I'm seeing here. We'd expect the Ravens to get 5.5 points from the 1 yard line because we'd expect points in some form or fashion, field goal or touchdown, to be the result of reaching the one yard line. A field goal right there is going to be a make 999/1000 times, so we'd expect points. It does not tell you success rates from going for it on fourth and one. That is one thing this graph fails to do when drawing it's conclusions.

Likewise, it doesn't give us a percentage of success rates from the 25, but we're not expecting a ton of points, which makes sense because it's not always easy to move the ball from the 25 into scoring range. Josh Brown's consistent long is about 53 yards, which means he'd need to be at the 35 yard line to make that kick. That requires the Giants to get 40 yards when their average drive, if we take away OBJ's two long touchdowns, is about 30 yards. In that case, they're probably not getting into field goal range. 

Furthermore, there were eight Giant drives prior to the fourth down gaffe. Only one had started at or behind the 25 yard line AND resulted in points... it was a field goal. That's a 12.5% rate of success for points in that very game from starting from the 25. 

As for the decision to go for it with about three minutes left, I support that because if the Giants pick up a first down, you're talking about hitting the 2:00 warning with maybe no timeouts or starting at the two minute warning with all three and hoping and praying the Giants don't pick up another first. Assuming they don't and you used all three timeouts, that's like 1:30 with no timeouts to drive maybe 75+ yards. That's not easy to do whatsoever. However, that's vastly different than having 14:57 left if you just kick the FG.

[usmccharles]

1 hour ago, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

Youre right in that its pure preference. I'm simply debating some of the arguments against it...

And while the preference is subjective and therefore debatable... what isnt is the fact that even with going for it - we took the lead with less than 2 minutes left. So, what i think some dont understand is why the call is being used as a reason for the loss.

Thats my biggest question. Regardless of opinion, we had a lead with less than 2 minutes with the Giants on their own 25... and even got them into a 4th down. We absolutely should win in that scenario, so nothing before that imo is what lost the game.

And even giving up the TD; if Joe hits a wide open Wallace we've got 2 shots at the end zone from inside the 10... another great opportunity to win the game. 

So, I just dont see how Harbs decision to go for it is being used as the excuse for losing. He took a calculated gamble. Whether you like it or not, we still should have won the game without converting.

Yea i agree with you.  The bad part is,  the posters here that already want harbs gone use this as the "nail".   Even with the outcome as it is,  I still would of went for it,  I think it's just a catch 22.  I like to think I'm Objective and I've called out the FO on things I didn't like,  this is one of the things I did like.  It will be interesting how long some of the haters hang on to this one.   

[PurpleCity5]

15 minutes ago, BmoreBird22 said:

Actually, it's a fallacy that the Ravens weren't stopping the Giants in the second half without Jimmy. From my count, the Ravens played seven drives without Jimmy Smith and only one went longer than seven plays. That one drive was a field goal. One of the two touchdowns comes because two players tangle their feet together. Other than that, the Ravens were stopping them better than I think people realize. It is true that Odell Beckham had a much better game, including 140 yards on two catches, but the Ravens could have definitely made a stop, like they did on the next drive in pretty short order.

No, these don't determine likelihoods and that's the issue with using these to determine whether it was the right call or not. It gives you EXPECTED POINTS. That's the big issue that I'm seeing here. We'd expect the Ravens to get 5.5 points from the 1 yard line because we'd expect points in some form or fashion, field goal or touchdown, to be the result of reaching the one yard line. A field goal right there is going to be a make 999/1000 times, so we'd expect points. It does not tell you success rates from going for it on fourth and one. That is one thing this graph fails to do when drawing it's conclusions.

Likewise, it doesn't give us a percentage of success rates from the 25, but we're not expecting a ton of points, which makes sense because it's not always easy to move the ball from the 25 into scoring range. Josh Brown's consistent long is about 53 yards, which means he'd need to be at the 35 yard line to make that kick. That requires the Giants to get 40 yards when their average drive, if we take away OBJ's two long touchdowns, is about 30 yards. In that case, they're probably not getting into field goal range. 

Furthermore, there were eight Giant drives prior to the fourth down gaffe. Only one had started at or behind the 25 yard line AND resulted in points... it was a field goal. That's a 12.5% rate of success for points in that very game from starting from the 25. 

As for the decision to go for it with about three minutes left, I support that because if the Giants pick up a first down, you're talking about hitting the 2:00 warning with maybe no timeouts or starting at the two minute warning with all three and hoping and praying the Giants don't pick up another first. Assuming they don't and you used all three timeouts, that's like 1:30 with no timeouts to drive maybe 75+ yards. That's not easy to do whatsoever. However, that's vastly different than having 14:57 left if you just kick the FG.

On one of the plays that Odell scored the TD on Young, Weddle did collide with Young but looking at the play closely, Odell looked like he had pretty good position on Young. I give more blame to Weddle on that play because he should have been more aware of his field position. It appears he was covering the flats, but did not see Young trying to cover Beckham on a slant, last thing you want to due when getting near a teammate is getting to close to him on a slant, especially if you're a safety, it's one of the worst things you can do. Webb had awful position as well on Beckham and had a very slow change of pace there. Two players got tangled up but I think its much more than that. Beckham also did have some big plays, one for 40+  on Wright, another big TD on Will Davis and without the two long TDs that's 76 yards I believe. Even if we relieved OBJ of that 76 Yard TD, that's still 144 on the day. One thing I noticed about Jimmys absence if how confused the CBs looked. They looked like they did not know coverage assignments or who was going to cover who. They just looked all over the place and sloppy. I think Jimmy has more to do with communication than we anticipated.