venecol
PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
2021 Weekly Picks Winner
2022 Weekly Picks Winner
2023 Weekly Picks Winner
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2015
- Messages
- 22,701
- Reaction score
- 28,230
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.So context does matter, then, and it shows that (under your theory) Staley didn't really have the courage of his convictions.
Sure…context absolutely matters. I don’t think analytics should ever work in a vacuum, and often times common sense beats analytics.
I wonder if the Chargers would have gone for 2 had this not been a bizarre game where a tie is basically as good as a win. But if that wasn’t a factor then, yes, I think at some point every coach has a point where the fear of failure overtakes the correct risk:reward decision.
And also, I’m guessing Staley factored in “momentum” as well, even though analytics would say there really is no momentum, so erasing a 15 point lead in the past doesn’t predict the future. Maybe there’s something to the defense being tired, but maybe that goes both ways. That’s a really interesting debate and at the crux of what you and I (and often others) sometimes see these decisions differently.
I think the biggest issues with trying to assess decisions is that no two decisions are exactly alike. Even with computer models about field position, it doesn’t account for your quarterback. If it accounts for your quarterback, it doesn’t account for your left tackle needing a breather. And so on and so on.
All that said, I wouldn’t say I’m really an analytics guy to begin with. My reasoning isn’t really rooted in math; it’s really just based around the idea that I’d rather put the game in the hands of my star QB if I have one, and keep the ball away from the other team’s star QB. And it’s worth taking those types of risks, usually.
That's been my position from the beginning of the analytics movement. My point in mentioning it here is that, under your theory, Staley agrees with the notion, and thus has no excuse for some of his ridiculous calls.
If I recall correctly without double checking, the analytics tells you to go for two there, because it gives you an increased chance of winning. It also gives you an increased chance of losing, but lessens the chances of a tie. How Staley might have been swayed by the context here is something that would be interesting to know.
Yeah, and another problem with the analytics is that you become an automaton over a couple of percentage points. "It's a 51% chance of success if I do it this way, and only 49% if I do it the other way" shouldn't be convincing logic to anyone.
General post, not aimed at anyone in particular, but just so people have the info:
Bisaccia says that the timeout changed the Raiders' thinking. Carr says the timeout changed the Raiders' thinking.
Staley says the time out didn't change the Raiders' thinking.
Y'all are free to choose who you believe.
Zero argument from me on that one. What the hell was he thinking there?
His claim is that he wanted to put his best 1 RB run defense personnel on the field.
The biggest bright spot in a rather crappy day!
The biggest bright spot in a rather crappy day!
You don’t know if he’s a good coach? After this season and especially that game, it should be clear that he’s a bad coach. He might be fine as a coordinator, but his decision making at the top spot is just atrocious.I don't know if Staley is a good coach. He lucked into coaching an all star team on the Rams.
Chargers will probably take that NT Davis in the draft if they're smart. Their run defense looks as crappy as the Patriots run D.
.
Not just that. If you the Raiders, you were running the ball hoping to get a few extra yards, but you were content with missing the FG and tying. That’s what they had already been doing the first 2 downs in that sequence. The only thing you can’t do is lose that game. And you know the Chargers are ok with a tie.It seemed like the defense was in position to stop that run…I’d have to watch it again. But the timeout just seemed weird. There was no way the Raiders were throwing there, so I thought the defense would just sniff out the draw.
General post, not aimed at anyone in particular, but just so people have the info:
Bisaccia says that the timeout changed the Raiders' thinking. Carr says the timeout changed the Raiders' thinking.
Staley says the time out didn't change the Raiders' thinking.
Y'all are free to choose who you believe.
Maybe the analytics told Staley the timeout wouldn't change the Raiders thinking?