Arians and His Stupid Ego

[Chopper0080]

Against a potential hall of fame QB, I have no problem with the call. Rodgers is magic...and scoring a TD eliminates that. Personally, I think 40 seconds doesn't even matter for Rodgers. He would have found his way down there anyway. That is what he has done in his career.

 

[cardfaninfl]

That's the thing for people to remember. When he takes those kind of risks, what he is telling his players is that he believes in them. Players love that. That being said, if he wanted to throw it there, I wish he would have called the shovel pass to Larry at that point and avoided the need for it later on.

One of the reasons players buy into his system and is considered a player's coach. He understands the psychology of young, competitive men.

 

[Stout]

I agree wholeheartedly, but when you live by the sword, you die by the sword. Let us bask in the glory of winning last night by taking some huge risks. But, on the other side of the coin, we will experience some agony with some of his risk taking too. As a 50+ year Cardinal fan, BA has brought us to rarified air, so I'll take it. No risk it, no biscuit

That's right. He's hit by going deep on some of those 3rd and 1 plays throughout the year. He's also made some really poor football decisions. Just being ballsy and ALWAYS being aggressive no matter what the situation is stupid; being selectively aggressive and picking your shots is savvy. Thankfully Arians hasn't been the former, though he's been way more aggressive than the latter. Last night he most definitely fell into the former. It made zero football sense. It gave arguably the best quarterback in the game a ton of extra time. It gave them the time to come back, plain and simple. That much isn't even close to being arguable.

There you go. .right there.

That's why the OP is pretty ridiculous. sorry Stout.

You, Conrad and Ed man.. acting like you know better than the coach of the year. lol.

Thank you for playing--hit the reset button. You are 100 percent wrong. Sorry, Crimson

Tell me again how giving arguably the best QB in the NFL an extra 35-40 seconds is a good idea? Oh, right, it's a stupid idea. Thanks for playing.

I don't agree at all about Arian's decisions here.

The correct call is the one that helps our team the most and hurts the other team the most.

There are cases where coaches chicken out and don't do what needs to be done because of fear in that case I think we never have to worry about Arian's doing that which is great.

However it goes too far when he does things that start fighting math.

The math on this one was absolute.

That hail Mary never happens if he doesn't do something stupid like throw there. You all are good with this now but if it costs us a NFC championship or Super Bowl you will not be good with it.

It's a fine line and if he were to do something ballsey that fails I won't jump on him for that but math is math, no excuses for not knowing math.

The math was absolute. An excellent way of stating it. It's like Arians at times wants to prove that he knows more than everybody, not because it gives him the best chance to win, but just...because.

 

[D-Dogg]

From the beginning, I have had the opinion that I will not be pissed if his aggressiveness costs us a title. Because that is also what puts us in that position.

The playcall was perfect...catch made, game over. No Hail Mary, no anything. Kneel it out and move on.

Here's a pretty nice rule...have you complained about any of his aggressive calls this year that worked? Like DJ for the pass against NO that turned into a TD? Because if you have, by all means then bitch now. But if you didn't then, **** now. Because they don't always work out, but more often than not they do. You can't selectively praise his aggression and selectively condemn it.

BTW, the odds were great on the call, when, where and why, and even in the way it was executed. It was a generally low risk/high reward play. And it took TWO hail mary plays on ONE drive in order to make it even questionable.

 

[D-Dogg]

Tell me again how giving arguably the best QB in the NFL an extra 35-40 seconds is a good idea? Oh, right, it's a stupid idea. Thanks for playing.

Because the upside of that play was giving him ZERO seconds and ending the game.

Not that hard to fathom the risk/reward in throwing to Larry there on a quick fade.

 

[D-Dogg]

Against a potential hall of fame QB, I have no problem with the call. Rodgers is magic...and scoring a TD eliminates that. Personally, I think 40 seconds doesn't even matter for Rodgers. He would have found his way down there anyway. That is what he has done in his career.

Agreed.

People are judging this call by the hindsight of Aaron Rodgers having a SUPERHUMAN drive with two converted hail mary plays. FFS, that isn't statistically likely when you are doing the "math" on making that playcall.

 

[Cardiac]

Against a potential hall of fame QB, I have no problem with the call. Rodgers is magic...and scoring a TD eliminates that. Personally, I think 40 seconds doesn't even matter for Rodgers. He would have found his way down there anyway. That is what he has done in his career.

I agree with this.

I also agree with those who stated that you can't praise the other ballsy calls BA has made that worked and then bitch about the few that haven't.

Also agree with those who say that BA sets a culture on the team and gets his players buy in because of his aggressive attitude. No risk it No biscuit, it's more than just a clever saying.

The culture that BA has established is why this team is going to the NFC championship game and you can't have that culture by hedging your bets and doing math instead of leading men to victory.

One other note. We don't get to experience the crazy fun the end of this game in OT it things didn't play out the way they did in regulation.

Seriously, seeing Fitz being in Fitzmode on that first play in OT is one of the greatest plays I've witnessed and maybe the one I enjoyed the most. It added on to the legend which is Fitz and the GAM that is Fitz in the playoffs.

Can't fully enjoy the pleasure without having experienced pain and sadness.

 

[conraddobler]

We are going to just have to agree to disagree on this one I won't budge an inch on this if you all differ fine but nothing is going to convince me this was a good risk.

 

[CardsSunsDbacks]

Against a potential hall of fame QB, I have no problem with the call. Rodgers is magic...and scoring a TD eliminates that. Personally, I think 40 seconds doesn't even matter for Rodgers. He would have found his way down there anyway. That is what he has done in his career.

Exactly this! I would add getting a first down basically ends the game as well. Truthfully had it worked no one would be criticizing the call right now. Instead we would see threads titled "Big Brass Ones" and "Balls of Steel".

 

[MadCardDisease]

Loved the call. No way I'm bitching about Arians. His philosophy got us to this place, you can take it or leave it. Personally, I take it.

Agreed.

I just saw GB pinned back on their 3 yard line go 97 yards in less than a minute. If there is any time on the clock the game ain't over.

Lets not forget that we went for it on 4th down instead of taking an easy FG. No risk it no biscuit!

Buckle up and enjoy this crazy ride!

 

[MadCardDisease]

That's right. He's hit by going deep on some of those 3rd and 1 plays throughout the year. He's also made some really poor football decisions. Just being ballsy and ALWAYS being aggressive no matter what the situation is stupid; being selectively aggressive and picking your shots is savvy. Thankfully Arians hasn't been the former, though he's been way more aggressive than the latter. Last night he most definitely fell into the former. It made zero football sense. It gave arguably the best quarterback in the game a ton of extra time. It gave them the time to come back, plain and simple. That much isn't even close to being arguable.



Thank you for playing--hit the reset button. You are 100 percent wrong. Sorry, Crimson

Tell me again how giving arguably the best QB in the NFL an extra 35-40 seconds is a good idea? Oh, right, it's a stupid idea. Thanks for playing.



The math was absolute. An excellent way of stating it. It's like Arians at times wants to prove that he knows more than everybody, not because it gives him the best chance to win, but just...because.

I saw Rodgers go 97 yards in like 30 seconds. The minute his back was up against the wall he made some amazing plays. If the Cards score a TD on that play then the game is essentially over. Now that is an absolute.

 

[GatorAZ]

I would've liked to have seen maybe a screen or quick slant. Something giving the receiver a chance to stay in bounds. Green Bay was prepared.

 

[Azlen]

I would've liked to have seen maybe a screen or quick slant. Something giving the receiver a chance to stay in bounds. Green Bay was prepared.

The shovel pass would have been a great play to call there.

 

[daves]

It's just math.

[....]

It's fair to question it.

It is fair to question it, and i did.

But since you say it's just math (a point which can certainly be disputed), let's run the numbers. This is a simple decision theory problem; of course the probabilities for each course of action / outcome can be debated. Any head coach should have much better knowledge of the relevant situational stats but i'll enter my guesses. I will also neglect some outcomes that are either unlikely, or unlikely to make much of a difference (e.g. likelihood of GB returning the kickoff after a FG for a TD; difference in field position after a missed FG vs. after a kickoff after a successful TD). Times are approximate.

Course of action 1: run on 2nd and 3rd downs

  P(10) achieve 1st down;  CARDS WIN
  P(90) run clock down to 1:20, attempt FG...
    P(95) FG good, 7 point lead, 1:20 remaining...
      P(40) GB scores TD, game goes to OT...
        P(50) CARDS WIN
        P(50) CARDS LOSE
      P(60) GB fails to score;  CARDS WIN
    P( 5) FG miss, 4 point lead, 1:20 remaining...
      P(40) GB scores TD;  CARDS LOSE
      P(60) GB fails to score;  CARDS WIN

P(win|COA 1): 0.1 + 0.9 * ( 0.95 * ( 0.4 * 0.5 + 0.6) + 0.05 * 0.6) = .811

Course of action 2: pass on 2nd down

  P(50) pass complete for 1st down;  CARDS WIN
  P(50) pass incomplete...
    P(95) run on 3rd down, fail to achieve 1st down, attempt FG...
      P(95) FG good, 7 point lead, 2:00 remaining...
        P(60) GB scores TD, game goes to OT...
          P(50) CARDS WIN
          P(50) CARDS LOSE
        P(40) GB fails to score;  CARDS WIN
      P( 5) FG miss, 4 point lead, 2:00 remaining...
        P(60) GB scores TD;  CARDS LOSE
        P(40) GB fails to score;  CARDS WIN
    P( 5) run on 3rd down, achieve 1st down;  CARDS WIN

P(win|COA 2): 0.5 + 0.5 * ( 0.95 * ( 0.95 * ( 0.6 * 0.5 + 0.4) + .05 * 0.4 + 0.05) = 0.850375

Bottom line: Using the probabilities of each outcome that i chose, the slightly better course of action is to pass on 2nd down. I think given the hindsight that the pass fell incomplete, and that the Packers did score a TD in the 2:00 they were given as a result, skews people's thinking and makes it easy to see as a bad decision. Now you can argue with all of my chosen probabilities, but to claim, without supporting your claim, that this was an "obvious" "ego-driven" "bonehead" decision because of "math" is just plain wrong.

Essentially, the huge upside of completing the pass and ending the game outweighs the downside of leaving Rogers 40 more seconds.

Notes: I assigned a probability of 60% that GB could score a TD with 2:00 and no timeouts, and 40% that they could score a TD with 1:20 and no timeouts. This seems reasonable given that 80 seconds is 1/3 less than 120 seconds, so the probability of success is 1/3 less.

If you want to argue that GB had a MUCH smaller chance of success with 1:20 remaining than with 2:00 remaining... then you should justify that claim in light of the fact that they actually covered 96 yards in the final 55 seconds.

...dave

 

[ajcardfan]

Essentially, the huge upside of completing the pass and ending the game outweighs the downside of leaving Rogers 40 more seconds.

Exactly. The fact that IF the play HAD worked, then we are pretty much in victory formation, almost running out the entire clock at worst. So, the reward was definitely worth the risk if you truly believe, as Arians said, the FG was "a given". So, if you 100% believe in your team, the worst that could happen is OT. Well, that happened, and I love Arians because he believed that his team would still win even if the worst case scenario played out. Shows his defense AND offense that he had 100% trust in both of the units.

 

[BigRedFan]

No way it was a bad call. Even if we run it 3 times the Packers are still going to get the ball back with over 1 minute left and with Rogers that is no gimme for us. We had the perfect timing to end the game right there. I was thinking right before the play that the ideal thing would be go for the TD and not rely on our D to stop Rogers.

If we would have already been under 2 minutes I would agree with you. But when you are still having to give the ball back to Rogers with more than a minute left, I would rather put it out of reach if you had the chance.

I agree, they started the drive at 1:50. Subtract 1 play and you have 1:10 or 20, plenty of time for GB to score. In the actual game, there was a sack that lost GB 40 seconds. (1:45 to 1:05). Getting the sack wasn't a given. Even then, Rogers still had time to score. The fact that GB scored a TD supports the argument that going for a game winning play was a good call, since Rogers had/would have had enough time anyway. In the game, GB went 95 yards in 1:05. In the other scenario they have 1:10 or :20, have the ball on the 20 (assuming no sack) and have an easier situation to score. Trying to put the game away first at the cost of not using time I think is just as viable as sitting on it and giving it back to GB.

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

From the beginning, I have had the opinion that I will not be pissed if his aggressiveness costs us a title. Because that is also what puts us in that position.

The playcall was perfect...catch made, game over. No Hail Mary, no anything. Kneel it out and move on.

Here's a pretty nice rule...have you complained about any of his aggressive calls this year that worked? Like DJ for the pass against NO that turned into a TD? Because if you have, by all means then bitch now. But if you didn't then, **** now. Because they don't always work out, but more often than not they do. You can't selectively praise his aggression and selectively condemn it.

BTW, the odds were great on the call, when, where and why, and even in the way it was executed. It was a generally low risk/high reward play. And it took TWO hail mary plays on ONE drive in order to make it even questionable.

This.

You can't complain about Arians being aggressive because he's been that way from day 1 and has been consistent. If he was wishy-washy and randomly selective as to when he went for and didn't, then people may have a bitch. I think it's great.

I had a friend text me during the game about that play and I responded that he does it all the time, no surprise.

 

[Stout]

From the beginning, I have had the opinion that I will not be pissed if his aggressiveness costs us a title. Because that is also what puts us in that position.

The playcall was perfect...catch made, game over. No Hail Mary, no anything. Kneel it out and move on.

Here's a pretty nice rule...have you complained about any of his aggressive calls this year that worked? Like DJ for the pass against NO that turned into a TD? Because if you have, by all means then bitch now. But if you didn't then, **** now. Because they don't always work out, but more often than not they do. You can't selectively praise his aggression and selectively condemn it.

BTW, the odds were great on the call, when, where and why, and even in the way it was executed. It was a generally low risk/high reward play. And it took TWO hail mary plays on ONE drive in order to make it even questionable.

Well, for starters, I'll never '****' for you, so there's that, you silly goose. I mean, you really don't know me at all, do you?

Anyway, yes, I have questioned calls in the past. I'll be screaming "OMG, don't go long on third and 1," and for assorted other plays. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Simply being aggressive for the sake of being aggressive, no matter the circumstance, isn't smart, or wise. It's stubborn and prideful.

My opinion of Arians is that most of the time he is calculated about it, and does limit risk with his aggression, like the 4th down play early in the game. If we don't get it there, okay, it stinks, but it doesn't kill us. It's only every once in a while, like the play we're talking about, and the change he ordered on the last play of regulation, where he lets himself get carried away, that I question him. Sometimes he lets his ego overcome his brain.

Because the upside of that play was giving him ZERO seconds and ending the game.

Not that hard to fathom the risk/reward in throwing to Larry there on a quick fade.

The upside of that play was not gaining a first down and still stopping the clock by going out of bounds. Look at the route Larry was running. Only if the coverage is blown do we get a first or a TD.

We are going to just have to agree to disagree on this one I won't budge an inch on this if you all differ fine but nothing is going to convince me this was a good risk.

I'm with you, conraddobbler. In this situation, on 2nd down, I'm not going to agree it's the right decision. Winning wipes the slate clean, it's true, but doesn't change that it was the wrong decision.

Also, someone mentioned something about hindsight. Yeah, that might be valid if I hadn't posted this IN GAME lol

 

[Russ Smith]

Agreed.

People are judging this call by the hindsight of Aaron Rodgers having a SUPERHUMAN drive with two converted hail mary plays. FFS, that isn't statistically likely when you are doing the "math" on making that playcall.

Except many of us posted it on the game thread as it happened before we knew the hail marys were coming.

It worked against New Orleans but that was the first game of the sesaon, had it not worked and lost that game, the season isn't over.

He's a great coach, he is not beyond being questioned on things.

and it's very easy for you to say you're ok with losing a title that way but my guess is in reality if we lost the Super Bowl or even the NFC title game for the same reason, you probably wouldn't be ok with it.

 

[Russ Smith]

It is fair to question it, and i did.

But since you say it's just math (a point which can certainly be disputed), let's run the numbers. This is a simple decision theory problem; of course the probabilities for each course of action / outcome can be debated. Any head coach should have much better knowledge of the relevant situational stats but i'll enter my guesses. I will also neglect some outcomes that are either unlikely, or unlikely to make much of a difference (e.g. likelihood of GB returning the kickoff after a FG for a TD; difference in field position after a missed FG vs. after a kickoff after a successful TD). Times are approximate.

Course of action 1: run on 2nd and 3rd downs

  P(10) achieve 1st down;  CARDS WIN
  P(90) run clock down to 1:20, attempt FG...
    P(95) FG good, 7 point lead, 1:20 remaining...
      P(40) GB scores TD, game goes to OT...
        P(50) CARDS WIN
        P(50) CARDS LOSE
      P(60) GB fails to score;  CARDS WIN
    P( 5) FG miss, 4 point lead, 1:20 remaining...
      P(40) GB scores TD;  CARDS LOSE
      P(60) GB fails to score;  CARDS WIN

P(win|COA 1): 0.1 + 0.9 * ( 0.95 * ( 0.4 * 0.5 + 0.6) + 0.05 * 0.6) = .811

Course of action 2: pass on 2nd down

  P(50) pass complete for 1st down;  CARDS WIN
  P(50) pass incomplete...
    P(95) run on 3rd down, fail to achieve 1st down, attempt FG...
      P(95) FG good, 7 point lead, 2:00 remaining...
        P(60) GB scores TD, game goes to OT...
          P(50) CARDS WIN
          P(50) CARDS LOSE
        P(40) GB fails to score;  CARDS WIN
      P( 5) FG miss, 4 point lead, 2:00 remaining...
        P(60) GB scores TD;  CARDS LOSE
        P(40) GB fails to score;  CARDS WIN
    P( 5) run on 3rd down, achieve 1st down;  CARDS WIN

P(win|COA 2): 0.5 + 0.5 * ( 0.95 * ( 0.95 * ( 0.6 * 0.5 + 0.4) + .05 * 0.4 + 0.05) = 0.850375

Bottom line: Using the probabilities of each outcome that i chose, the slightly better course of action is to pass on 2nd down. I think given the hindsight that the pass fell incomplete, and that the Packers did score a TD in the 2:00 they were given as a result, skews people's thinking and makes it easy to see as a bad decision. Now you can argue with all of my chosen probabilities, but to claim, without supporting your claim, that this was an "obvious" "ego-driven" "bonehead" decision because of "math" is just plain wrong.

Essentially, the huge upside of completing the pass and ending the game outweighs the downside of leaving Rogers 40 more seconds.

Notes: I assigned a probability of 60% that GB could score a TD with 2:00 and no timeouts, and 40% that they could score a TD with 1:20 and no timeouts. This seems reasonable given that 80 seconds is 1/3 less than 120 seconds, so the probability of success is 1/3 less.

If you want to argue that GB had a MUCH smaller chance of success with 1:20 remaining than with 2:00 remaining... then you should justify that claim in light of the fact that they actually covered 96 yards in the final 55 seconds.

...dave

That's all good but you're making assumptions on probability that aren't given.

The probability of that pass being complete is not 50% for one thing, it could actually be higher I don't really know what the Cards completion % is on 2nd and 8 in the 4th quarter etc but I would be amazed if it's 50%. Throwing a pass in the NFL is not a coinflip, it's not a 50/50 thing.

They're going to get the ball under 1:20 with no timeouts and have to go the length of the field. Anything can go differently obviously but it took 1:55 to do it at the end of regulation and that's with a 60 yard completion and a 41 yard completion/

If Arians is assuming the FG is a given, then running the ball there shows confidence in his RB not to fumble the ball, and confidence in his defense not to allow the other team to go the whole field in just over a minute with no timeouts.

I get why Arians does this, but at some point we're going to lose a playoff game because he does that. If people are REALLY fine with that good, I just question if people really will be fine when it happens.

He doesn't have to do that, he can be a great coach with an aggressive mindset and still make decisions that do the math.

 

[Russ Smith]

I agree, they started the drive at 1:50. Subtract 1 play and you have 1:10 or 20, plenty of time for GB to score. In the actual game, there was a sack that lost GB 40 seconds. (1:45 to 1:05). Getting the sack wasn't a given. Even then, Rogers still had time to score. The fact that GB scored a TD supports the argument that going for a game winning play was a good call, since Rogers had/would have had enough time anyway. In the game, GB went 95 yards in 1:05. In the other scenario they have 1:10 or :20, have the ball on the 20 (assuming no sack) and have an easier situation to score. Trying to put the game away first at the cost of not using time I think is just as viable as sitting on it and giving it back to GB.

Except they scored the TD 40 seconds after the game would have been over, based on the drive that actually happened they would have been able to run 4 plays. The 4th was the 60 yarder to Janis. So unless that becomes a 96 yard Td on r4th and 20, the game was over.

Yes things may have happened differently but we don't know, we only know what did happen.

 

[GuernseyCard]

Damn you, Arians, and your idiotic ego! YOU RUN THE EFFING BALL, YOU EFFING MORON! YOU RUN THE EFFING BALL! Without an extra 40 seconds, they don't get a chance to hail mary it at the end!

Win or lose, Arians and his ego cost us.

Really...

What did it cost us?

We won.

P.S. I didn't like the call either.

 

[Cardsfanstl]

I thought the pass call on 2nd down with about 2:30 left was stupid also. If a running play is called on 2nd down the clock winds down to the 2 minute warning. Another running play winds the clock down about 35-45 seconds before the FG try. So by all counts Rodgers gets the ball back with about 1:10 left instead of an additional 40 seconds or so. If, and that is a big if, all things happen like they did Rogers is not throwing the hail mary pass at the end.

We won is all the matters but if GB would have won in OT then fans and the media would have pointed to the pass play as stupid and be criticizing BA like crazy.

 

[Stout]

Really...

What did it cost us?

We won.

P.S. I didn't like the call either.

It cost us gifting them about 40 seconds. Remember, I wrote this during the game. I didn't know if the time would give them the time to tie it up at the time, but it did, as it turns out. So, it cost us by forcing us to go to OT. And a few minor heart attacks in my apartment

 

[GuernseyCard]

I thought the pass call on 2nd down with about 2:30 left was stupid also. If a running play is called on 2nd down the clock winds down to the 2-minute warning. Another running play winds the clock down about 35-45 seconds before the FG try. So by all counts Rodgers gets the ball back with about 1:10 left instead of an additional 40 seconds or so. If, and that is a big if, all things happen like they did Rogers is not throwing the hail mary pass at the end.

We won is all the matters but if GB would have won in OT then fans and the media would have pointed to the pass play as stupid and be criticizing BA like crazy.

And the criticism would have been warranted.