Arians and His Stupid Ego

[GuernseyCard]

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. o, it cost us by forcing us to go to OT. And a few minor heart attacks in my apartment

I suggest, in future, you keep a bottle of Aspirin close by and emergency services on speed dial.

 

[Stout]

I suggest, in future, you keep a bottle of Aspirin close by and emergency services on speed dial.

We haven't been the Cardiac Cards like this for a while, so I was surprised

 

[BIGRED1959]

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.

UGH, this comment is so freaking stupid.

 

[Mitch]

What I would argue here is that the play call had nothing to do with BA's ego. He was doing to what he believes is going to win the game. Actually, he was passing the ball there to try everything he could to avoid what happened at the end of regulation.

 

[Cardiac]

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

Not a math fan myself buy I love daves posts. People throw out terms like it's simple math while in truth it isn't.

 

[Cardiac]

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.

You are right, for the Cards it's more like a 64/36 thing and I bet the % of success is higher when Carson throws to Fitz and I bet it's even better when throwing a pass that is only 8 yards.

 

[Russ Smith]

You are right, for the Cards it's more like a 64/36 thing and I bet the % of success is higher when Carson throws to Fitz and I bet it's even better when throwing a pass that is only 8 yards.

You're using all passes though that's why I said I don't know the stat on 2nd and 8 in the 4th quarter etc.

I think the main thing is there's feel involved, if Palmer is red hot it's easier to make that call. He wasn't exactly "hot" at that point in the game. He was 4 for his last 7 and the 4th was the tipped pass that became a TD, not long after GB dropped an INT.

The math says you run, the flow of the game said the same thing to me, Palmer didn't really have it clicking at that point in the game.

He's 61% in the 4th Q of close games, but just over 50% in the last 2 minutes of halves. There's a lot of variables but I can just about guarantee th e% isn't actually 50, as I said it may well be higher.

 

[Russ Smith]

What I would argue here is that the play call had nothing to do with BA's ego. He was doing to what he believes is going to win the game. Actually, he was passing the ball there to try everything he could to avoid what happened at the end of regulation.

Yeah to be clear, I don't agree with the call but I don't agree with the wording of the original post in this thread either. I don't think it's stupid ego, I just think Arians has a philosophy and he goes with it.

I don't agree with it, but I don't think he's stupid.

 

[Cardiac]

You're using all passes though that's why I said I don't know the stat on 2nd and 8 in the 4th quarter etc.

I think the main thing is there's feel involved, if Palmer is red hot it's easier to make that call. He wasn't exactly "hot" at that point in the game. He was 4 for his last 7 and the 4th was the tipped pass that became a TD, not long after GB dropped an INT.

The math says you run, the flow of the game said the same thing to me, Palmer didn't really have it clicking at that point in the game.

He's 61% in the 4th Q of close games, but just over 50% in the last 2 minutes of halves. There's a lot of variables but I can just about guarantee th e% isn't actually 50, as I said it may well be higher.

What math says you run? Was it our 2.3 yds per rush (made that up btw) or was it that DJ has had fumble issues or was it that the Packers were expecting us to run and loading the box?

Only math is that we burn 40 more seconds off the clock. I hate wimpy math.

 

[oaken1]

funny....all you guys complaining about that play have shown you were okay with just getting a field goal to go up 7.

the coach was not okay with it...he wanted to try for a TD to put the game out of reach.
there is playing to win...and playing to not lose..

coach, and the Cardinals...were playing to win.

 

[Russ Smith]

Not a math fan myself buy I love daves posts. People throw out terms like it's simple math while in truth it isn't.

It actually is. He's talking the probablity of it working or not. I was talking the math on how long they'd have had when they got the ball back.

They ran 4 plays, at the end of 4 plays, the last of which was the 60 yarder to Janis, they had 21 seconds left. So they took 1 minute 34 seconds to run 4 plays. Even if you allow for them to run downfield after the catch and spike it, they might not be able to do it. The play started with 55 seconds left, take 40 of those away by runnning the ball on 2nd down and it starts with 15 seconds.

Takes 6-8 seconds to complete the pass. Then they have to run the whole 60 yards, the whole team including the OL, get set, and then spike it. It's POSSIBLE they can spike the ball there and get one more hail mary but it's not a given.

Simple math says they aren't going to be able to run 7 plays in under 1:20 with no timeouts and go that far. So they're going to have to score in far fewer plays than they did.

 

[cardpa]

The only thing I wish was different was instead of a fade that Fitz ran a quick slant. It appeared that he would have gotten inside position on the corner and it would have been game over. Fitz was spit out really wide with very little space to work in with being between the corner and the sideline. I had no problem with the play. Maybe they should have ran it on first down.

 

[oaken1]

The only thing I wish was different was instead of a fade that Fitz ran a quick slant. It appeared that he would have gotten inside position on the corner and it would have been game over. Fitz was spit out really wide with very little space to work in with being between the corner and the sideline. I had no problem with the play. Maybe they should have ran it on first down.

have to credit the DB on that. Which route is run is determined by the position of the DB right before the snap...he set Larry up to run the fade and then drove him to the sidelines...had he lined up outside Larry would have run the slant.

 

[Russ Smith]

What math says you run? Was it our 2.3 yds per rush (made that up btw) or was it that DJ has had fumble issues or was it that the Packers were expecting us to run and loading the box?

Only math is that we burn 40 more seconds off the clock. I hate wimpy math.

You are playing the clock at that point.

People are saying Arians is showing confidence in his team but now you're suggesting he's afraid that DJ will fumble or that we won't get the first down which doesn't sound like confidence to me.

He was trying to win the game yes, he figured if I get a first down, I can kneel down and win the game. We all get that.

He still could have done that on 3rd down by the way. He could have run on 2nd gone to the 2 minute warning and then if he really wanted to throw for the first down, throw on 3rd down, they're still probably expecting us to run it there.

Part of it was he tried to go for the element of surprise, problem is nobody was surprised including the Packers.

 

[AZCrazy]

All that needs to be questioned is "can you stop Rodgers from completing two consecutive Hail Mary's with less than a minute to go"? If Arians is presuming "yes", then the play call was allright.

 

[Russ Smith]

have to credit the DB on that. Which route is run is determined by the position of the DB right before the snap...he set Larry up to run the fade and then drove him to the sidelines...had he lined up outside Larry would have run the slant.

Yep people keep saying it was PI but I don't think it was. I think the ball was uncatchable, and I think the DB has the right to be where he was, he cut Fitz off and Fitz collided with him I don't think that's PI.

Great play and he clearly was expecting us to pass.

 

[Stout]

UGH, this comment is so freaking stupid.

I agree, this comment is, indeed, so freaking stupid

The only thing I wish was different was instead of a fade that Fitz ran a quick slant. It appeared that he would have gotten inside position on the corner and it would have been game over. Fitz was spit out really wide with very little space to work in with being between the corner and the sideline. I had no problem with the play. Maybe they should have ran it on first down.

I probably still wouldn't have liked the call, but it would have made more sense. If the catch is made, there's zero chance he goes out of bounds to stop the clock, even if he doesn't get the first down. On the play that was called, even if he catches it, there's a big chance he doesn't get the first down AND stops the clock by going out of bounds.

I wouldn't have loved a slant call, but it would have made a lot more sense than an outside fade, for certain.

 

[Mitch]

I agree, this comment is, indeed, so freaking stupid



I probably still wouldn't have liked the call, but it would have made more sense. If the catch is made, there's zero chance he goes out of bounds to stop the clock, even if he doesn't get the first down. On the play that was called, even if he catches it, there's a big chance he doesn't get the first down AND stops the clock by going out of bounds.

I wouldn't have loved a slant call, but it would have made a lot more sense than an outside fade, for certain.

Good point on the fade and going out of bounds. Perhaps the hope was that the CB would think Fitz is going to block on what is usually a sure running play and he could slip past him for a TD. Plus, when you risk throwing over the middle there, you risk the tipped pass interception. As it was, Fitz nearly got a PI call on Shields. But credit Shields and the Packers---they know BA will go for it in those situations. And credit them for having Shields on Fitz in that situation.

 

[Stout]

Good point on the fade and going out of bounds. Perhaps the hope was that the CB would think Fitz is going to block on what is usually a sure running play and he could slip past him for a TD. Plus, when you risk throwing over the middle there, you risk the tipped pass interception. As it was, Fitz nearly got a PI call on Shields. But credit Shields and the Packers---they know BA will go for it in those situations. And credit them for having Shields on Fitz in that situation.

That brings up a good point, too. When you're known for doing stuff like this, it becomes predictable, and a good part of what you're relying on for success is the element of surprise. We're not going to have that on our side in these situations.

 

[BigRedRage]

no one threw a fit last time when DJ caught the pass and scored a TD on the same down and distance

 

[conraddobler]

That brings up a good point, too. When you're known for doing stuff like this, it becomes predictable, and a good part of what you're relying on for success is the element of surprise. We're not going to have that on our side in these situations.

In another thread I point out that going for two at the end of the game would of been the best bet.

The Packers convert those 2 out of three times that 66.7 percent this year. That's a 66 percent chance of winning the game right there vs standard visiting team odds of winning in OT of 46%.

I understand gut feelings and all they are often WRONG when you look at the math of the situation it becomes more clear what to do.

 

[cardpa]

That brings up a good point, too. When you're known for doing stuff like this, it becomes predictable, and a good part of what you're relying on for success is the element of surprise. We're not going to have that on our side in these situations.

It certainly did seem like the Packers were expecting some type of pass play. I think running the play on first down and selling it even more with either Shipley or Taylor in front of Johnson would have given the possibility of the run more credibility. I agree this element of surprise is pretty much gone. BA has used it to the point where teams will now be alert to it. He needs to find something different.

 

[SO91]

I'm hoping someone around here can correct me or confirm this, but I read somewhere else that Arians confirmed it was a run called, but Carson has the freedom to change the play if he sees something out there. He saw 1-on-1 coverage against Fitz and changed the play to the pass we saw. If that's the case, we spent 9 pages arguing about BA's ego, when in fact it's his supreme confidence on his guys to make the call in that spot. During the game I didn't like it, but that may have been the beer and adrenaline talking. I'm okay with it now.

 

[conraddobler]

It certainly did seem like the Packers were expecting some type of pass play. I think running the play on first down and selling it even more with either Shipley or Taylor in front of Johnson would have given the possibility of the run more credibility. I agree this element of surprise is pretty much gone. BA has used it to the point where teams will now be alert to it. He needs to find something different.

The best thing to do there is run the ball there is always a chance they'll break it for a TD.

It's not sexy but it's just the right move and boring doesn't mean bad.

Every pass has a chance to be picked and every run play has a chance to fumble but the odds are much better on the run plus you get the time off the clock for sure.

I knew Arians was going to pull that when the scenario was unfolding and I was like please God let him be boring just once!

Nope he threw it.

 

[schutd]

This all seems simple to me. The extra 40 seconds is almost irrelevant. Rodgers needed 2, count em 2 miracles on that drive to happen. The extra 40 seconds wasnt responsible for 2, count em 2 completely baffling defensive miscues that allowed those hail marys to be completed. The game management can be argued from here to eternity, but at the end of the day it was 2 terrible defensive lapses that nearly cost us the game. Simple. Clock management is important. Incredibly so. But at the end of the day, Arians put the game in the hands of the millionaires he employs, and they crapped the bed. TWICE. Is Arians infallible? nope. Are we allowed to question his decisions? Absolutely. But allowing 2 freaking hail mary conversions in one drive, one coming on a 4th and 20 is some ridiculous isht. And thats all on the players.