Arians and His Stupid Ego

[cardpa]

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.

I felt that play was going to be a pass too.

Actually what would have been neat to see is a full house backfield with Johnson, Ellington, and Taylor all in at the same time and running a power sweep with the guard from the off side pulling and you send your WR on the side you are running to in motion to the weak side to pick up any weak side rusher that could disrupt the play from behind and that way he also drags a defender with him while giving the impression the play is going the opposite way.

 

[schutd]

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.

I dont know anymore. Arians has unapologetically done this time and time again throughout the season. At some point you have to start thinking he doesnt give a flip if the other team knows we throw in obvious run situations. He simply believes we're better than they are and feels we can beat em even if they know its coming.

I have no problem with it.

 

[conraddobler]

Eh who knows I still love the guy.

In general I like his attitude and no one is perfect so if this is his flaw then so be it. I would just argue that it's a very very fine line between winning and losing at the highest levels of the playoffs.

It seems to work out for him it's up to fate now.

I almost think we won the last game by divine intervention which is nice since we've lost more than one due to that in the past.

Some of this I think is destiny it's fun to watch all this unfold and see how they're going to do next game.

I'll bet you one thing it'll be another example of improbability on display.

 

[Cheesebeef]

I felt that play was going to be a pass too.

Actually what would have been neat to see is a full house backfield with Johnson, Ellington, and Taylor all in at the same time and running a power sweep with the guard from the off side pulling and you send your WR on the side you are running to in motion to the weak side to pick up any weak side rusher that could disrupyt the play from behind and that way he also drags a defender with him while giving the impression the play is going the opposite way.

Yeah... My issue was that play IS predictable at this point. I turned to my brother right before first down and said "so, does Arians throw it on 1st or 2nd?" My other problem was that a) Palmer was just awful that night and b) if they get the first, he's still out of bounds and the pack could STILL get the ball back. The decision to pass AND the play call itself were head scratchers to me.

And blitzing 7 on the last play was truly one of the worst decisions I've ever seen. I mean, there was single coverage on two guys on the other side of the field. I get not dropping 8 and going with a disaster begging three man Rush, but you gotta drop 5 or at least 6 there. Thank god we won and in Arians I definitely still trust, but he almost blew the game with coaching decisions in the last couple minutes.

 

[Russ Smith]

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.

If we get the 1st but go out of bounds, you can basically do 3 kneel downs and kick the FG about 35 seconds, so it still doesn't run the clock out. If you get the first and stay in bounds, then it runs the clock out.

The risk is less where we threw it, highly unlikely it gets picked off there.

 

[Russ Smith]

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

Because if that hadn't worked we still had 15 regular season games left.

IF we had lost because of this, the season is over. there was MUCH more at stake on this it wasn't the same scenario.

 

[Russ Smith]

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.

But you can't just do that either. If they go and miss, McCarthy is possibly unemployed today having gone on 4th down and not got it and then gone for 2 and lost.

Arians wasn't going to lose the game by running on 2nd down unless we fumble they pick it up and score the winning TD.

Going for 2 there you either win or lose on the outcome of that play. It's a much bigger risk.

 

[conraddobler]

But you can't just do that either. If they go and miss, McCarthy is possibly unemployed today having gone on 4th down and not got it and then gone for 2 and lost.

Arians wasn't going to lose the game by running on 2nd down unless we fumble they pick it up and score the winning TD.

Going for 2 there you either win or lose on the outcome of that play. It's a much bigger risk.

I disagree again.

Your logic says that they have better odds of winning the game if they go to OT which is not true based on any metric you want to name.

I realize people might get fired over the call if it doesn't work which is why it's made the way it's made but that just means coaches value their jobs more than winning the game. And fans don't understand odds.

Anyway you slice it you have to make a play to win the game either one play or two dozen.

Saying that you'd rather have the chances in OT is saying you are going to ignore the math of what's come before and say you have better odds than that and that's really hard to argue when you lose the game and the odds were never on your side in the first place.

Did you know Rodgers has never won an OT game?

I didn't but it wasn't important to me because it's not what I'm basing my decision on and yet there it is.

So at best it belies the argument that you take Rodgers in OT, um you'd think so but then again you'd be wrong by the looks of it.

It doesn't matter where you make a play or the number of times you get to make a play.

Making a play from the 2 where the other team has no control over you other than to stop you is the best you are going to get IMO.

Now I'll change the stakes and say your LIFE is on the line, you want to go to OT or you want one play with Aaron Rodgers as you QB? In that instance I've just shown you to be a fool to take OT.

They can't win the coin toss they can't fluke out a kick return you don't have to drive 10 plays and fumble the ball or toss a pick it's one play winner take all and the odds say it's the right call so adding plays does not increase your odds to win it just gives you more cover which you shouldn't need if people understood odds and game theory.

BTW there is a poker game at my house bring lots of cash, all of you especially the ones who think this is a bad idea.

 

[DeAnna]

Listening to BA on radio now ... he says they did have a run play called, but it it was changed when they brought 10 defenders into the box. It would've been a negative run play, and they had Fitz one-on-one. He would take that anyday.

 

[Mitch]

Listening to BA on radio now ... he says they did have a run play called, but it it was changed when they brought 10 defenders into the box. It would've been a negative run play, and they had Fitz one-on-one. He would take that anyday.

There---case closed!

 

[Cardiac]

Yeah... My issue was that play IS predictable at this point. I turned to my brother right before first down and said "so, does Arians throw it on 1st or 2nd?" My other problem was that a) Palmer was just awful that night and b) if they get the first, he's still out of bounds and the pack could STILL get the ball back. The decision to pass AND the play call itself were head scratchers to me.

Yes it's become predictable that BA will be aggressive but that's still less predictable than the coaches who "do math" and run the ball no matter what. We know the "math" coaches will run the ball but we don't know exactly when BA will throw the ball instead of running it. Plus there are countless downs in a game where we all know we are going to throw the ball and we are still successful.

Being unpredictable is just a part of the equation, throwing the ball against a stacked front has a much higher success rate then trying to run into an 8 man box.

And blitzing 7 on the last play was truly one of the worst decisions I've ever seen. I mean, there was single coverage on two guys on the other side of the field. I get not dropping 8 and going with a disaster begging three man Rush, but you gotta drop 5 or at least 6 there. Thank god we won and in Arians I definitely still trust, but he almost blew the game with coaching decisions in the last couple minutes.

I agree the full out blitz was too much but the fail was how P2 played that pass. Deon Sanders was all over P2 when they interviewed him on NFLN on how poorly P2 played it.

 

[conraddobler]

There---case closed!

Nope a negative run play from where?

Still in field goal range and the 40 seconds comes off.

Maybe Carson did it in which case he's just covering for Carson good for him. You run the ball there case closed.

 

[Russ Smith]

I disagree again.

Your logic says that they have better odds of winning the game if they go to OT which is not true based on any metric you want to name.

I realize people might get fired over the call if it doesn't work which is why it's made the way it's made but that just means coaches value their jobs more than winning the game. And fans don't understand odds.

Anyway you slice it you have to make a play to win the game either one play or two dozen.

Saying that you'd rather have the chances in OT is saying you are going to ignore the math of what's come before and say you have better odds than that and that's really hard to argue when you lose the game and the odds were never on your side in the first place.

Did you know Rodgers has never won an OT game?

I didn't but it wasn't important to me because it's not what I'm basing my decision on and yet there it is.

So at best it belies the argument that you take Rodgers in OT, um you'd think so but then again you'd be wrong by the looks of it.

It doesn't matter where you make a play or the number of times you get to make a play.

Making a play from the 2 where the other team has no control over you other than to stop you is the best you are going to get IMO.

Now I'll change the stakes and say your LIFE is on the line, you want to go to OT or you want one play with Aaron Rodgers as you QB? In that instance I've just shown you to be a fool to take OT.

They can't win the coin toss they can't fluke out a kick return you don't have to drive 10 plays and fumble the ball or toss a pick it's one play winner take all and the odds say it's the right call so adding plays does not increase your odds to win it just gives you more cover which you shouldn't need if people understood odds and game theory.

BTW there is a poker game at my house bring lots of cash, all of you especially the ones who think this is a bad idea.

2 of 3 doesn't mean anything unless all 3 were done at the end of a game where if they missed, they lost. 3 is way too small a sample size to conclude that they are going to convert it more often than not.

But yes the reason it's not done more often is coaches don't want to get fired by not making it.

 

[Mitch]

Nope a negative run play from where?

Still in field goal range and the 40 seconds comes off.

Maybe Carson did it in which case he's just covering for Carson good for him. You run the ball there case closed.

Other things could have happened---negative yards, fumble, missed FG. Nothing at that point is a given.

 

[Chaz]

To single out that play as the reason it went to overtime is cherry picking.

Any number of things could have happened at that point. I would have run it but I don't think that decision was necessarily wrong.

Everything is results oriented.
If we got the right result it wouldn't matter. They won the game so it doesn't matter.

 

[GuernseyCard]

I agree the full out blitz was too much but the fail was how P2 played that pass. Deon Sanders was all over P2 when they interviewed him on NFLN on how poorly P2 played it.

Yeah... but no explanation as to how he should have played it.

 

[Mitch]

Yeah... but no explanation as to how he should have played it.

Actually BA said in his presser today, Peterson was supposed to play it from behind and Rashad Johnson was supposed to play it from in front. He said that they should have been perfect position to make the play.

 

[GuernseyCard]

Actually BA said in his presser today, Peterson was supposed to play it from behind and Rashad Johnson was supposed to play it from in front. He said that they should have been perfect position to make the play.

So Rashad, not PP21, was out of place.

 

[conraddobler]

2 of 3 doesn't mean anything unless all 3 were done at the end of a game where if they missed, they lost. 3 is way too small a sample size to conclude that they are going to convert it more often than not.

But yes the reason it's not done more often is coaches don't want to get fired by not making it.

There it's not the right thing to do to win the game it's the right thing to do to keep your job.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/1...-bruce-arians-got-win-mike-mccarthy-learn-nfl

This guy sums up both calls and defends Arian's while really letting McCarthy have it.

In that moment I think you have the Cardinals totally bewildered and the advantage.

Takes guts but I think it would of been the correct call.

The math is pretty compelling. You are assuming that the odds of making the play happen would go down just because the game depends on it and I would not make that assumption at all. The Cardinals can lose the game on one play the pressure is hugely disproportionate on the home team with the most to lose. They had just screwed up defending a hail mary pass they should of knocked down easily.

You're also assuming the Packers are league average at it which they are not but the sample size is small so who knows.

If it's even 50 50 then he made the wrong call to win the game but he still has his job so in the end for him it's the right call.

BTW NFL stats says that they tried 6 of these and made 4 this year.

Yes it is a small sample but still it's better than saying 2 out of 3.

 

[HeavyB3]

I would have willingly bet a thousand dollars that we were going to throw on one of those downs. If you didn't expect him to throw it, you haven't been paying attention. It's worked all season long when we've needed it, why expect him to change?

 

[DeAnna]

Seriously ... let it go, people! why is there still argument about the 'what if's' from 2 days ago?

 

[Cardiac]

Yeah... but no explanation as to how he should have played it.

It wasn't the time to get into details but I got the impression P2 knew what he should have done.

Thing is the best CB in the NFL has to make that play with the ball in the air for like 20 seconds.

 

[D-Dogg]

And blitzing 7 on the last play was truly one of the worst decisions I've ever seen. I mean, there was single coverage on two guys on the other side of the field. I get not dropping 8 and going with a disaster begging three man Rush, but you gotta drop 5 or at least 6 there. Thank god we won and in Arians I definitely still trust, but he almost blew the game with coaching decisions in the last couple minutes.

I absolutely don't mind the blitz. Forced AR out and wide and into the absolute worst throwing position he could get. He literally closed his eyes and threw it falling backwards. It was a miracle throw. I take that 100 out of 100 times, and he would never complete it twice. It was an absolute beast of a play. Then misplayed by the corners in the end zone who STILL should have knocked it down.

 

[oaken1]

game went into OT because of that damned hands to the face call that negated PP21's pick six!!

That is what did it,...and NOTHING else.....

Damn those defensive linemen and their lousy technique!!

 

[Russ Smith]

There it's not the right thing to do to win the game it's the right thing to do to keep your job.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/1...-bruce-arians-got-win-mike-mccarthy-learn-nfl

This guy sums up both calls and defends Arian's while really letting McCarthy have it.

In that moment I think you have the Cardinals totally bewildered and the advantage.

Takes guts but I think it would of been the correct call.

The math is pretty compelling. You are assuming that the odds of making the play happen would go down just because the game depends on it and I would not make that assumption at all. The Cardinals can lose the game on one play the pressure is hugely disproportionate on the home team with the most to lose. They had just screwed up defending a hail mary pass they should of knocked down easily.

You're also assuming the Packers are league average at it which they are not but the sample size is small so who knows.

If it's even 50 50 then he made the wrong call to win the game but he still has his job so in the end for him it's the right call.

BTW NFL stats says that they tried 6 of these and made 4 this year.

Yes it is a small sample but still it's better than saying 2 out of 3.

No I'm assuming if they line up to go for 2 we call timeout and make sure we have our best personnel out there. Whereas if the game is earlier in the game and we're up 15 points and they line up for 2, we might not bother to make sure we have the right personnel in there.

It's just like onside kicks, I've been saying for years they should do it more often, the stats are too good when everyone in the world knows it's coming. If you do it when they don't know it's coming the odds go up.

Now I do see the Rodgers is my best player let him win or lose the game mentality, but I see why the coach wouldn't do that.