Early morning thoughts

[Russ Smith]

I'm not sure I understand what you feel the downside risk is here in going for 2. If you feel you can score a TD later, what difference does it make? If you don't score that TD later, and can only get a field goal, you're still better off than if you just kicked the XP.

I guess I don't understand the process that you have that lead to a different choice?

Because if you don't get it, that 2nd TD you now HAVE to go for 2 to get the lead up to 3, which happened last night.

If we kicked Xp on the first one, we're up 2 and the XP on the 2nd one puts us up 3 where a late SD FG can only force OT not beat us.

If I'm playing a great defense like Seattle I'm not as confident I can score another TD so I might take the risk, although you're probably less likely to convert. But SD isn't a great defense.

 

[40yearfan]

Positives:
1. Aggressive play calling on defense, especially at the end of the game. The three blitzes were fantastic. There is a reason so many qb's look good in the 2 minute offense. Its because teams play the 2 minute defense (prevent) and give away yards like crazy. Love Bowles here.
2. Carson Palmer. While not everything was perfect, the guy has guts. He stepped out and ran, took hits and kept going.
3. Floyd and Brown(s). Love that rookie especially. I would love to see him on kickoff and punt returns.
4. Foote. Where did he come from? Wow.
5. Kickoffs. As in our kick offs. Out of the end zone. NIce
6. Run defense still looks good.
7. Stepfan Taylor. Runs in the right direction

Negatives:
1. Pass rush and outside linebackers. Could not get to the qb, lost contain on numerous occasions.
2. Kick offs, theirs. Ted Ginn. This one player hurt field position more than any other player. Just down it in the end zone already! Fair catch after fair catch. I suppose that is OK if the punts are really high. But running it out of the endzone 3 times without reaching the 20 is not acceptible.
3. Too many missed open field tackles.

To the negatives I would add Tony Jefferson. He was getting beat like a rented mule last night.

 

[crisper57]

To the negatives I would add Tony Jefferson. He was getting beat like a rented mule last night.

Except when he wasn't. Then the refs must've assumed he was cheating when he wasn't getting beat, so they stole an INT from him.

 

[40yearfan]

He also does a good job hitting a running back from behind (when his own players are about to bring him down) and driving him 6 yard further down the field.

I noticed that also. Ding bat.

 

[kerouac9]

Because if you don't get it, that 2nd TD you now HAVE to go for 2 to get the lead up to 3, which happened last night.

If we kicked Xp on the first one, we're up 2 and the XP on the 2nd one puts us up 3 where a late SD FG can only force OT not beat us.

If I'm playing a great defense like Seattle I'm not as confident I can score another TD so I might take the risk, although you're probably less likely to convert. But SD isn't a great defense.

See, this doesn't make any sense to me. You're down five after the TD and when you're making the decision. Getting the 2-point conversion means you're only down three and then have the opportunity to tie and stay in the game more easily on the next drive.

I mean, I guess it's playing "not to lose," but I think it's really "giving yourself more options to win."

 

[crisper57]

I think the general rule of thumb on 2 point conversions is to wait as long in the game as possible to run them. With that much time on the clock, it was probable the Cards would get another shot at scoring. And there are only so many of those plays in the playbook, so you can keep running them.

So chasing points early might just dig you into a hole that might otherwise not exist if you just took the FG.

But if we had converted either of those attempts, we would be calling BA a genius today for the plan. The problem was terrible execution.

 

[D-Dogg]

I was totally fine with going for 2 when he did. You're going to have to get it at some point. Better to take the opportunity early when you want but don't need it, than add the extra pressure late in the game.

Exactly. I thought the play called was atrocious however, with the Dwyercat, but the decision was correct IMO.

 

[Russ Smith]

See, this doesn't make any sense to me. You're down five after the TD and when you're making the decision. Getting the 2-point conversion means you're only down three and then have the opportunity to tie and stay in the game more easily on the next drive.

I mean, I guess it's playing "not to lose," but I think it's really "giving yourself more options to win."

Potato potahto I guess

 

[DoTheDew]

In the first half, I'm okay with that challenge. In hindsight it's easy to say it obviously shouldn't have been challenged, but the first look made it seem like it should have. The timeout didn't end up meaning anything, as is frequently the case in the 1st half. The flip side of Arians quick challenges is a coach who's overcautious waiting too long for his staff to tell him to challenge and missing his chance because the other team hurried a play out. I prefer the aggressive approach myself.

On the 2pt conversion: Had the offense done anything to give you the confidence that they were going to get another touchdown at that point? No. If the past 3 quarters were any indication, the Cardinals were going to need the 2pt conversion there if they were going to have any hope of winning. The fact the that offense finally started hitting it's stride after that is merely dumb luck.

Taylor looked awful all preseason. Why would a coach have expected him to be the answer?

My only real problems with the coaching were letting TEs go 1 on 1 with Freeney and taking too many deep shots early. Especially on 2nd and 10. The offense stalling early definitely had something to do with all the deep shots going incomplete early in the game.

 

[daves]

I think the general rule of thumb on 2 point conversions is to wait as long in the game as possible to run them. With that much time on the clock, it was probable the Cards would get another shot at scoring. And there are only so many of those plays in the playbook, so you can keep running them.

So chasing points early might just dig you into a hole that might otherwise not exist if you just took the FG.

But if we had converted either of those attempts, we would be calling BA a genius today for the plan. The problem was terrible execution.

This does seem to be the conventional wisdom, but it's erroneous logic.

If you need to go for a 2-point conversion sooner or later, better to go for it sooner, so that you gain information sooner regarding whether the attempt succeeds or fails. If it fails, at least you now know that you're going to need an additional score or a TD instead of a FG later. If you wait, then plan your strategy for the rest of the game assuming that you'll get the 2-point conversion later, THEN fail at the end of the game, it's too late to do anything about it. You lose.

That situation (needing a 2-point conversion sooner or later) didn't apply to last night's game though. But for reasons K-9 has described, the decision to go for 2 last night made sense to me as well. Of course the play call or execution was lacking. it's easy to see the drawbacks after the play has failed, but the advantages if they had succeeded outweigh those drawbacks. And there was enough time to overcome the down side by using an appropriate strategy for the rest of the game - as the Cardinals successfully did.

...dave

 

[AZCrazy]

I don't mind the 2 point attempt either. It was well into the 4th quarter when we finally scored our first touchdown of the game. Points were hard to come by and we were down 5 after the TD. The 2 point conversion is an obvious choice.

 

[Russ Smith]

In the first half, I'm okay with that challenge. In hindsight it's easy to say it obviously shouldn't have been challenged, but the first look made it seem like it should have. The timeout didn't end up meaning anything, as is frequently the case in the 1st half. The flip side of Arians quick challenges is a coach who's overcautious waiting too long for his staff to tell him to challenge and missing his chance because the other team hurried a play out. I prefer the aggressive approach myself.

On the 2pt conversion: Had the offense done anything to give you the confidence that they were going to get another touchdown at that point? No. If the past 3 quarters were any indication, the Cardinals were going to need the 2pt conversion there if they were going to have any hope of winning. The fact the that offense finally started hitting it's stride after that is merely dumb luck.

Taylor looked awful all preseason. Why would a coach have expected him to be the answer?

My only real problems with the coaching were letting TEs go 1 on 1 with Freeney and taking too many deep shots early. Especially on 2nd and 10. The offense stalling early definitely had something to do with all the deep shots going incomplete early in the game.

Yes we marched right down the field and scored. Maybe SD changed their D a bit, it actually seemed like they did, dropping a bit deeper leaving the underneath open, but we went right down the field. 10 plays 64 yards just under 5 minutes. There was only one "bad" play on that drive, the first play where Palmer should have been picked by Gilchrist forcing one into Housler but luckily he dropped it.

We had been moving the ball all game even before those last 2 drives(the first started in the 3rd Q) we had 250 yards from scrimmage. We just weren't finishing the drives until that one.

On Taylor, it was clear Ellington wasn't healthy, Dwyer hadn't done a thing except fake out air during the time he was in. Hughes had a nice catch that was about it. Taylor in one drive put up 26 yards, 5 on the ground 21 on 3 catches. Dwyer had 28 for the game in 9 touches, Taylor 26 in 4 touches. The difference IMO is Taylor is a much better blocker so it gives both Palmer more time and confidence, and it allows Arians to call plays he can't call with Dwyer in there. Not saying Taylor is anything special just that with Ellington not 100%, I don't see why we played Dwyer so much on the next drive after Taylor basically got 45% of the yards on the first scoring drive.

We had scored 6 points prior to that drive then marched right down the field. IIRC, Taylor played exactly 1 play from scrimmage the rest of the game. it worked we won, but it was just odd to me. I'm a big believer in go with what works and keep doing something until they stop you from doing it. Last night that was Taylor over Dwyer.

The deep shots are Arians entire MO, if he doesn't do that you might as well hire a new playcaller because that's who he is as a playcaller.

 

[Russ Smith]

This does seem to be the conventional wisdom, but it's erroneous logic.

If you need to go for a 2-point conversion sooner or later, better to go for it sooner, so that you gain information sooner regarding whether the attempt succeeds or fails. If it fails, at least you now know that you're going to need an additional score or a TD instead of a FG later. If you wait, then plan your strategy for the rest of the game assuming that you'll get the 2-point conversion later, THEN fail at the end of the game, it's too late to do anything about it. You lose.

That situation (needing a 2-point conversion sooner or later) didn't apply to last night's game though. But for reasons K-9 has described, the decision to go for 2 last night made sense to me as well. Of course the play call or execution was lacking. it's easy to see the drawbacks after the play has failed, but the advantages if they had succeeded outweigh those drawbacks. And there was enough time to overcome the down side by using an appropriate strategy for the rest of the game - as the Cardinals successfully did.

...dave

I'm confused, your explanation only works if you're assuming your next score is only going to be a FG? We were down 5 before the XP, if you kick, it's now 4. Score another TD and XP and it's a 3 point lead and you can't lose on a FG they have to score a TD to beat you in regulation.

Given the amount of time left on the clock, 12 1/2 minutes, why would a coach assume he's only going to be able to get a FG and has to get the 2 there? If there's 5 minutes left absolutely, maybe even 7 or 8, but 12:30 is a ton of time in the NFL. There were 29 plays from scrimmage run after that 2 point failure(teams combined). there were 2 drives of 10 or more plays.

 

[SissyBoyFloyd]

That was fun, let's play another.

 

[Krangodnzr]

See, this doesn't make any sense to me. You're down five after the TD and when you're making the decision. Getting the 2-point conversion means you're only down three and then have the opportunity to tie and stay in the game more easily on the next drive.

I mean, I guess it's playing "not to lose," but I think it's really "giving yourself more options to win."

I agree. Late in games you have to make decisions that give you the best chance to stay alive and win. Taking the XP puts you within four, which you can't get a tie. 4 and 5 are basically the same in football math.

 

[kerouac9]

I'm confused, your explanation only works if you're assuming your next score is only going to be a FG? We were down 5 before the XP, if you kick, it's now 4. Score another TD and XP and it's a 3 point lead and you can't lose on a FG they have to score a TD to beat you in regulation.

Given the amount of time left on the clock, 12 1/2 minutes, why would a coach assume he's only going to be able to get a FG and has to get the 2 there? If there's 5 minutes left absolutely, maybe even 7 or 8, but 12:30 is a ton of time in the NFL. There were 29 plays from scrimmage run after that 2 point failure(teams combined). there were 2 drives of 10 or more plays.

Because YOU HAVE TO SCORE A TOUCHDOWN TO STAY IN THE GAME in your scenario. If all you can get is a field goal, that's of no use to you. You're not assuming that your next score is going to be a field goal, but you're keeping the field goal open as a legitimate option to keep your team alive.

 

[Russ Smith]

Because YOU HAVE TO SCORE A TOUCHDOWN TO STAY IN THE GAME in your scenario. If all you can get is a field goal, that's of no use to you. You're not assuming that your next score is going to be a field goal, but you're keeping the field goal open as a legitimate option to keep your team alive.

NO YOU DON'T.

29 plays were run after that, you can kick 2 FG's and win too.

 

[crisper57]

NO YOU DON'T.



29 plays were run after that, you can kick 2 FG's and win too.

Assuming you trust your rookie kicker, in his first game, to make them both.

 

[Russ Smith]

Assuming you trust your rookie kicker, in his first game, to make them both.

Well by going for two we're trusting him to make 1 to tie it so why not trust him to make 2 to win it?

 

[kerouac9]

NO YOU DON'T.

29 plays were run after that, you can kick 2 FG's and win too.

I guess, but the other team has to not score, too. It's the difference between a one-possession game and a two possession game.

 

[ajcardfan]

NO YOU DON'T.

29 plays were run after that, you can kick 2 FG's and win too.

The way the game played out proves we did NOT have to go for two with 12 minutes to go to win it. Especially when Arians is the OC as well, you'd think he'd have faith in his offense to get another TD. Instead, he compounded the dicey decision with a poor play call.

It was almost a disaster, but we survived it. I was more relieved than happy with the win. We really dodged a L last night, but it's far better than what happened in St. Louis last year.

 

[Krangodnzr]

Because YOU HAVE TO SCORE A TOUCHDOWN TO STAY IN THE GAME in your scenario. If all you can get is a field goal, that's of no use to you. You're not assuming that your next score is going to be a field goal, but you're keeping the field goal open as a legitimate option to keep your team alive.

I totally agree. I think the play call is the suspect, but not the decision. You play the numbers and by looking at the rest of the game, TDs were in short supply. If the Cardinals kicked the XP and then marched down and only could get into FG range, the chance of winning is significantly lower.

 

[D-Dogg]

I agree. Late in games you have to make decisions that give you the best chance to stay alive and win. Taking the XP puts you within four, which you can't get a tie. 4 and 5 are basically the same in football math.

Yep, exactly. NO difference in 4 or 5 points when TDs are in rare supply.

By going for two, suceeding and being down three gives you more opportunity to win or tie the game in your next two or three drives than kicking and being down 4 or failing and being down 5.

K9 puts it best in that it creates more opportunity for you to win in the end because your options become stronger.

Sometimes people what if to death on these things "what if we did kick it, and are down 4, and then we score and are up 3. then we can only be tied" Well, what if is an all day long game. What if we don't get another TD? What if our last gasp dies out at the 25 yard line and it's 4th and 10? Go for it? What if our defense doesn't hold them and they kick that FG and win it? What if we miss the xp, and still score the TD to take the lead? One of those what if scenarios happened, and it happened even with one of the worst plays run for a faild 2 pt conversion that I've seen. It wasn't a "near miss." It was a calculated risk that gave us more options to win when we attempted it.

 

[D-Dogg]

The way the game played out proves we did NOT have to go for two with 12 minutes to go to win it..

The way the game plays out proves that going for two did not affect our ability to win the game, because we were able to score a touchdown.

The way the game plays out after the fact has no bearing on the decision at the moment because as good as BA is, he can't see into the future. Being a good head coach, he calculated the odds of scoring another TD combined with stopping the Chargers from scoring, and decided to open up his potential options, knowing that a TD alone could be the difference regardless.

 

[82CardsGrad]

Yep, exactly. NO difference in 4 or 5 points when TDs are in rare supply.

By going for two, suceeding and being down three gives you more opportunity to win or tie the game in your next two or three drives than kicking and being down 4 or failing and being down 5.

K9 puts it best in that it creates more opportunity for you to win in the end because your options become stronger.

Sometimes people what if to death on these things "what if we did kick it, and are down 4, and then we score and are up 3. then we can only be tied" Well, what if is an all day long game. What if we don't get another TD? What if our last gasp dies out at the 25 yard line and it's 4th and 10? Go for it? What if our defense doesn't hold them and they kick that FG and win it? What if we miss the xp, and still score the TD to take the lead? One of those what if scenarios happened, and it happened even with one of the worst plays run for a faild 2 pt conversion that I've seen. It wasn't a "near miss." It was a calculated risk that gave us more options to win when we attempted it.