Is there a reason why we don't fire Kliff today?

[Linderbee]

Unless circumstances dictate otherwise (you're on your backup QB, injuries, your team is exhausted and theirs isn't, etc), you go for 1 every time.

But...circumstances DID dictate otherwise (we were on our 3rd string QB, injured, etc). I guess I don't understand your argument when you are contradicting or, I guess, negating your own reasons?

 

[Stout]

But...circumstances DID dictate otherwise (we were on our 3rd string QB, injured, etc). I guess I don't understand your argument when you are contradicting or, I guess, negating your own reasons?

You misquoted me. In that segment, I was talking about to try to win the game with a 2 vs tying the game with an XP.

 

[Stout]

You have a completely unsubstantiated theory that if a team kicks an extra point early, they will somehow play better from that time onward and improve their chances of scoring 8 more points, even though they don't know whether they need one possession or two to achieve those to 8 points. More likely, they could play with less urgency, believing they have plenty of time for one more drive, only to miss the two-point conversion later and not have enough time left to show again.

The FACTS are borne out by the expected win percentages in the Five Thirty Eight article, which show that it is ALWAYS better to go for two early when down 15. As well as the obvious elementary logic that gaining information sooner is to the teams benefit. When a team goes for two earlier, they know either that they need two drives, or they need to score a single TD+XP with as little time remaining on the clock as possible, to prevent the opponent from having time for a game-clinching score.

If you have cancer, you don't improve your odds of survival by waiting to go to the doctor.

...dave

Ah, the "expected win percentages," one of those weird stats that can tell you how to win the game if only you do exactly what the stats say. Like always going for it on 4th down and other fringe theories. How's that worked out in the NFL so far?

You speak as if it's a simple fact. It's not. Maybe for one team, knowing they're royally screwed sooner rather than later would help them. Maybe with the right coach and right players, that's the way to go.

What's weird, if all your facts are actually facts, is that teams kick the extra point and wait on the 2-point conversion. Are teams and coaches just dumb and ignoring the facts, or do they have a different idea of what your facts are?

Let's just say I'm not going to agree with your "analytics" and I'm not going to convince you that the traditional, generally followed approach is correct, and leave it at that.

 

[Redsz]

We need to move on. The team regressed in all facets. Offense absolutely fell off a cliff and that was meant to be our strength.

 

[kerouac9]

What's weird, if all your facts are actually facts, is that teams kick the extra point and wait on the 2-point conversion. Are teams and coaches just dumb and ignoring the facts, or do they have a different idea of what your facts are?

Because the NFL is a bastion of progressive thinking.

Most teams and coaches are dumb and ignorant of the facts, or afraid for their jobs to do something different.

 

[pemory09]

We need to move on. The team regressed in all facets. Offense absolutely fell off a cliff and that was meant to be our strength.

Redsz: don’t you mean the “offense absolutely fell off a Kliff”?

 

[PJ1]

I don't understand how people don't get that this is the entire point.

If you miss the next one you STILL have to score on another drive, you just have less time on the clock. Why is that better?

You take all the pressure off the other teams offense much sooner than you need to. When you don’t convert the chances of you winning are about gone. Keep it a one score game and the opposition will feel the pressure to move the ball. Pretty damn simple if you ask me. Most coaches understand this as very basic.

 

[slanidrac16]

It's only a one-score game after kicking am XP if you KNOW they will make the two-point conversion later.

If you believe that the team will miss the two-point conversion early, but magically would make the two-point conversion if only they wait until later, then you're not comparing "going for it early" to "going for it later". You're comparing "missing it early" to "making it later". No wonder you don't see why waiting is wrong.

...dave

I’m done beating this dead horse.

 

[slanidrac16]

What makes your view ridiculous is that if you are going to miss the two-point conversion later, IT'S NOT A ONE SCORE GAME after kicking the XP. But you're going to play as if it is. So you're playing to keep false hope alive and lose at the last minute when there's not enough time left to show again.

...dave

If you don’t see the change in the complexion of the game from being 8 pts down instead of 9 then I don’t know what to tell you.
A defense playing against a team down instead of 9 with 3 minutes left to play removes 95% of the pressure.
Your theory is “ well, we didn’t make it this time so we probably wouldn’t make it next time is ludicrous.

 

[slanidrac16]

You take all the pressure off the other teams offense much sooner than you need to. When you don’t convert the chances of you winning are about gone. Keep it a one score game and the opposition will feel the pressure to move the ball. Pretty damn simple if you ask me. Most coaches understand this as very basic.

Forget it PJ. Some will never get it.

 

[daves]

Your theory is “ well, we didn’t make it this time so we probably wouldn’t make it next time is ludicrous.

You're not making any sense.

If you try a two-point conversion earlier, you actually allow the possibility of trying ANOTHER two-point conversion later, and winning the game in regulation, rather than just playing for a tie. If you kick earlier, you eliminate this possibility, and the best you can hope for is overtime. This is an OBVIOUS advantage of going for two earlier.

But that's not even the comparison we've been making all along in this thread. We've been debating whether to (a) go for two early, then kick an extra point later (if you're still down by 7) or try to score twice and win in regulation (if you're still down by 9)... or (b) kick an extra point early, then (down by 8) go for two later (which, if you fail, you lose the game). You're EITHER going for two early, or later, not both times. If you kick the extra point earlier, you didn't even TRY a two-point conversion the first time, so when you try it after your later TD, you're trying it for the first time. There is no "first time" and "next time" for the two-point conversion. There's either "early try" or "late try".

Do you actually believe that if you kick an XP after your first TD, then try a two-point conversion (for the first time) after your second TD, that you have a better chance of succeeding on the two-point conversion than if you tried it after the first TD?!

...dbs

 

[BullheadCardFan]

Here's KK before the decision

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[BritCard]

I mean, if he gets fired it's pretty clear that he failed at the coach's #1 objective — keeping his job for another season.

He got extended because the team's record improved from the previous season over his first three years on the job — despite troubling late-season collapses each year. If he loses his job, it will be because he failed to maintain the standard he set and didn't fix the late season collapse problem (for those keeping score at home, we are 1-5 since we threw out our Jack O'Lanterns.

The injuries could be an excuse if Kliff had a productive relationship with the quarterback. Instead they feuded on the sideline and Kyler regressed to the point that some fans were wondering if he was purposefully playing poorly to get his coach fired.

Kyler has had every opportunity in the world to give Kliff a vote of confidence had hasn't said boo. No, he doesn't say much about anything unless directly asked by a reporter (and sometimes even then), but it's been a season-long embarrassment.

Kyler has been asked a number of times in pressers if there was any issue between him and Kliff and he's always been very clear that there isn't.

I agree that if there is, there isn't much choice and Kliff should go. But still likely after next season. They aren't going to rush Kyler back and RG3 him. They are going to give him a long period of rehab to feel fully confident in running on his knee. Especially as he's frequently been injured by the most limited of contact. I don't expect to see Kyler before game 6 and I don't expect him to be close to himself until at least game 10.

If they do decide to stick with Kliff there needs to be other coaching changes. It's time for Vance to go. I think he's done well in spots but his defense is clearly limiting talented players. Bill Davis needs to go. He's a talant drain on the whole LB room. Cam Turner needs to go, he's pure dog ****. Embarrasingly bad on Hard Knocks.

 

[BullheadCardFan]

If they do decide to stick with Kliff there needs to be other coaching changes. It's time for Vance to go. I think he's done well in spots but his defense is clearly limiting talented players. Bill Davis needs to go. He's a talant drain on the whole LB room. Cam Turner needs to go, he's pure dog ****. Embarrasingly bad on Hard Knocks.

The entire defensive coaching staff needs to go if they keep KK

Which in reality KK needs to go also

 

[BritCard]

The entire defensive coaching staff needs to go if they keep KK

Which in reality KK needs to go also

All things being equal I think he likely would. But the GM and Kyler siuation complicates things.

I don't know what the deal will be with the new GM. In the past it's been usual for new GM's not to come in until after the draft but more recently they have been moving earlier. Both Poles and Adofo-Mensah started late Jan last year and were involved in the HC hiring process.

And the Kyler situation complicates things more. I don't know. It's going to be a tricky path to tread which is why I can see Mike rolling with what's in place for another year.

It wouldn't surprise me a tiny bit to see AW and Harris split the role on an interim basis for a year with Kliff staying. That seems like a very Mike thing to do.

 

[DaHilg]

All things being equal I think he likely would. But the GM and Kyler siuation complicates things.

I don't know what the deal will be with the new GM. In the past it's been usual for new GM's not to come in until after the draft but more recently they have been moving earlier. Both Poles and Adofo-Mensah started late Jan last year and were involved in the HC hiring process.

And the Kyler situation complicates things more. I don't know. It's going to be a tricky path to tread which is why I can see Mike rolling with what's in place for another year.

It wouldn't surprise me a tiny bit to see AW and Harris split the role on an interim basis for a year with Kliff staying. That seems like a very Mike thing to do.

That would be the worse case scenario if you move forward with Kliffy for next season… continue to not develop your young players, continue to impose the coach bro culture and continue to lose your fans.

There isn’t a realistic move that would be worse…unless if you are in the box of the few posters that claimed Kliffys offense was just fine lol, I still am laughing at those posters

 

[Stout]

That would be the worse case scenario if you move forward with Kliffy for next season… continue to not develop your young players, continue to impose the coach bro culture and continue to lose your fans.

There isn’t a realistic move that would be worse…unless if you are in the box of the few posters that claimed Kliffys offense was just fine lol, I still am laughing at those posters

Agreed.

 

[schutd]

Forget it PJ. Some will never get it.

This is not a football post.

And, I think they get it. I think they disagree with you. Whats the big deal? There are many theories about how to best shoot for victory in a football game. Some you will like, some you will not, none will you have any control over. Im cool with the differing views. Why does someone always have to win an argument?

 

[Linderbee]

You misquoted me. In that segment, I was talking about to try to win the game with a 2 vs tying the game with an XP.

Oh...ok! I got you. You were saying (in that quote) if you were at the VERY end of the game--gotcha. Wasn't trying to misquote

 

[lobo]

All things being equal I think he likely would. But the GM and Kyler siuation complicates things.

I don't know what the deal will be with the new GM. In the past it's been usual for new GM's not to come in until after the draft but more recently they have been moving earlier. Both Poles and Adofo-Mensah started late Jan last year and were involved in the HC hiring process.

And the Kyler situation complicates things more. I don't know. It's going to be a tricky path to tread which is why I can see Mike rolling with what's in place for another year.

It wouldn't surprise me a tiny bit to see AW and Harris split the role on an interim basis for a year with Kliff staying. That seems like a very Mike thing to do.

You couldn't be more spot on...and remember anyone who would retain KK or take the job because BB says you have the keep him, then you know you saddled the wrong horse with one reason being you picked a real desprate person...so by connecting the dots you know what's coming

 

[Stout]

Oh...ok! I got you. You were saying (in that quote) if you were at the VERY end of the game--gotcha. Wasn't trying to misquote

No worries

 

[QuebecCard]

Kyler has been asked a number of times in pressers if there was any issue between him and Kliff and he's always been very clear that there isn't.

I agree that if there is, there isn't much choice and Kliff should go. But still likely after next season. They aren't going to rush Kyler back and RG3 him. They are going to give him a long period of rehab to feel fully confident in running on his knee. Especially as he's frequently been injured by the most limited of contact. I don't expect to see Kyler before game 6 and I don't expect him to be close to himself until at least game 10.

If they do decide to stick with Kliff there needs to be other coaching changes. It's time for Vance to go. I think he's done well in spots but his defense is clearly limiting talented players. Bill Davis needs to go. He's a talant drain on the whole LB room. Cam Turner needs to go, he's pure dog ****. Embarrasingly bad on Hard Knocks.

I'll bet on HARRIS as the new GM and KK and Vance getting another year.

 

[Crimson Warrior]

That would be the worse case scenario if you move forward with Kliffy for next season… continue to not develop your young players, continue to impose the coach bro culture and continue to lose your fans.

There isn’t a realistic move that would be worse…unless if you are in the box of the few posters that claimed Kliffys offense was just fine lol, I still am laughing at those posters

I agree. I doubt the players want to play for Kliff anymore or ever again.

I get the thinking that, right now, we won't be able to get anyone more than just marginally better than Kliff, so why change, but I would rather have VJ as interim or on like a one year caretaker deal vs. bringing back Kingsburry. Let the new GM steady the ship, and then let VJ go if he can't get it done. Then we could maybe find a decent HC for 2024.

Sure, VJ's defense sucks, and I don't think he's that great at developing players, but I think he's at least a figure the players could respect. And, (and!) he would at least have an real NFL OC (for gods sake)!

 

[slanidrac16]

This is not a football post.

And, I think they get it. I think they disagree with you. Whats the big deal? There are many theories about how to best shoot for victory in a football game. Some you will like, some you will not, none will you have any control over. Im cool with the differing views. Why does someone always have to win an argument?

Something wrong with warning a fellow poster? I didn’t call anybody out by name.

 

[slanidrac16]

You're not making any sense.

If you try a two-point conversion earlier, you actually allow the possibility of trying ANOTHER two-point conversion later, and winning the game in regulation, rather than just playing for a tie. If you kick earlier, you eliminate this possibility, and the best you can hope for is overtime. This is an OBVIOUS advantage of going for two earlier.

But that's not even the comparison we've been making all along in this thread. We've been debating whether to (a) go for two early, then kick an extra point later (if you're still down by 7) or try to score twice and win in regulation (if you're still down by 9)... or (b) kick an extra point early, then (down by 8) go for two later (which, if you fail, you lose the game). You're EITHER going for two early, or later, not both times. If you kick the extra point earlier, you didn't even TRY a two-point conversion the first time, so when you try it after your later TD, you're trying it for the first time. There is no "first time" and "next time" for the two-point conversion. There's either "early try" or "late try".

Do you actually believe that if you kick an XP after your first TD, then try a two-point conversion (for the first time) after your second TD, that you have a better chance of succeeding on the two-point conversion than if you tried it after the first TD?!

...dbs

But you lose a real chance to win/tie the game. Unless your theory is you go for two points both times to go for the win. Okay. Me personally I’ll play to keep me in the game with a chance to tie and take it into overtime.
I don’t know about you but when we failed at the two point conversion I felt the game was over because now we needed two possessions.
As much as I disagree with you I respect your view and enjoy our banter.