(09-12-2021, 10:10 PM)Au165 Wrote: Right, but I think the way the D played is why actually he did it. If they get stopped (odds in their favor) D holds them to 3 they are up 10 with a chance next possession to still go up 3 scores. Getting to 3 scores in the second half is another big analytical indicator for victory.

If they were closer to the 50 I could have choked it down but on the 30 is spotting a team 3 points. If they punted it would have forced the Vikings to eat clock and that whole minutes they used to tie the game wouldnt have likely been there.

(09-12-2021, 10:13 PM)Synric Wrote: If they were closer to the 50 I could have choked it down but on the 30 is spotting a team 3 points. If they punted it would have forced the Vikings to eat clock and that whole minutes they used to tie the game wouldnt have likely been there.

If they hold them on the 4th and 4 instead of a TD, or force the field goal, they win the game in regulation. Lots of domino effects that all cascaded together.

(09-12-2021, 09:54 PM)CardCounterChris Wrote: the problem is that 77% yeilds 0 points while 23% almost certainly concedes points.  Analytics isn't just about success rate, but expected value for those decisions.  There's no way that decision yields more points than it loses.

It’s not accurate to say that the successes don’t have points assigned to them. They absolutely do, and you can find that by finding the amount drives that had a successful 4th down conversion and how many points were scored on these drives.

A better metric is using win probability, which is what the 4th down decision bot uses. I posted that reference earlier, but we had an 88% chance to win. By going for it and getting it, our chance goes up to 92%. Failing it drops it to 82%. The bot rated it as a toss up decision.

If the team executed, people would be talking about how awesome that call was.

(09-12-2021, 10:16 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: It’s not accurate to say that the successes don’t have points assigned to them. They absolutely do, and you can find that by finding the amount drives that had a successful 4th down conversion and how many points were scored on these drives.

A better metric is using win probability, which is what the 4th down decision bot uses. I posted that reference earlier, but we had an 88% chance to win. By going for it and getting it, our chance goes up to 92%. Failing it drops it to 82%. The bot rated it as a toss up decision.

Right there are some metric points going into it.  but theres no way there's more points coming out of it than the losses.  Its a range of outcomes.  Its 77% to get a first down.  Then from there the percentages decrease as the point rate goes up.  Its still not a good bet.  It was still a terrible decision.  That decision single handled turned the entire game against us.  I'm glad we won.  I'm glad we are being proactive, but that call wasn't it.

(09-12-2021, 10:18 PM)CardCounterChris Wrote: Right there are some metric points going into it.  but theres no way there's more points coming out of it than the losses.  Its a range of outcomes.  Its 77% to get a first down.  Then from there the percentages decrease as the point rate goes up.  Its still not a good bet.  It was still a terrible decision.  That decision single handled turned the entire game against us.  I'm glad we won.  I'm glad we are being proactive, but that call wasn't it.

We’re going to just disagree here, then. I think Au165 explained the situation a little better than I have done. Zac was betting on a successful conversion being a back breaker there. If they don’t get it, he was betting the defense would stop them and still hold it to a two score game, but they gave up the TD on a 4th and 4. The defense was playing lights out, it’s a logical call.

Ultimately, Zac would do it again and I’m glad to hear that. This team needs to be aggressive and that call is going to work in their favor much more often than not.

I understand the numbers computers crunch to give odds. That's all and good. Makes for nice arguments. But there is also situational awareness where the secondary was giving up a lot of passing yards. Cousins ended up with 351 yards passing. And as I said in another thread, I guarantee had the Bengals lost the game, blowing that lead, most would be referencing that 4th and 1 on their own 30 call as turning point instead of quoting chances of success.

(09-12-2021, 10:22 PM)George Cantstandya Wrote: I understand the numbers computers crunch to give odds.  That's all and good.  Makes for nice arguments.  But there is also situational awareness where the secondary was giving up a lot of passing yards.  Cousins ended up with 351 yards passing.  And as I said in another thread, I guarantee had the Bengals lost the game, blowing that lead, most would be referencing that 4th and 1 on their own 30 call as turning point instead of quoting chances of success.

Its easier to defend a winning game.  I really like the roster.  I'm just not digging the decision.  Maybe id be swayed if we were being more aggressive in play calls.  But its run run pass most drives and then you take a huge risk?

(09-12-2021, 08:50 PM)maclanta Wrote: First… I’m happy we got out of that game with a win, it will help this team mature.

Now for some thoughts about the 4th down call…

1. Metrics might approve, but it didn’t pass a simple sniff test given how well we had played to that point
2. The actual play call was not great…
3. Mixon is not a power up the middle runner… Perine might have been the better call

So my gut instinct is… I hated it

I can only hope that this will be a learning moment for our coach and quarterback. The coach should know better!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How about a QB sneak from under center, I mean hell you did it for a conversion earlier in the game, but no as usual Zac thinks he can outsmart people, which I don't understand why.  The man has NEVER had any measurable success what so ever at any role that brings with it more responsibility beyond a position coach. 

The decision was not terrible - the play call was. Once again it was Zac being too cute for his own good. You put Sample out there with Perine and just play big boy and ram it in.

Mike Brown called that play in from the pressbox.

It was a mind-numbingly stupid call. Period. Regardless of outcome. The fact that his dumb ass thinks it was the right call AFTER the games proves what a fool/tool ZT is.

But I had bigger issues with ZT completely going into a shell after that. Particularly the Mixon draw on 3rd & 4 at two minutes. He did not even give Burrow a chance to win the game.

The 4th down audible was on Burrow.

(09-12-2021, 09:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I liked it because Zac put faith in his players. It didn't work out this time, but I think the confidence in his players will pay dividends moving forward..

I think he was saying that he did not have faith in our defense.

(09-13-2021, 01:04 PM)Isaac Curtis: The Real #85 Wrote: It was a mind-numbingly stupid call. Period. Regardless of outcome. The fact that his dumb ass thinks it was the right call AFTER the games proves what a fool/tool ZT is.

But I had bigger issues with ZT completely going into a shell after that. Particularly the Mixon draw on 3rd & 4 at two minutes. He did not even give Burrow a chance to win the game.

The 4th down audible was on Burrow.

The 4th down audible was called in the huddle because Zac gave it. He called two plays and let Joe have the freedom to change it if he saw fit.

(09-12-2021, 09:27 PM)BengalsRocker Wrote: Because it's all he's known his whole NFL career.

Desperation confused with trust by some.

He kept going for 4th downs and was successful at conversions last season because he's a loser and is usually playing behind the 8 ball.

That play had nothing to do with going for the throat.

It was stupid.

Playing vanilla football and sitting on a lead is where bad coaches usually die.

Going for it unnecessarily with bad play calling on your own 30yd line is obnoxious and ill advised.

Agree

The "he believes in this team rah, rah" crap is just that - crap.

There's no football world in the universe where that's a good decision.

(09-12-2021, 08:50 PM)maclanta Wrote: First… I’m happy we got out of that game with a win, it will help this team mature.

Now for some thoughts about the 4th down call…

1. Metrics might approve, but it didn’t pass a simple sniff test given how well we had played to that point
2. The actual play call was not great…
3. Mixon is not a power up the middle runner… Perine might have been the better call

So my gut instinct is… I hated it

I can only hope that this will be a learning moment for our coach and quarterback. The coach should know better!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I didn’t care for it but the only reason why it wasn’t successful was because Mixon slipped. Just think how many times teams tried is like that and succeeded. They were never questioned by their own fan bases even if they didn’t make the conversion. I guess Zach was trying to make a statement that we aren’t going to continue to be the victim but the aggressor.

I'm all for the aggression, it's an emotional physical game where aggression pays off in spades if you're aggressive at the right time, taking into account factors like where you're at on the field, what's the score, how has the defense been playing, how much time left etc. I can't get behind being aggressive there when you're up 14, late in the 3rd and your defense has been playing well. Taking into account the situation and how game was playing out there's no way you'll ever convince me that was a good call. What makes it more baffling is the situations Zac should have been aggressive such as the 1st quarter when Minn was getting called for an offensive penalty every snap, the defense would hold and give the offense great field position multiple times he was conservative. Then later on when Minn made it a 7 point game they should have been aggressive and he seemed to be cautious. Felt like the old Marv playing not to lose bs kicked in. Could have been due to Burrow twisting his ankle a little or maybe he wanted to be aggressive but plays they were trying to be the O-line blew an assignment or something, but the bottom line is it felt like play calling was conservative and they weren't throwing on 1st down etc. When he should have been aggressive to answer their score and take the momentum back. Gonna need better play calling and game management than that. Have to fix the oline blowing assignments and other guys on offense screwing up as well. There was the one play Joe play action faked to a RB that wasn't there, Uzomah leaked out the backside, Mixon leaked out strong side for a screen but someone screwed up, timing was off and Burrow couldn't get rid of it. If he had Mixon would have been running all day because he was all alone no defender within 10 yards of him. Good thing in regards to theO-line is most of the troubles were missed assignments. It could have been from Burrow calling out wrong protection or communication between the olinemen, idk. Those things can be fixed where getting beat physically is much harder to fix, if it can be fixed at all. I can only recall a few times an olineman got whooped physically and that was Trey Hopkins who got embarrassed a few times. One sack I remember he just got tossed to the ground right off the snap like a dad thats too competitive plowing through his toddler in the backyard which led to Joe having a DT in his face immediately. Hopefully that's an issue from his knee and only taking 3 preseason snaps and it will get better every week til he's100%. Back on topic though, I like the aggression and confidence in the offense and team in general really because he probably thought defense could hold em to 3 but given that situation and the circumstances it was an awful decision. Just be aggressive at the right time.