09-13-2021, 07:40 PM
I think what's typically missing from this dialogue (not entirely, but largely) is the motivation.
Is Zac Taylor a terrible coach? Is he a big dumb dumb? Maybe. There are arguments to be made that one or both of those statements might be true. But let's consider why he elected to take this risk instead of regurgitating over and over that it was a risk.
What happens if the Bengals convert? They retain possession of the football with 3:16 (and counting) remaining in the third quarter. They continue the drive and chew more clock, minimally restricting Minnesota's time to make up the deficit or maximally scoring again to take a three-score lead. The AnAlYtIcS don't suggest the move is permissible because ~numbers exist~ and ~blah blah nerd stuff~, but rather because they attempt to account for the possible outcomes with a holistic and collapsed probability value (probability to win the game). It's not a process without flaws, but it is absolutely less flawed than unaided human cognition. If you ask a human being to understand on a deep level the meaning of a risk being taken, they are generally going to be awful in that task. They just suck at it, period. That's why you employ someone or someones with that kind of expertise.
Then the fans and viewers are inevitably results-oriented in their assessment of any coaching decision. When it goes wrong and is already contrary to their biased understanding of risk, naturally the coach gets a hailstorm of shit. In this case, I think that hailstorm is representative of misunderstanding rather than any actual coaching mistake. I expected and would have fully approved of a punt in that situation. Taylor's willingness to take that risk on the side of the math though (however slightly) is encouraging to me. We're always groaning about how behind the times this franchise is, and that play was a sharp move toward modernity. It's even ahead of the curve. That kind of stuff will be more ordinary than it feels right now within a few years I suspect.
But the play call still sucked.
Is Zac Taylor a terrible coach? Is he a big dumb dumb? Maybe. There are arguments to be made that one or both of those statements might be true. But let's consider why he elected to take this risk instead of regurgitating over and over that it was a risk.
What happens if the Bengals convert? They retain possession of the football with 3:16 (and counting) remaining in the third quarter. They continue the drive and chew more clock, minimally restricting Minnesota's time to make up the deficit or maximally scoring again to take a three-score lead. The AnAlYtIcS don't suggest the move is permissible because ~numbers exist~ and ~blah blah nerd stuff~, but rather because they attempt to account for the possible outcomes with a holistic and collapsed probability value (probability to win the game). It's not a process without flaws, but it is absolutely less flawed than unaided human cognition. If you ask a human being to understand on a deep level the meaning of a risk being taken, they are generally going to be awful in that task. They just suck at it, period. That's why you employ someone or someones with that kind of expertise.
Then the fans and viewers are inevitably results-oriented in their assessment of any coaching decision. When it goes wrong and is already contrary to their biased understanding of risk, naturally the coach gets a hailstorm of shit. In this case, I think that hailstorm is representative of misunderstanding rather than any actual coaching mistake. I expected and would have fully approved of a punt in that situation. Taylor's willingness to take that risk on the side of the math though (however slightly) is encouraging to me. We're always groaning about how behind the times this franchise is, and that play was a sharp move toward modernity. It's even ahead of the curve. That kind of stuff will be more ordinary than it feels right now within a few years I suspect.
But the play call still sucked.
