Pete Carroll’s time management and late game decisions

[-Pete-]

Kick it away, maybe not even through the end zone if that was a concern, and hope your ST get a decent stop. Steelers aren't playing with the full toolbox: they're not gonna put it in the air and risk an incomplete, tip, pick. So you stack the box and play the run which *should* get you a 3-n-out. Hope you get it back around midfield with enough time to take a few shots.

Granted, there's whole lotta "ifs" in there, but it seems to me like that gives you more chances for success than all-in on an onside. But hey, I dunno. There are a lot of reasons I'm not a HC.

 

[DarkVictory23]

I call BS. Meyers kicked 3 touchbacks, one kick 2 yards deep that was returned, and one to the 2 yard line, and that on a cold, heavy day at sea level.

Yeah, but how many of those touchbacks were out the back of the end zone and how many were a returner decision?

I kind of get the logic based on that idea. In fact, if we think Meyers can't make it unreturnable, onside saves more time because Pittsburgh has to focus on securing the ball, not returning it.

And I was pissed at this call at the time.

 

[RiverDog]

Yeah, but how many of those touchbacks were out the back of the end zone and how many were a returner decision?

I kind of get the logic based on that idea. In fact, if we think Meyers can't make it unreturnable, onside saves more time because Pittsburgh has to focus on securing the ball, not returning it.

And I was pissed at this call at the time.

Without going back and looking at the replays, I can't tell you how many of Meyer's KO's went out of the back of the end zone, but that wasn't my point. My point was that kicking the ball 65+ yards in the air on a cold, damp day at sea level is pretty convincing evidence that Meyers was not injured as someone had suggested.

 

[DarkVictory23]

Without going back and looking at the replays, I can't tell you how many of Meyer's KO's went out of the back of the end zone, but that wasn't my point. My point was that kicking the ball 65+ yards in the air on a cold, damp day at sea level is pretty convincing evidence that Meyers was not injured as someone had suggested.

Was that what was said? I thought it was just 'he isn't kicking it out the back of the endzone today', which could have been a bunch of reasons why, not necessarily injury.

The difference is, if you can consistently kick out the back, there is no return, we get the extra time out. If you are just kicking it INTO the end zone, that's returnable and the extra yards are worth less to Pittsburgh at that point in the game than wasting time bringing it out.

So, I can't remember for sure how those kickoffs looked but I feel like most of them were landing in the endzone and if that's the case, it makes Pete's decision make sense.

 

[RiverDog]

Was that what was said? I thought it was just 'he isn't kicking it out the back of the endzone today', which could have been a bunch of reasons why, not necessarily injury.

Here's what I was reacting to:

Even Pete said it wasn’t the right call in a normal game but myers wasn’t kicking it deep enough so they were FORCED to do it. The right call if myers is healthy or whatever is to kick it out of the end zone save the two minute stoppage and see what happens.

@NoGain: I had no idea about that. Was Myer really incapable of kicking into the endzone?

 

[Ozzy]

Even so just kick it out of bounds and have the clock at 2:01. It was stupid regardless of how you look at it. Not the end of the world and nothing new with Pete but it was just a bad process.

 

[Maelstrom787]

Even so just kick it out of bounds and have the clock at 2:01. It was stupid regardless of how you look at it. Not the end of the world and nothing new with Pete but it was just a bad process.

Removing the field position advantage and denying yourself a reasonable chance to retain possession of the football to save a single clock stop is not the objectively correct decision here, ESPECIALLY given the context of Seattle not being able to stop a wet fart all game.

You're gonna lose 95/100 times anyway in this scenario. It doesn't get worse by trying the onside.

 

[CouchLogic]

The coaching staff has devolved into imbeciles this season.


Can them all, and start fresh.

 

[DarkVictory23]

Even so just kick it out of bounds and have the clock at 2:01. It was stupid regardless of how you look at it. Not the end of the world and nothing new with Pete but it was just a bad process.

This is a reasonable option, though I think if you plan to give them the field position regardless, an onside attempt becomes more defensible. That said, I still favor kicking it out and taking the extra time stoppage. (Though, Pete may very well have given up all hope with our defense and decided he didn't think they could get a stop even with a dozen timeouts, so...)

 

[Fresno Hawk]

All good points. I think the simple fact that we could have had the defense on the field with 2:01. By either trying to kick the ball out of the end zone or, kicking out of bounds. You have to give your defense a chance to come up with a big stop there. Football is an emotional sport and when the game is on the line it would've gave the defense a chance to show they can get the stop. At least that's how I felt when I played.

 

[Seahawks8880]

I still don’t understand what the argument here is. Even with the worst defense in the league still post a significant higher chance on stopping the opposing team for a 3 and out than a miracle recovery of an onside kick.

Don’t give me this crap about Meyers couldn’t kick it far enough when all of his kickoffs had resulted in a touchback thus far. He would have damn sure to kick it farther if he had to as part of the plan.

The pressure would have been astronomically higher on the offense being backed up on their side of the field knowing that we essentially have 3 timeouts left with 50k home fans cheering on our defense with their energy through the roof for one last defensive stand.

Instead, a prayer of an onside kick failed as expected landed them on our side of the field with only a few yards left to go for a FG even we did stopped them a few yards short of a first down. This had put a lot less pressure on them due to the starting position of the field.

How could we defend the coaching decisions on this?

 

[Maelstrom787]

I still don’t understand what the argument here is. Even with the worst defense in the league still post a significant higher chance on stopping the opposing team for a 3 and out than a miracle recovery of an onside kick.

Don’t give me this crap about Meyers couldn’t kick it far enough when all of his kickoffs had resulted in a touchback thus far. He would have damn sure to kick it farther if he had to as part of the plan.

The pressure would have been astronomically higher on the offense being backed up on their side of the field knowing that we essentially have 3 timeouts left with 50k home fans cheering on our defense with their energy through the roof for one last defensive stand.

Instead, a prayer of an onside kick failed as expected landed them on our side of the field with only a few yards left to go for a FG even we did stopped them a few yards short of a first down. This had put a lot less pressure on them due to the starting position of the field.

How could we defend the coaching decisions on this?

The simplest way to sum it up for me is:

I don't think the probability comparison between the 3-and-out and the onside recovery is correct probability comparison to judge the decision with.

I think the overall win probability calculation is more apt, given that we were almost certainly going to lose anyway and an onside recovery was the only way to boost our overall chances of victory above like 7% in this specific scenario. It's an entirely situational comparison.

The onside recovery is unlikely, but it's about as unlikely as a win was period at that juncture. Overall win probability at the time of the kick was about 4-5%. Onside recovery league-wide is 5.6%

Just take your chance then and there. If you lose the onside attempt, which they did, you STILL have about the same ridiculously bad odds of winning anyway.

 

[rjdriver]

You're gonna lose 95/100 times anyway in this scenario. It doesn't get worse by trying the onside.

Does it get worse by having around 43 seconds less time to score a tying touchdown?

You're one of my favorite posters and far more knowledgeable of football than I am. I have zero issue with you thinking the onside kick was the right call.

Where I respectfully disagree is in your evaluation of the probabilities as presented in your first few posts. It doesn't properly weigh the statistical advantages of kicking a touchback.

Here's where we agree. I have no reason to doubt our statistical probability to lose was around 96% as we lined up for kickoff. However, that statistic makes zero forward assumptions. In other words, it's a statistical snapshot at that exact moment in time. It makes no difference if we were to kick it long, onside kick it, or simply have the kicker drop a steaming turd on the ball. The odds of winning is 4 percent regardless of what we choose. That can never change although it is fluid as future data is considered.

Your position seems to infer that if we kick onsides, our odds of winning somehow increase. I would argue they don't. I know for certain they don't increase at the rate of a successful onside kick recovery (which I believe you said is 5.6%).

I would honestly bet money that if you ran the two scenarios through a probability calculator accounting for all variables, the odds of winning would be higher by kicking deep (assuming no return).

Why? Two reasons.

The biggest reason is obviously time. A touchback results in the Stealers starting their drive with 121 seconds on the clock. Three opportunities to stop the clock results in 4th down with about 1:40 or so to play. (7 seconds per run). An unsuccessful onside kick results in the Stealers starting their drive with 118 seconds. Two opportunities to stop the clock results in 4th down with 57 seconds remaining. That's a huge, measurable, statistical advantage when trying to score a TD with zero timeouts.

The second is field position. Clearly there is a statistical advantage to receiving a fourth down punt closer to the opponents end zone with limited time remaining on the clock.

Now..

Would a successful onside kick recovery be the optimal result in this dire situation? Hell yes! We agree there as well, especially since it doesn't require a successful three and out. But like you said, the odds of this are only about 5% (actually less in obvious onside kick situations, the "surprise" onside kick artificially boosts the numbers). That means 95% percent of the time in this situation, one has indisputably decreased their chances of winning the game by kicking onsides as opposed to kicking a touchback.

Is a successful onside kick the best result in this bleak situation? For sure. Enough to risk the 95% chance of being in an even worse situation. I don't know, and unless someone has much deeper stats and probs on time and field position, I'm not sure you, me, or anyone can say definitively what was the best decision. I think it was to kick deep, you think it was to kick onsides. It's all good, but not certain.

WARNING TO ANY SINGLE MEN: My above post is what can happen after 26 years of marriage that has become far too sexless. Please proceed with caution.

 

[flv2]

If you're worried about an onside kick with 2:01 remaining then don't run the clock down to 2:01. Kick the FG on the previous down and take the clock stoppage out of the equation. (Especially if it's a really low percentage play like a corner fade).

 

[Seahawks8880]

Does it get worse by having around 43 seconds less time to score a tying touchdown?

You're one of my favorite posters and far more knowledgeable of football than I am. I have zero issue with you thinking the onside kick was the right call.

Where I respectfully disagree is in your evaluation of the probabilities as presented in your first few posts. It doesn't properly weigh the statistical advantages of kicking a touchback.

Here's where we agree. I have no reason to doubt our statistical probability to lose was around 96% as we lined up for kickoff. However, that statistic makes zero forward assumptions. In other words, it's a statistical snapshot at that exact moment in time. It makes no difference if we were to kick it long, onside kick it, or simply have the kicker drop a steaming turd on the ball. The odds of winning is 4 percent regardless of what we choose. That can never change although it is fluid as future data is considered.

Your position seems to infer that if we kick onsides, our odds of winning somehow increase. I would argue they don't. I know for certain they don't increase at the rate of a successful onside kick recovery (which I believe you said is 5.6%).

I would honestly bet money that if you ran the two scenarios through a probability calculator accounting for all variables, the odds of winning would be higher by kicking deep (assuming no return).

Why? Two reasons.

The biggest reason is obviously time. A touchback results in the Stealers starting their drive with 121 seconds on the clock. Three opportunities to stop the clock results in 4th down with about 1:40 or so to play. (7 seconds per run). An unsuccessful onside kick results in the Stealers starting their drive with 118 seconds. Two opportunities to stop the clock results in 4th down with 57 seconds remaining. That's a huge, measurable, statistical advantage when trying to score a TD with zero timeouts.

The second is field position. Clearly there is a statistical advantage to receiving a fourth down punt closer to the opponents end zone with limited time remaining on the clock.

Now..

Would a successful onside kick recovery be the optimal result in this dire situation? Hell yes! We agree there as well, especially since it doesn't require a successful three and out. But like you said, the odds of this are only about 5% (actually less in obvious onside kick situations, the "surprise" onside kick artificially boosts the numbers). That means 95% percent of the time in this situation, one has indisputably decreased their chances of winning the game by kicking onsides as opposed to kicking a touchback.

Is a successful onside kick the best result in this bleak situation? For sure. Enough to risk the 95% chance of being in an even worse situation. I don't know, and unless someone has much deeper stats and probs on time and field position, I'm not sure you, me, or anyone can say definitively what was the best decision. I think it was to kick deep, you think it was to kick onsides. It's all good, but not certain.

WARNING TO ANY SINGLE MEN: My above post is what can happen after 26 years of marriage that has become far too sexless. Please proceed with caution.

Totally agree and awesome analysis!! My other speculation is that Pete didn’t have it registered in his head that they could possibly get another timeout after a touchback. Perhaps he was just thinking that they only had 2 timeouts left?

 

[morgulon1]

You apply overall odds of winning only to kicking off and attempting to force a punt, but not to the onside option. Neither choice occurs in a vacuum, but you pose it as if the onside option does.

An honest comparison would be to compare odds of forcing a 3-and-out to that of an onside recovery. Onside kick recoveries this season, league wide, are like 2/40.

I'd be shocked if forcing a 3 and out occurs at a lower rate. A three and out, with the two minute warning, would have left more than 1:30+ on the clock--incl. a punt return.

I agree . The onside kick shouldn't have been on the table unless there was only seconds left . Had Petey not wasted a freaking timeout on a ridiculously stupid challenge , he could've had all his timeouts AND the two minute warning.

Horrible in game management. Years of
Purgatory , bad FA acquisitions, cap mismanagement and silly in game coaching gets most people fired after 3-7 years..

Not Petey

 

[Ozzy]

Big Ben thought the decision was so stupid he questions if Pete even wanted to win lol

Steeler Nation: Pittsburgh Steelers News, Rumors, & More

Your best source for quality Pittsburgh Steelers news, rumors, analysis, stats and scores from your SteelerNation home

www.steelernation.com