The Fumble: Tannehill Checked Out of a Run Play

[Shouright]

It wasn't the OP it was your definition of time to pass actually. One of the many side bars that have arose from this thread. It has actually become impossible to keep track of the topic of this thread anymore.

Ah well, it looks like we're on to something else here, now. :up:

 

[MD]

Actually when a single play makes the probability of winning plummet from 72% to 33%, and a great number of different kinds of plays probably would've done nothing of the sort, I think it's pretty proper to question the call itself, rather than the execution of the call. :)

Actually it was the end result of the play that changed the probability not the play call itself.

 

[ATL_PHIN_FAN]

Honestly I started a response to that post and deleted it because I couldn't keep from laughing at our self proclaimed QB guru's flip flop not to mention blasting CK for making a change to his thought process.

Me2. Instead, I just shook my head and filed it away 'cause I know how it works, now. Almost issued my first no thanks to him in a while, too. I'm hoping he's just being emotional due to the game?

 

[Shouright]

Actually it was the end result of the play that changed the probability not the play call itself.

What I said wasn't inconsistent with that. What I also said, however, is that there are likely a great many different kinds of plays that would've done nothing of the sort, i.e., that would've probably had a much different outcome, and one that didn't lower team's probability of winning at all, let alone by 39%.

 

[MD]

What I said wasn't inconsistent with that. What I also said, however, is that there are likely a great many different kinds of plays that would've done nothing of the sort, i.e., that would've probably had a much different outcome, and one that didn't lower team's probability of winning at all, let alone by 39%.

But that's making an assumption that a different play would have been executed better. Either way, the execution of any play is a factor in it's success.

 

[Shouright]

But that's making an assumption that a different play would have been executed better. Either way, the execution of any play is a factor in it's success.

The point is that there are a great number of different kinds of plays that could be executed poorly and have a result nothing like making the probability of winning plummet from 72% to 33%. This is why teams typically don't pass when they're trying to kill the clock. They know that if a run is executed poorly, the result can likely be lived with, whereas a poorly executed pass can lose the game.

 

[MD]

The point is that there are a great number of different kinds of plays that could be executed poorly and have a result nothing like making the probability of winning plummet from 72% to 33%. This is why teams typically don't pass when they're trying to kill the clock. They know that if a run is executed poorly, the result can likely be lived with, whereas a poorly executed pass can lose the game.

The point I am making is that any play can result in a turnover. Obviously a run is safer than a pass but you can't dismiss execution as a non factor in reducing that probability of winning.

If Lamar Miller took a hand off and fumbled, the probability decreases the same amount.

 

[Shouright]

The point I am making is that any play can result in a turnover. Obviously a run is safer than a pass but you can't dismiss execution as a non factor in reducing that probability of winning.

If Lamar Miller took a hand off and fumbled, the probability decreases the same amount.

What you can do is run a play in which poor execution is less likely to happen, and less likely, if it does happen, to result in turning the tide in the game. The team didn't do that IMO.

 

[Austin Tatious]

Coach Joe Philbin and offensive coordinator Mike Sherman both said that they anticipated Buffalo putting eight defenders near the line of scrimmage to stop the run, the same strategy the Bills used to stuff the Dolphins’ first-down run.
“They played that exact front we thought they were going to play,” Sherman said.
With Philbin aware and supportive of the strategy, Sherman called a pass play with a built-in run option. Had the Bills aligned their defense with a seven-man front, Tannehill was instructed to audible to the handoff.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/10/22/3703626/miami-dolphins-joe-philbin-says.html#storylink=cpy

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/10/22/3703626/miami-dolphins-joe-philbin-says.html

 

[Zounds]

What you can do is run a play in which poor execution is less likely to happen, and less likely, if it does happen, to result in turning the tide in the game. The team didn't do that IMO.

wtf....why do you think the base play was audibled to a pass??? because it has a higher chance of being successful against that particular front. A pass was the higher probability play, hence the audible.

 

[Shouright]

wtf....why do you think the base play was audibled to a pass??? because it has a higher chance of being successful against that particular front. A pass was the higher probability play, hence the audible.

It may have had a higher probability of being successful against that particular defensive front, but it also brought with it the risk of the kind of event that could turn the tide in the game, which is what happened. By contrast, a run might've been less successful against the defensive front, but it would've been far less risky in terms of producing a result that could change the game.

This is why teams have no problem running their running back into an impenetrable wall of defenders when they're trying to run out the clock. They're willing to exchange "failure" in terms of gaining any yardage for the minimization of risk and the depletion of the clock. This is all pretty simple. We've seen it a million times.

Now, you could argue that the team wasn't yet trying to kill the clock, and I would say that was a mistake on its part at the time. They sure should have been trying to kill the clock IMO, with a 72% chance of winning the game.

 

[Zounds]

It may have had a higher probability of being successful against that particular defensive front, but it also brought with it the risk of the kind of event that could turn the tide in the game, which is what happened. By contrast, a run might've been less successful against the defensive front, but it would've been far less risky in terms of producing a result that could change the game.

Ok now you are just guessing....and now you aren't even talking about the probability of the play being a success, you are changing to the probability of not fumbling. There's a difference. Always changing what you mean when posters shoot holes in your fringe theories.

This is why teams have no problem running their running back into an impenetrable wall of defenders when they're trying to run out the clock.

If you actually watched football, you would know that teams do have a problem with running into the backs of an impenetrable wall of defenders when THERE ARE STILL 3 MINUTES LEFT and you are only winning by 2 points.

 

[Shouright]

Ok now you are just guessing....and now you aren't even talking about the probability of the play being a success, you are changing to the probability of not fumbling. There's a difference. Always changing what you mean when posters shoot holes in your fringe theories.

If you actually watched football, you would know that teams do have a problem with running into the backs of an impenetrable wall of defenders when THERE ARE STILL 3 MINUTES LEFT and you are only winning by 2 points.

I suspect you and I are pretty much always going to disagree about everything, and that's fine. :)

 

[LandShark13]

Actually when a single play makes the probability of winning plummet from 72% to 33%, and a great number of different kinds of plays probably would've done nothing of the sort, I think it's pretty proper to question the call itself, rather than the execution of the call. :)

Well then if that's what you think then it just makes me feel all that much better about what I think.

 

[finomenal]

I don't play the result. You either trust your QB and allow him to audible or you don't. You either play aggressively or you don't. Tannehill played aggressively against Atlanta in the final drive. If he played aggressively in that last drive against Atlanta and threw a pick, would it have been a bad move? Hell no. I don't like seeing my team playing scared. We've seen way too much of that. Sparano & Wannstache would've run the ball and punted and they got ripped heavily for it. Seems like a lot of posters want to have it both ways.