The Fumble: Tannehill Checked Out of a Run Play

[sharp]

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.

The only reason I wanted to run in that situation is because we had a positive gain on 1st and had been running well all day for the first time all season.

But i do not normally agree with play it safe run run run, punt lose game. How many times have we seen playing it safe fail for the dolphins?

And to people complaining about ball security, I agree tannehill overall needs to not fumble as much. But in this specific instance, he was hit within a second, no one sees that rusher or holds onto that ball. Clabo's fault plain and simple, no one elses. Can't whiff on a guy 1 yard in front of you.

 

[Shouright]

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

That's probably for the better. Only cult leaders care about influencing others' minds, and in the end all they have is a group of people around them who are flimsy enough about what they believe to have their minds influenced, which is really no accomplishment at all. Good to hear you're quite bit sturdier than that. :)

 

[Shouright]

The only reason I wanted to run in that situation is because we had a positive gain on 1st and had been running well all day for the first time all season.

But i do not normally agree with play it safe run run run, punt lose game. How many times have we seen playing it safe fail for the dolphins?
And to people complaining about ball security, I agree tannehill overall needs to not fumble as much. But in this specific instance, he was hit within a second, no one sees that rusher or holds onto that ball. Clabo's fault plain and simple, no one elses. Can't whiff on a guy 1 yard in front of you.

Well I suspect we're selectively remembering the times it's failed at the expense of the times it hasn't. Again, the team had a 72% probability of winning at the time, meaning Buffalo had quite an uphill battle ahead of itself to win the game as it stood. Instead of making them win the game, however, we gave it to them.

 

[Shouright]

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.

You're right. No, because the Dolphins were only 41% likely to win that game at the beginning of that drive. Tannehill had to be aggressive to overcome the likelihood with which Atlanta was going to win that game.

However, at the time he fumbled against Buffalo, the probability was quite different, in that the Dolphins were at the time 72% likely to win the game.

In fact, had the Dolphins ran the ball twice, both for zero yards, milked the clock down to the two-minute warning as one would expect (assuming Buffalo didn't use any time-outs), and punted the ball into the end zone, the Dolphins' probability of wining the game would've gone down from 72% to 67%, rather than the 72% to 33% shift that actually happened.

If Miami had punted and pinned Buffalo back on its own 10, the Dolphins' probability of winning would've gone up, to 75%. Either way, Buffalo still would've been fighting uphill, unlike what it had to do in the real game, where it was pretty much handed to them.

 

[Phindog]

Numbers shmumbers!!!

 

[Shouright]

Numbers shmumbers!!!

Did you happen to notice the fact that the scores of all these games we're watching, the teams' records, and the basis of whether they make the playoffs, are all measured in numbers? :confused2:

 

[Heinegrabber]

Well I suspect we're selectively remembering the times it's failed at the expense of the times it hasn't. Again, the team had a 72% probability of winning at the time, meaning Buffalo had quite an uphill battle ahead of itself to win the game as it stood. Instead of making them win the game, however, we gave it to them.

New saying.

No longer run the clock out.

Pass hope receiver catches stays inbounds and get the first.

Forgot avoid the strip sack.

Forgot with a line that has given up over 20 sacks

and a HOF punter

 

[stephins87]

Meh

 

[MD]

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.

Teams run the football in that circumstance for clock management. An incomplete pass stopping the clock is the determining factor not the chance of interception. Running the ball eats the clock or forces the opponent to use a time out. It's not an uncommon occurrence for a team to throw what it considers a safe pass to get another set of downs. That is what the Dolphins attempted. Unfortunately, the OL didn't hold it's block.

If you read what the coaches and players are saying about that play and the overall play of the OL, you'll see that the play call was fine, the execution was horrible. Even Clabo acknowledges his poor play and it is costing him his starting job.

 

[Shouright]

Teams run the football in that circumstance for clock management. An incomplete pass stopping the clock is the determining factor not the chance of interception. Running the ball eats the clock or forces the opponent to use a time out. It's not an uncommon occurrence for a team to throw what it considers a safe pass to get another set of downs. That is what the Dolphins attempted. Unfortunately, the OL didn't hold it's block.

Actually that is uncommon. It's much more common to see runs exclusively. And part of the reason (not the whole reason) is that pass plays involve greater risk of game-changing error across the board, a clock-stopping incompletion being just one example.

If you read what the coaches and players are saying about that play and the overall play of the OL, you'll see that the play call was fine, the execution was horrible. Even Clabo acknowledges his poor play and it is costing him his starting job.

Did the coaches and players know nothing about the risks involved with entrusting Tyson Clabo to block his man -- this time Mario Williams -- on pass plays? Does the team not know itself by now? If Tyson Clabo was just one play from losing his job (as it appears), why the hell did they run the sort of play that could cost him it, and cost the team the game?

 

[Shouright]

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

This was printed the day after the article in the OP, by the way. It's not like someone could've had access to it at the time the thread was started.

 

[MD]

Actually that is uncommon. It's much more common to see runs exclusively. And part of the reason (not the whole reason) is that pass plays involve greater risk of game-changing error across the board, a clock-stopping incompletion being just one example.

Did the coaches and players know nothing about the risks involved with entrusting Tyson Clabo to block his man -- this time Mario Williams -- on pass plays? Does the team not know itself by now? If Tyson Clabo was just one play from losing his job (as it appears), why the hell did they run the sort of play that could cost him it, and cost the team the game?

Coaching not to lose is a philosophy that I can't buy into. You coach as if you're team is going to execute the called play.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Shouright]

Coaching not to lose is a philosophy that I can't buy into. You coach as if you're team is going to execute the called play.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

That's fine, but it sounds like what we're disagreeing on is whether playing to keep a strong likelihood of winning intact is playing not to lose, versus playing to win. If your likelihood of winning is strong at the end of the game, you've already "won." You don't have to "play to win" in the traditional sense (i.e., play aggressively, while incurring greater risk).

There are casinos galore out in Vegas that make hundreds of millions of dollars a year by playing much smaller probability percentages than we had going for ourselves in that game.

 

[Austin Tatious]

This was printed the day after the article in the OP, by the way. It's not like someone could've had access to it at the time the thread was started.

You still twisted the original quote to mean all kinds of things that weren't said. This whole thread is based on a fraud, and there are people who walked away misinformed. I believe the quotes in the article came out Monday and that you were corrected then. You mis-stated the situation and it's not ok. For someone who is obsessed with metrics, you of all people should be concerned about accuracy.

You took a benign quote and applied false meaning to it. When you bring one of your fanciful stats up for discussion we can all wonder what false premise underlies it now, especially when you stubbornly won't admit your inaccuracy or mistake.

 

[truedolfan57]

You still twisted the original quote to mean all kinds of things that weren't said. This whole thread is based on a fraud, and there are people who walked away misinformed. I believe the quotes in the article came out Monday and that you were corrected then. You mis-stated the situation and it's not ok. For someone who is obsessed with metrics, you of all people should be concerned about accuracy.

You took a benign quote and applied false meaning to it. When you bring one of your fanciful stats up for discussion we can all wonder what false premise underlies it now, especially when you stubbornly won't admit your inaccuracy or mistake.

but that's what trolls do. lol