Sorry Fellas. Mike McCoy is not the guy.

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

You are contradicting yourself!

(1) You say, "When you follow a strategy that is more likely to hurt your team then help, then you made a mistake." Okay, I'll grant you that.

(2) But then the Chargers pursued a strategy that was least likely to hurt them. So, by your definition, they did not make a mistake. Yet, you insist: "It's pretty clear a mistake was made...."

Which is it? Stop contradicting yourself!

Oh, and btw, Keiser's not that bad. We actually won a few games with him in the lineup.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Panama again.

[BlazingBolt]

The chances of converting a first down and the reward of converting a first down is far greater than the chances of a negative play on offense leading to cincy scoring and the negative consequences of cincy scoring as a result are not as bad (because there would likely be time and timeouts left for bolts to answer score in only one scenario).

Furthermore, in all those cases, Baltimore cincy and us, we hope the opponent makes the conservative call and kicks the ball back. You think anyone in cincy was kicking themselves when the chargers decided to go conservative and kick them the ball back? Of course not, they were glad we did it because it helped them out.

I can keep this up for quite awhile if people continue to want me to.

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

Nope. Not sure how you interpreted that but maybe read it again.

A strategy was followed that was more likely to allow cincy to score before the half and take the lead. That's a strategy that hurt the team. And then, cincy did go down the field and take the lead at half. If you follow a strategy that is more likely to back fire and then it does backfire, what kind of person still argues that it'd was a good decision? Facts and results must be ignored to take that position.

Good grief. You just ignore so much to make these boneheaded statements.

The decision wasn't 3 points or no points. The decision was between 3 and 7. They took a calculated risk to give up three rather than sacrifice four additional points (in the form of a turnover in SD territory or giving the ball back to Cincy with enough time to drive and a time out). This concept was probably available to you 15 pages ago, but you've ignored it in every subsequent, mindless post. The staff felt that given the field position and the way that Cincinnati had moved the ball earlier in the quarter, that there was a high probability that points would be surrendered. The decision, therefore, was to limit the damage. You claim never to have seen this, but I see it all the time in professional football. If you cannot grasp these basic aspects of the decision-making, I wonder why you feel so confident in asserting your intellectual prowess.

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

The chances of converting a first down and the reward of converting a first down is far greater than the chances of a negative play on offense l

You have asserted this multiple times without ONE piece of data. One would think in all this "mountain of evidence" and "science" and "statistical modeling" there would be one post, one link, one data point to substantiate this. But we're still waiting.

I can keep this up for quite awhile if people continue to want me to.

Oh, that's one thing that is abundantly clear.

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

All you need to do for further validation of my view is look at the Denver. A conservative approach where they burn time instead of risk a bad play by the offense cost them the game against the ravens last year. This year they went ahead and did the smart thing and tried to convert 3rd and 17 and they win.

Apples, meet oranges.

[sandiego17]

Apples, meet oranges.

You mean the end of the game isn't the same as halftime? That's absurd.

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

We should try running his opinions through a neural network to build the ultimate game strategy and play calling model.

[BlazingBolt]

Good grief. You just ignore so much to make these boneheaded statements.

The decision wasn't 3 points or no points. The decision was between 3 and 7. They took a calculated risk to give up three rather than sacrifice four additional points (in the form of a turnover in SD territory or giving the ball back to Cincy with enough time to drive and a time out). This concept was probably available to you 15 pages ago, but you've ignored it in every subsequent, mindless post. The staff felt that given the field position and the way that Cincinnati had moved the ball earlier in the quarter, that there was a high probability that points would be surrendered. The decision, therefore, was to limit the damage. You claim never to have seen this, but I see it all the time in professional football. If you cannot grasp these basic aspects of the decision-making, I wonder why you feel so confident in asserting your intellectual prowess.

This is so absurd. You actually believe this? A calculated risk to give up 3 points rather than 7. What? That is a completely absurd argument. You should be embarrassed. It is really not worth responding to.

What they did was waste a possession because they were scared of giving up a negative play and they decided to run clock and give the Bengals the ball back with less time. The problems were they were not in an extremely bad position offensively and they did not have the ability to run enough clock to justify that strategy. The goal was not to give up 3 points, how you can even claim that is just complete poppycock. The goal was to go to the half tied. Any coach who has a goal of giving up 3 points in a tie game before the half should be fired on the spot because they do not understand their job.

You continue to mis-represent what I meant when I say I have never seen such a move before.

[BlazingBolt]

You have asserted this multiple times without ONE piece of data. One would think in all this "mountain of evidence" and "science" and "statistical modeling" there would be one post, one link, one data point to substantiate this. But we're still waiting.

It's common sense, arguing the opposite is a ridiculous proposition. Maybe this will help your common sense unless you willfully ignore it or simply don't have any

The Chargers offense was pretty good, one of the best 3rd down teams in the league.

They converted multiple 3rd downs in every game, many more times than they turned the ball over and many many more times than they threw a pick 6.

They convert a first down and they can run much more time off the clock so Cincy can't score or they may even be able to go and score points of their own...there was plenty of time left.

/end argument

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

This is so absurd. You actually believe this? A calculated risk to give up 3 points rather than 7. What? That is a completely absurd argument. You should be embarrassed. It is really not worth responding to.

What they did was waste a possession because they were scared of giving up a negative play and they decided to run clock and give the Bengals the ball back with less time. The problems were they were not in an extremely bad position offensively and they did not have the ability to run enough clock to justify that strategy. The goal was not to give up 3 points, how you can even claim that is just complete poppycock. The goal was to go to the half tied. Any coach who has a goal of giving up 3 points in a tie game before the half should be fired on the spot because they do not understand their job.

You continue to mis-represent what I meant when I say I have never seen such a move before.

What's absurd is your bizarre reading comprehension issue. You seize on one phrase or word and ignore the overall. In multiple posts from multiple posters. It's uncanny.

I never said they intended to give up three points. But...now follow along...it was their preference to give up three vs seven if they were going to give up any at all. The decision that was made was three vs seven. I know, I know. That's absurd.

You keep saying the eight yard line is not extremely bad field position. In a close ball game with time running out toward halftime, it's a dangerous part of the field where you don't want to make mistakes. I'm still waiting for the statistical analysis that says the odds of a mistake at that time/down-distance/field position scenario are "low."

I'll defer to you on misrepresentation. It's your forte.

[BlazingBolt]

You mean the end of the game isn't the same as halftime? That's absurd.

It is the same in some ways.

The main way is that no coach ever pursues a strategy in hopes of giving up the lead before the end of either half. (BKR's non-sensical argument aside)

Yes at the second half the team that is behind will be more desperate (and the winning team more conservative), and in a tie game you are talking about the difference between a halftime score and over time.

When you are talking about punting the ball to your opposition and giving them good field position with 1:30 left in a tie game it is a mistake just the same at the end of the first half or the second half. Yeah, it is more disastrous in the second half with the game on the line, but all the criteria of judging it a mistake or not is the same.

[Panama]

This is so absurd. You actually believe this? A calculated risk to give up 3 points rather than 7. What? That is a completely absurd argument. You should be embarrassed. It is really not worth responding to.

Then please don't.