riggofan wrote:DarthMonk wrote:That irritates me too when people sing a different tune after the fact. Bad decisions are bad decisions - like the ones to kick onside and go for 2. Them working would've just been a bad decisions that worked out.
What makes these decisions bad other than the fact that you didn't like them?
Deciding to try heroin is a bad decision. Going for 2 in a football game is just a decision that people can choose to agree with or not.
Not a perfect comparison but ...
Let's say you are playing Texas Hold 'em and you need to complete a flush to win the pot. There are 9 cards out of 46 that will help you so the odds against you are roughly 5-1. A bet has just been made and the size of the pot is 4 times the size of a call. So the pot is offering you 4-1. Calling uses the rest of your chips so this would be your last bet.
Calling is a bad decision regardless of what card comes on the river.
So far I have not answered your question - I've only clarified that bad decisions can be bad decisions regardless of outcomes.
Chasing points before you need to is intrinsically bad in football. You may disagree but it's not a matter of my likes.
Examples:
If a team takes a 1 point lead with 30 seconds to go, the reward for scoring 2 more demands you try since a 2 point lead in this scenario really is no better than 1. Thus, going for 2 here is an intrinsically good decision.
Conversely, if a team takes a 1 point lead halfway through the first quarter, failure to succeed in going for 2 is just as likely to hurt later as success is to help you later. A 2 point lead here is different than a 1 point lead. For instance, 2 + 7 gives a 9 point lead, not 8. OR 2 + 3 + 3 gives an 8 point lead not 7. Of course, 3 is even better but 2 is better than 1 unlike the late-game scenario.
The point is, the following is more and more true the earlier in the game:
Failure to succeed in going for 2 is just as likely to hurt later as success is to help you later.
The opposite is more and more true in the late stages of a game. In my late-game scenario, failure essentially cannot hurt you while success is huge.
I have watched football at all levels since the mid-sixties. I have found that going for 2 is almost never justified until at least the final 5 minutes. Extreme wind a few weeks ago was an exception.
When we lined up in wildcat it was pretty clear Dallas had no reason to be concerned about Rob throwing. Going wildcat there was another bad decision.
Fortunately we scored anyway yet I still hate the call - and for good reason - it was a bad decision.
My interpretation of all 3 decisions (the onside kick too) is that Jay felt we needed to do something special to win - that our game was not up to the task. He was "afraid" we weren't good enough and therefore he tried to "coach us up" to a win over a "superior" team.