The only two Good Decisions Jim Zorn Made vs St. Louis

[GTripp0012]

Are chronicled here:

Advanced NFL Stats: Jim Zorn on 4th Down

[GTripp0012]

Putting this analysis in layman's terms: if Zorn went to an extreme and took a knee on 4th down, giving the Rams the ball at the 3 yard line and saying, "betcha can't get a FG against our defense", he's actually got a better chance to win that way than to kick the FG (80% vs. 78%). Many coaches would have kicked in that situation, but you can do the math on it ... it's basically a free offensive play, and if you get a yard, the game is over.

If you run a questionable play like Zorn did, you aren't any worse off with them on the 4 yard line needing a FG, then with them on the 30 yard line following a kickoff, needing a TD. And that's not even considering that they could return the kickoff for a TD, and jump ahead right there.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Crystalized my thoughts eloquently (and backed them up statistically)

http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-l...tml#post592041

Although I disagree with the thread title

[Lotus]

Unlike some other folks, I immediately thought that going for it the second time was an excellent idea. I still think it was the right call, even though we failed to convert. Thank you for giving my thinking mathematical support.

Now, the play call itself was terrible. Everyone knew we were going to run Portis left and, even if we had run left, a power play would have been better than a stretch. We also could have thrown a fade, called a bootleg, dragged Cooley over the middle, etc. Anything but the stretch play left.

But, back to the issue at hand: despite being lambasted by many folks for not kicking a field goal, Zorn was correct in going for it the second time.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Putting this analysis in layman's terms: if Zorn went to an extreme and took a knee on 4th down, giving the Rams the ball at the 3 yard line and saying, "betcha can't get a FG against our defense", he's actually got a better chance to win that way than to kick the FG (80% vs. 78%). Many coaches would have kicked in that situation, but you can do the math on it ... it's basically a free offensive play, and if you get a yard, the game is over.

If you run a questionable play like Zorn did, you aren't any worse off with them on the 4 yard line needing a FG, then with them on the 30 yard line following a kickoff, needing a TD. And that's not even considering that they could return the kickoff for a TD, and jump ahead right there.

Going it for it was kind of stupid cause a fg could've won the game. I think you've gotta kick it there. But fine, if you want to go for it then have some damn variety in your run game. Everyone knew where the ball was going. I honestly think we need to try the wildcat w/ Betts and Portis. We need to do something, anything at this point to try and score more points.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

Going it for it was kind of stupid cause a fg could've won the game. I think you've gotta kick it there. But fine, if you want to go for it then have some damn variety in your run game. Everyone knew where the ball was going. I honestly think we need to try the wildcat w/ Betts and Portis. We need to do something, anything at this point to try and score more points.

really a fg there would have won the game. so did we lose because we didn't kick the fg?

[budw38]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

really a fg there would have won the game. so did we lose because we didn't kick the fg?

LOL , nice CRR . I just heard the NFL is considering giving the Rams a (W) and the Skins a (L) , because a fg ,,,, " would " have won the game . The only thing I would have done different had I been Zorn , I would have told the guys , " we are going for it " , if we fail , you are to report to Redskins Park @ 6 am for your wind sprints . We won the game 1-1 -0 , even an ugly win is a win

[SmootSmack]

I found this interesting.

Zorn's job security questioned on his radio show - Redskins 360 - Washington Times

(On second fourth-down call late in game): "I had three timeouts so I wanted to use one there and take a breath and think about the situation. We felt like we could get the first down and picked out what I felt was the best play, running right behind Chris Samuels. What happened on the line of scrimmage, our offensive line decided to block it out a little more instead of more downhill and it strung the play out. It was a very frustrating play to watch because had we blocked it differently – and it’s their choice – it might have been a different outcome. If I was to look back on that call, I would call the same play."

And then there's this.

Redskins Insider - What I Think: The Zorn Installment

Here's what happened: On fourth and less than one at the 2-yard line late in the fourth quarter, Zorn called a run to the left side. Portis lost two yards, stirring boos in the crowd, and the Rams took over at the 4-yard line trailing, 9-7, with 1 minute 55 seconds remaining in the game.

After four passes fell incomplete, the Redskins regained the ball and ran out the clock for their first victory. Again, though, Zorn's play and Campbell's decision to stick with the call despite the Rams having overloaded that side on defense, appeared to be another example of Zorn's lack of trust in Campbell in the red zone.

Here's what I think: I spoke with several people in the organization about this, because I was perplexed about the decision to stick with that play when I noticed what the Rams were doing defensively.

On that play, Zorn instructed Campbell to run the play he called, several sources said. Despite what some people believe, Campbell does have the authority to change plays, even in the red zone, and he does at times. The deep pass down the right sideline to Malcolm Kelly to open the game stemmed from a call Campbell adjusted at the line of scrimmage.

But there are times Zorn wants to run the play he calls -- and that was one such occasion. Now, here's the rest of the story: the blocking assignments were messed up on the play. Center Casey Rabach made the correct call based on what the Redskins practiced that week, sources said, but someone else made an incorrect call after Rabach. The result was that the play was stretched, which was not Zorn's intention.

So who messed up? Upon quick glance it looks like both Dockery and Davis could have been the culprits

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

Going it for it was kind of stupid cause a fg could've won the game. I think you've gotta kick it there. But fine, if you want to go for it then have some damn variety in your run game. Everyone knew where the ball was going. I honestly think we need to try the wildcat w/ Betts and Portis. We need to do something, anything at this point to try and score more points.

Actually if we had gone for it and converted then we would have won the game, period. Nail in the coffin. Game over.

If we kick the field goal, then we give the ball to the Rams after a kickoff. The Rams could have run the kickoff back for a td. They could have thrown a td pass.

Kicking the field goal would not wrap up the game the way that going for it and getting one yard would have. I personally liked the aggressiveness of the call to just put the game away right then, right there.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Actually if we had gone for it and converted then we would have won the game, period. Nail in the coffin. Game over.

If we kick the field goal, then we give the ball to the Rams after a kickoff. The Rams could have run the kickoff back for a td. They could have thrown a td pass.

Kicking the field goal would not wrap up the game the way that going for it and getting one yard would have. I personally liked the aggressiveness of the call to just put the game away right then, right there.

I see your point. And I can understand why he went for it. The call to run to the left was pitiful. But still kicking it would've meant STL would have needed a TD w/ no TO's. Yes a run back was possible but some things are less possible.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Actually if we had gone for it and converted then we would have won the game, period. Nail in the coffin. Game over.

If we kick the field goal, then we give the ball to the Rams after a kickoff. The Rams could have run the kickoff back for a td. They could have thrown a td pass.

Kicking the field goal would not wrap up the game the way that going for it and getting one yard would have. I personally liked the aggressiveness of the call to just put the game away right then, right there.

According to that dudes own metrics the chance of made FG at the range is much higher then converting a on 4th and short.

Yeah the Rams could have ran the kickoff back for a TD but they could have also fumbled.

[Rajmahal33]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

Going it for it was kind of stupid cause a fg could've won the game. I think you've gotta kick it there. But fine, if you want to go for it then have some damn variety in your run game. Everyone knew where the ball was going. I honestly think we need to try the wildcat w/ Betts and Portis. We need to do something, anything at this point to try and score more points.

I knew it was going to be a matter of time before someone watched the Miami game or the Eagles (with Vick) and suggested running the wildcat...

Two things:
1) The wildcat is a gimmick! It's just a matter of time and more importantly focus b4 NFL defenses (especially with athletically superior defensive ends) will find a way to stuff it completely. They don't practice to stop it like they do with other things that NFL offenses do b/c it's a trick set. Just because it worked for Miami against an Indy team that isn't good at stopping the run doesn't mean it's a viable solution for OUR redskin's team. The next time Miami plays a good run defense, I guarantee it won't have near that success level.

2) If, and it's a big IF, we are to put in some sets with the wildcat, ARE is much better suited to play under center, than either of those two. He was a good college QB, can run pretty well, and throw better than some of our backups (*cough* Collins). Plus IMO he has a better football mind than either Betts or Portis.

The bottom line is most people are complaining about scoring points and villifying Zorn for using too many trick plays (see: Portis' option pass). Why should we divert valuable practice reps, that a struggling offense like ours desperately needs, so we can make a half hearted attempt at copycatting the new "in" thing that desperate coaches throw into their playbook? Let's not reinvent the wheel, and just execute like we SHOULD be able to do.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Rajmahal33

I knew it was going to be a matter of time before someone watched the Miami game or the Eagles (with Vick) and suggested running the wildcat...

Two things:
1) The wildcat is a gimmick! It's just a matter of time and more importantly focus b4 NFL defenses (especially with athletically superior defensive ends) will find a way to stuff it completely. They don't practice to stop it like they do with other things that NFL offenses do b/c it's a trick set. Just because it worked for Miami against an Indy team that isn't good at stopping the run doesn't mean it's a viable solution for OUR redskin's team. The next time Miami plays a good run defense, I guarantee it won't have near that success level.

2) If, and it's a big IF, we are to put in some sets with the wildcat, ARE is much better suited to play under center, than either of those two. He was a good college QB, can run pretty well, and throw better than some of our backups (*cough* Collins). Plus IMO he has a better football mind than either Betts or Portis.

The bottom line is most people are complaining about scoring points and villifying Zorn for using too many trick plays (see: Portis' option pass). Why should we divert valuable practice reps, that a struggling offense like ours desperately needs, so we can make a half hearted attempt at copycatting the new "in" thing that desperate coaches throw into their playbook? Let's not reinvent the wheel, and just execute like we SHOULD be able to do.

To think, the Wildcat technically began here with the Redskins with Norv Turner and Brian Mitchell. We are the birthplace of the Wildcat

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

To think, the Wildcat technically began here with the Redskins with Norv Turner and Brian Mitchell. We are the birthplace of the Wildcat

Elaborate please? Are you referring to the option play in Denver with Brian Mitchell back in 1995?

According to the Monday Night broadcast, David Lee, who is the Dolphins' QB coach, brought the Wildcat over from his days as QB coach/offensive coordinator of the Arkansas Razorbacks.

One might even be able to make the argument that the Wildcat actually began with Joe Gibbs and Brian Mitchell in the "Bodybag Game" back in '90. Mitchell took over at QB and took many direct snaps in that game.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Putting this analysis in layman's terms: if Zorn went to an extreme and took a knee on 4th down, giving the Rams the ball at the 3 yard line and saying, "betcha can't get a FG against our defense", he's actually got a better chance to win that way than to kick the FG (80% vs. 78%). Many coaches would have kicked in that situation, but you can do the math on it ... it's basically a free offensive play, and if you get a yard, the game is over.

If you run a questionable play like Zorn did, you aren't any worse off with them on the 4 yard line needing a FG, then with them on the 30 yard line following a kickoff, needing a TD. And that's not even considering that they could return the kickoff for a TD, and jump ahead right there.

Now I know why I saw Zorn with a calculator before deciding to go for it on 4th down he was figuring out the odds on the sidelines. Good job.