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

[saden1]

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.

I don't fault Zorn for going for it for that simple reason though I was concerned about the play selection. I much prefer we let them drive 60 yards for a field goal instead of giving them a chance to return the kick for a decent return and have a chance to score a TD from our 50 yrd line.

I mean look at the Dolphins last night...they got a field goal and gave the ball to Manning with time left (not that Mark B. is P. Manning but still wouldn't want to take that chance).

[CRedskinsRule]

I am really tired, but of course I still have my twocents:

I absolutely liked going for it.

How many times have people said about the hogs "they knew we were going to run, and we ran". If CP had made that yard, it would have established a presence. and I would have cheered. he didn't so it was another nerve wracking ending (at least for about 40 game seconds).

I hope Zorn looks at the redzone tape a thousand times this week, and sees how a defensive guru in Spags shuts down the run. Zorn must learn, there is no preseason, or training camp equivalent to the red zone defense of the Giants, or of Spagnoulo. It is not something book learning only can teach. He has to see the effects from a coach's viewpoint. Is he learning, let's hope we get 5+ redzone attempts next week against Jim Schwartz.

GO SKINS

[skins89moss]

I like the idea to go for it on 4th and 1. If we make it game over and we build confidence in the run game. If we dont make it they have no time outs and have to go the lenth of the field to get in FG range. If we kick the FG i also thought about if they get a decent return then we are screwed. I liked the chances that our defense would stop them if we don't score they are backed up. Zorn showed guts and he showed faith in our O-line. Well our O-line could not control the Rams D-line at the LOS and Portis get strung out for no gain. Our O-line has to do better than that against a suspect Rams D-line. Where is Big Mike Williams, how about putting Lorenzo Alexander in the back field or something.

[htownskinfan]

at the time I thought it was a horrible call and Zorn should be fired after the game,and i still would have thought that until reading this.So I was wrong and Zorn made the right call to go for it.I am still not happy with corny zorny,he needs to get his shit together quick

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by htownskinfan

at the time I thought it was a horrible call and Zorn should be fired after the game,and i still would have thought that until reading this.So I was wrong and Zorn made the right call to go for it.I am still not happy with corny zorny,he needs to get his shit together quick

Getting only 9 points vs a horrible Rams team is evident that he does need to get it together quick. Both Zorn and Campbell's seat are getting awfully hot!

[30gut]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Are chronicled here:

Advanced NFL Stats: Jim Zorn on 4th Down

I'm not sure how that author gets the numbers for his 'model' so its hard for me to put much faith in his 'model' but using his own metrics:

Short yardage conversion attempts near the goal line are less successful than elsewhere on the field.
One-yard conversions are successful 68% of the time

Where a FG:

A FG attempt from that distance is virtually automatic—99%.

All that matters imo are the odds for success of the play at hand and we went with the lesser option.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by 30gut

I'm not sure how that author gets the numbers for his 'model' so its hard for me to put much faith in his 'model' but using his own metrics:



All that matters imo are the odds for success of the play at hand and we went with the lesser option.

If that were the case you would call for a one yard dive everytime on 3rd and 10. Why, because it's a 99% chance that you will succeed. You have to look at the what was left to do in order for us to win the game, and if that is your focus, you go for it, don't pass it, and give it to someone who does not fumble(lest you see a fumble return for a td like in last year's st louis game).

If we get the FG, we probably squib kick, but whatever, they have a chance for a decent return, and then they are airing it out, against 2 CBs who had less then stellar days.

I think playing the odds for winning, it was the right call, and really even the play call kept the ball from being put in a precarious situation.

the big IFs in this game if Sellers holds on or DT catches it, or JC doesn't underthrow Kelly.(that still would have been awesome to see him get his first(i believe) NFL TD on a 80ish yard pass play.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by 30gut

I'm not sure how that author gets the numbers for his 'model' so its hard for me to put much faith in his 'model' but using his own metrics:



All that matters imo are the odds for success of the play at hand and we went with the lesser option.

I think you are totally missing the point. This isn't some fancy statistical theory here. All the calculations are result based. He made the right decision. In that same situation 1000 times we win more games going for it both times than not because the outcome percentages, as long as they hold true, dictate it. All Tripp has shown is the mathematical algorithm that replicates proper human decision making in this situation. Which option gives us the best chance to WIN THE GAME? Going for it did.

[SC Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by 30gut

I'm not sure how that author gets the numbers for his 'model' so its hard for me to put much faith in his 'model' but using his own metrics:



All that matters imo are the odds for success of the play at hand and we went with the lesser option.

Remedial statistics.

[joethiesmanfan]

I agree with Zorn on this one. That was a smart decison. When you take into account the feel of the game. That close to the end zone with Haynesworth on the field is dangerous.

[Daseal]

I'm typically all about being aggressive on the goal line. I think we made a mistake when we kicked the FG early and when we didn't late. Yes, if you get a yard, the game is over. But what gave Zorn any idea that we could get that yard? Fact is, statistics or not, it's important to look at how the game has been going. All it would have taken were 2-3 good completions to put the Rams in FG distance, which is something Bulger can do. Luckily, our D stood up. However, forcing the Rams to get a TD is another story.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by Daseal

I'm typically all about being aggressive on the goal line. I think we made a mistake when we kicked the FG early and when we didn't late. Yes, if you get a yard, the game is over. But what gave Zorn any idea that we could get that yard? Fact is, statistics or not, it's important to look at how the game has been going. All it would have taken were 2-3 good completions to put the Rams in FG distance, which is something Bulger can do. Luckily, our D stood up. However, forcing the Rams to get a TD is another story.

Did we run up the middle at all in this game? I mean it seems like all we were doing was running to the left (and we ran to the left on that 4th down).

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Daseal

I'm typically all about being aggressive on the goal line. I think we made a mistake when we kicked the FG early and when we didn't late. Yes, if you get a yard, the game is over. But what gave Zorn any idea that we could get that yard? Fact is, statistics or not, it's important to look at how the game has been going. All it would have taken were 2-3 good completions to put the Rams in FG distance, which is something Bulger can do. Luckily, our D stood up. However, forcing the Rams to get a TD is another story.

You realize that by kicking the FG and making them get a TD instead of a FG, you're giving them 25 yards in the process right? It's a "get off your own goal line free" card. That's not in dispute.

Is it really a different game if they need a TD? Lets say they complete three or four passes and are at the 15 yard line as opposed to the 40 yard line becuase of your decision to kick. Do the Redskins really have a match-up that takes away the final 15 yards on the goal line? Any offense worth it's salt (which may or may not include the Rams) is just going to pump and go Hall for an easy 6.

Your best chance to get the win is, unquestionably, to go for and get the yard. All the statistics show is that, if you happen to fail, the opponent still has a 4/5 chance of losing. It's a free play that should never be passed up.

Of course, the viability of a stretch play where you need half a yard is certainly questionable, and should be questioned. That's a nice play if you have to score, but scoring shouldn't have been the primary goal there.

[Longtimefan]

It's always the right decision when it works. This time it worked acording to script, but the fact the Rams had no time-outs left at the time played into Zorn's decision. It may have been the right decision in conjunction with math, but I believe 90% of the coaches in the league would have kcked the FG in that situation.

[FRPLG]

One thing I think we should acknowledge is our defense. That was a prime place for Blache to throw out some serious crap prevent defense and he didn't really. He made sure the secondary didn't let anyone behind them but he still maintained a relatively basic set. It was the right call.