@tour2ma said:

@baconhound said:

You'd think so but he'll talk about "it's my fault, I've got to coach better" and move towards, "the guys are competing, I'm seeing good things out there"

Standard presser

@bjh2130 said:

We had three timeouts and the two minute warning. You don't have to onside kick if you know you only need a touchdown and extra point.

Edit to include time. We scored with I believe 2:07 left. If two point converted kick off through end zone which every kicker can do. No time.

Run play average 4 seconds call timeout 2:02 left (taking a second off for refs to acknowledge t.o.) next play 4 seconds. Two minute warning 1:58 left. Third down if it's not incomplete pass 1:52 second timeout used. 4th down punt for shits and gigs let's give it 15 seconds which is insanely, long. We have the ball with 1:37 left and a timeout to go give or take 70 yards.

One factual correction... we had only 2 time-outs. We used our first at the 3:07 mark. Nonetheless I agree that kicking deep is an option... where we disagree is that it is only an option in your scenario.

I'd love to hear your take on my thoughts about how the failed 2-pt changed Titans defensive approach.

http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=44448&page=6&do=findComment&comment=645374

@bjh2130 said:

You're right, and I didn't clarify so fair point. The reason you have to kick the onside there which Hue alluded to without saying (and I agree with) is simple-the defense wasn't going to stop them in that scenario. Hue was smart enough to realize that you have to try to get the ball back via onside because even with those variables I had about 0% faith in the defense holding them for three plays.

@jrb12711 said:

You have to onside kick the 1st time given the time, that's where everyone else you did falls apart. no way you don't onside kick after the first score, that's just incorrect.

Edit to include time. We scored with I believe 2:07 left. If two point converted kick off through end zone which every kicker can do. No time.

Run play average 4 seconds call timeout 2:02 left (taking a second off for refs to acknowledge t.o.) next play 4 seconds. Two minute warning 1:58 left. Third down if it's not incomplete pass 1:52 second timeout used. 4th down punt for shits and gigs let's give it 15 seconds which is insanely, long. We have the ball with 1:37 left and a timeout to go give or take 70 yards.

@bjh2130 said:

You have to onside kick the 1st time given the time, that's where everyone else you did falls apart. no way you don't onside kick after the first score, that's just incorrect.

@jrb12711 said:

Okay, let's try this with math because it clearly isn't going through to some of you.

The average onside kick recovery percentage is roughly 20%. The average success of the 2 point conversion is about 50%. The extra point percentage is 94% (roughly). The Browns are down 15 points, thus need two scores with one successful 2 point conversion. The timing of the game also requires at least one onside kick. This of course removes the variable of scoring a TD which is a constant rate for both

You have two scenarios:

Option 1 (what occurred):

Go for two on the first score-50%

Get onside kick-20%

Combined, that gives you a 35% chance of success.

When you don't get the two point here, then you have to add in:

Kicking extra point-94%

Getting Onside kick-20%

This gives you a combined 57% of succeeding.

As such, the combined probability of this occurring in game was about 46%.

Option B: The right decision

Kicking extra point-94%

Getting Onside kick-20%

This gives you a combined 57% of succeeding.

Go for two to tie the game on the second: 50%

As such, the combined probability of this occurring in game was about 54%

Removing the low probably variable of a second onside kick statistically gave us a much better chance to win. I literally can't make it clearer than that so I hope to God it goes through for someone here.

EDIT: To add, this doesn't even include the fact that you have score another time in scenario A.

50% 2 2pt try

No onside kick

throw in we have to get a stop at 30% when we know they are running the ball. (40% combined)

94% pat

Combined

58%

And before it's brought up in the option where you kick the pat first you are always going to onside kick following that because you aren't guaranteed to convert the two point conversion after a second touchdown. So you would onside kick it to try and save as much time and timeouts as possible in the case you do fail two point conversion.

Also you added to first one if we don't convert the two point conversion then we would need to get another onside kick. Very true. But the same thing can be said for the second scenario which then makes them have the exact same probability.

Which in that case you would want to have as much time as possible and how do you acheive that? By determining what you need as soon as possible which means going for two on the first score. So since the best odds would be to get the two the first time then kick away and play defense it can be argued he made the right call.

Many many edits I apologize: I originally had the browns stop following kickoff way to high at 50%

@jrb12711 said:

A dismantled team and 0-6?

@tour2ma said:

What's that logic stuff ever gotten us anyway?

@jrb12711 said:

Good effort... that will be completely ineffective...

The average onside kick recovery percentage is roughly 20%. The average success of the 2 point conversion is about 50%. The extra point percentage is 94% (roughly). The Browns are down 15 points, thus need two scores with one successful 2 point conversion. The timing of the game also requires at least one onside kick. This of course removes the variable of scoring a TD which is a constant rate for both

You have two scenarios:

Option 1 (what occurred):

Go for two on the first score-50%

Get onside kick-20%

Combined, that gives you a 35% chance of success.

When you don't get the two point here, then you have to add in:

Kicking extra point-94%

Getting Onside kick-20%

This gives you a combined 57% of succeeding.

As such, the combined probability of this occurring in game was about 46%.

Option B: The right decision

Kicking extra point-94%

Getting Onside kick-20%

This gives you a combined 57% of succeeding.

Go for two to tie the game on the second: 50%

As such, the combined probability of this occurring in game was about 54%

Removing the low probably variable of a second onside kick statistically gave us a much better chance to win. I literally can't make it clearer than that so I hope to God it goes through for someone here.

EDIT: To add, this doesn't even include the fact that you have score another time in scenario A.

@tour2ma said:

When I 1st heard this in the presser I paused it. Looked down coaching list to see Pep Hamilton as Asst. HC offense & QB coach. Al Saunders-Senior Offense Asst & WR coach..When i heard "trust" my 1st thought went to Al Saunders? even if i knew ana or lyntics their decision was ass backwards imo..

@hoorta said:

I didn't think it was the wrong move. It certainly might have been, I can see both sides of the argument. But the bottom line is we didn't lose this game because of the 2 point decision. This game was lost because the defense got shredded for 28 points and way too many big plays. The long run by Mariotta on the first drive and the 3 long passes on the other scoring drives. Until we have a defense who can hold opponents to less than 4 TD's, it's going to be tough to win much.

@jrb12711 said:

To me, the only difference is Karma.

If you wait for the very end to go for 2 then, in theory, you've had momentum on your side......and it makes the end of the game more thrilling and entertaining.

At the end of the day, the conversion failure is on Kessler. On a replay from behind the QB view, you could see that Ricardo Louis was WIDE OPEN....but Kessler held the ball and kept running before later throwing it behind him because a defender was coming in from the left. - 'Course, Louis had recently dropped a 1st down so I think Kessler gave one last look to Pryor hoping that he'd be an option.

@jrb12711 said:

@calfoxwc said:

Why, because they didn't make the 2 pt conversion?

But if they HAD made it, it would have been a brilliant decision?

eh.........

Sorry- I side with Tour and Ag on this one. You kick first, and go for two on the second. I've almost never seen it done the way Hue played it. You might posit the kick might have been missed- but the odds of that happening are way lower than trying to make a 2 point conversion. The missed two made it a two score game, and effectively- game over. I wuz there Cal. Way to take the wind out of your sails. As was said, the Titans just played soft D after we recovered the onside kick- almost zero probability we were going to recover a couple onside kicks as score twice with less than 2 minutes left.

Gutsy move by Hue? Nah STUPID move.

Late in the game... with momentum on the side of your opponent following a late score and a successful on-side kick... I'd estimate that the difference in the sphincter factors between defending an 8-point lead and a 9-point lead with 2:07 left is about an order of magnitude.

With a 9-point lead the clock is on your side. You play loose simply softening the middle and inviting time-eating, short completions thus making the opponent use their timeouts... AKA a prevent defense. Even if a score is allowed you still have a second on-side kick and roughly 30 yards for the opponent to gain for a winning FG try on your side.

The difference between a 7-point and 8-point? Negligible to slim... In both cases you have to defend the entire field to prevent a single score by an opponent in their "2 -minute drill". Even should they score and convert the 2-pt try, you still may have time and timeouts to mount your own final drive to win in regulation.

@calfoxwc said:

No... would have still been the wrong decision. I can never remember seeing a HC go for 2 first in that situation... never. You play the odds of keeping hope alive.

Hue's "you have to go for 2 at some point" just fell flat in his presser. Worse yet he said something about a basis "in information from sources I trust" which I took to be analytics from the FO. Just seemed off key given all his talk downplaying analytics in player decisions and the team being his.

Had he said "I was going for the win in regulation" or even "I had a feeling that the Titans were reeling and wanted to strike then" then I would still disagree with the decision, but would credit him for a taking a reasonable stance.

But if they HAD made it, it would have been a brilliant decision?

eh.........

@calfoxwc said:

..yes, that's theoretically how it would have played out. It doesn't change the fact at all that it was a terrible coaching decision for the reasons noted.

@jrb12711 said:

Yes, that is what the announcer was saying. However, if you go for two and DO make it, it's a 7 point game. And then

they just get the onside kick and don't have to go for two, they just kick the extra point and tie the game and go into overtime.

Without Joe Haden, the already weak secondary was going to get gored.