***Official Browns @ Titans Game Day Thread***
-
Medicineman, i don't get ur posts at all.
In one sentence u say give hue 3 seasons but then wonder why we can't stop a team from scoring.....????
In other posts u say quit bitching about the draft but then go on to question why there is no good talent on the team...???
I mean, wtf?? -
Drugs, and beer and weed.
-
-
It doesn't completely, eliminate the option. It just makes it harder because you know even if you get the stop and get the score but then fail the two point conversion you potentially lost a lot of time because you gave them a possession and spent timeouts but still need an onside after the failed conversion. Where as if they got that first two point conversion then they can kick knowing they get a stop and It only takes a touchdown and extra point. I mean in that circumstance you are planning and thinking in the back of your head you won't get the two point conversion which obviously is the wrong line of thinking. I guess in my mind and why I can see why Hue made the decision and I agree with it is because you need a two point conversion so get it as soon as you can. To an extent. I don't like chasing points in the first three quarters.Agree on the "Go Browns"...
While I admire our continuing to fight after failing to convert the 2-pt try, I doubt there's a player on the team that was not crestfallen when it failed. At that point... still down by 9... they knew... I knew... you knew... that we had no shot at winning this game.
Please explain how kicking the extra point removed the option of Kicking deep when the situation had we converted the 2-pt try still left us a TD behind.
It doesn't completely, eliminate the option.
Thanks for trying... seriously... I appreciate you took the time. I simply disagree...
Go Browns...
The Poyer hit was damn scary. League wants to stop head hits but that defenders shoulder pad hit Poyer square in the chest, not leaving anywhere else for his helmet to go but head. At that speed, just damn crazy $$..Good Luck, Jordon (contract season too)
I would love to know what a legal block looks like in that situation. As I said in the Tavern... Punt Return Team ST'ers live for that set up.
I would just love to know why we can NEVER stop a team from scoring on the first drive of a game. 7 plays 75 yards straight down the field making us look like a joke
... and the start of the 2nd half today as well.
But opening drive scoring is not every week... it just seems that way.
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
To repeat, the choice to go for two was a terrible, terrible coaching decision. Simply put (and to repeat), going for one there instead of two means you only need one onside kick to potentially tie the game as you are 8 points downs. Going for two and not getting it means you need two possessions (and thus two onside kicks) because you are down 9. Again, that is literally coaching 101 and Hue failed the test.
-
Chose to replace my mom's hot water tank instead of watching the game, probably a good decision.
-
To repeat, the choice to go for two was a terrible, terrible coaching decision. Simply put (and to repeat), going for one there instead of two means you only need one onside kick to potentially tie the game as you are 8 points downs. Going for two and not getting it means you need two possessions (and thus two onside kicks) because you are down 9. Again, that is literally coaching 101 and Hue failed the test.
To repeat, the choice to go for two was a terrible, terrible coaching decision. Simply put (and to repeat), going for one there instead of two means you only need one onside kick to potentially tie the game as you are 8 points downs. Going for two and not getting it means you need two possessions (and thus two onside kicks) because you are down 9. Again, that is literally coaching 101 and Hue failed the test.
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.
-
To repeat, the choice to go for two was a terrible, terrible coaching decision. Simply put (and to repeat), going for one there instead of two means you only need one onside kick to potentially tie the game as you are 8 points downs. Going for two and not getting it means you need two possessions (and thus two onside kicks) because you are down 9. Again, that is literally coaching 101 and Hue failed the test.
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.
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.
..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.
-
Why, because they didn't make the 2 pt conversion?
But if they HAD made it, it would have been a brilliant decision?
eh.........
-
Why, because they didn't make the 2 pt conversion?
But if they HAD made it, it would have been a brilliant decision?
eh.........
Why, because they didn't make the 2 pt conversion?
But if they HAD made it, it would have been a brilliant decision?
eh.........
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.
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
One other line of thought occurred to me along the lines of "keep hope alive" which impacted the Browns... the impact on the Titans.
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.
-
And if Hue still doesn't see it, well draw your own conclusions about his coaching. Good coaches go back and do two things, recognize mistakes and then ensure they never get repeated. If he can't do the first then there is no hope for the second.
-
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.
..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.
..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.
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.
-
To repeat, the choice to go for two was a terrible, terrible coaching decision. Simply put (and to repeat), going for one there instead of two means you only need one onside kick to potentially tie the game as you are 8 points downs. Going for two and not getting it means you need two possessions (and thus two onside kicks) because you are down 9. Again, that is literally coaching 101 and Hue failed the test.
going for one there instead of two means you only need one onside kick to potentially tie the game as you are 8 points downs.
Not if you don't make the 2 point conversion, you'd still need the ball again.
Going for two and not getting it means you need two possessions (and thus two onside kicks) because you are down 9.
But now you KNOW that and you play the game to try and GET 2 possessions.
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.
-
..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.
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.
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.
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.
-
Why, because they didn't make the 2 pt conversion?
But if they HAD made it, it would have been a brilliant decision?
eh.........
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.
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.
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..
-
Well it does show that Hue believes in his guys. Just like the OT game and he wanted to kick. Even though I didn't agree with either call. I guess it is easy being an arm chair QB. If it helps bring the team together then hey do it.
-
I was at the game. I had no problem with Hue going for 2 when he did. He either had to do it there, or do it later IF they scored. No second guessing on that .
-
I was mad at first but after thought like somebody already pointed out, we had to go for 2 at some point so....
-
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.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login