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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[joethiesmanfan]

I don't recall seeing Smoot in the game. I saw Tryon though, any word on that? Anyway, I remember the Leigh Torrece/Avery bomb that beat us last year. I was scurrrrred.

[hail_2_da_skins]

Going for it on fourth and less than one yard was a good decision. I question the play call. I would like to have seen a quick hitter, quarterback sneak, fullback dive or halfback dive, not a stretch play to the most obvious side.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by joethiesmanfan

I don't recall seeing Smoot in the game. I saw Tryon though, any word on that? Anyway, I remember the Leigh Torrece/Avery bomb that beat us last year. I was scurrrrred.

Smoot was inactive...bad back I think??? It was a game time decision.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[53Fan]

Nice find SS. There's always more to the story then people think. I think people are jumping the gun on thinking Zorns in over his head.

[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.

[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).