If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(RotoExperts)   For now on when an NFL coach blows a game we will say "He Schwartzed the game"   (rotoexperts.com) divider line 83
    More: Fail, Jim Schwartz, Detroit Lions, NFL, Detroit, Jason Hanson, Justin Forsett, normal ranges, Egyptian Premier League  
•       •       •

1344 clicks; posted to Sports » on 27 Nov 2012 at 9:53 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



83 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-27 09:57:06 AM
So you are saying you don't want the Schwartz to be with you?
 
2012-11-27 10:01:22 AM
I can't disagree with one word in this article. I was thinking the same thoughts as I watched the game last Thursday. As a life long Lions fan, they deserve better. They are the most undisciplined team in sports led by the least disciplined coach.
 
2012-11-27 10:06:38 AM
Why do we have to stop saying "Norved?"
 
2012-11-27 10:10:38 AM
"And do you know where he got the idea to throw the flag?"

"No; he got it from your son!"
 
2012-11-27 10:10:51 AM

IamKaiserSoze!!!: I can't disagree with one word in this article. I was thinking the same thoughts as I watched the game last Thursday. As a life long Lions fan, they deserve better. They are the most undisciplined team in sports led by the least disciplined coach.


Nonsense, and the rule interpretation is incoherent. The refs just aren't used to dealing with the new automatic review process, and applied the rule incoherently. All rules in the NFL are applied individually, and sequentially, in a way that most benefits the team not being penalized without breaking any other rules. It should have been applied in a way that made sense:

1) Coach throws challenge flag incorrectly. Coach can not challenge, penalty applied after result of play.
2) Automatic review process takes place, review calls the touchdown back.
3) Ball spotted at the down, 15 yard penalty applied or declined, based on where the ball was spotted, either first down or automatic first down.

The coach can't benefit from throwing his flag at the time he threw it, engendering a future penalty. Once the play continued, as a seperate isolated event, the referees automatic should have started a second review, as all scoring plays are now reviewed. The refs thought of the play as "one review chance", but it wasn't. It was two seperate events, a review event started by the coach, and a later review event initiated by the referees. The rule change to an automatic review made this equivalent to a chop foul on the defense followed later by a blocking foul down the field on the offensive. Two different events.
 
2012-11-27 10:13:46 AM

Mr Guy: IamKaiserSoze!!!: I can't disagree with one word in this article. I was thinking the same thoughts as I watched the game last Thursday. As a life long Lions fan, they deserve better. They are the most undisciplined team in sports led by the least disciplined coach.

Nonsense, and the rule interpretation is incoherent. The refs just aren't used to dealing with the new automatic review process, and applied the rule incoherently. All rules in the NFL are applied individually, and sequentially, in a way that most benefits the team not being penalized without breaking any other rules. It should have been applied in a way that made sense:

1) Coach throws challenge flag incorrectly. Coach can not challenge, penalty applied after result of play.
2) Automatic review process takes place, review calls the touchdown back.
3) Ball spotted at the down, 15 yard penalty applied or declined, based on where the ball was spotted, either first down or automatic first down.

The coach can't benefit from throwing his flag at the time he threw it, engendering a future penalty. Once the play continued, as a seperate isolated event, the referees automatic should have started a second review, as all scoring plays are now reviewed. The refs thought of the play as "one review chance", but it wasn't. It was two seperate events, a review event started by the coach, and a later review event initiated by the referees. The rule change to an automatic review made this equivalent to a chop foul on the defense followed later by a blocking foul down the field on the offensive. Two different events.


I agree that something needs to be tweaked, but Schwartz only needed to know one rule: all scoring plays are reviewed. That's it.

Had he kept his head, his team may have won. But no, Yelly McScreamey had to show that he's a big man, and it cost his team.
 
2012-11-27 10:14:31 AM

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: So you are saying you don't want the Schwartz to be with you?


That's ludicrous
 
2012-11-27 10:15:58 AM
How about he Munson'd the game instead.
 
2012-11-27 10:16:53 AM

Orgasmatron138: I agree that something needs to be tweaked, but Schwartz only needed to know one rule: all scoring plays are reviewed. That's it.


And he did know that. Last year the exact same thing happened in the 49ers-Lions game and Schwartz screamed to Harbaugh on the other side of the field "Learn the f*cking rules!"

Moron
 
2012-11-27 10:17:21 AM
It's isn't often I feel sorry for a divisional rival of my team, I even enjoyed the 0-16 season, but Schwartz has brought me to that place. Terrible clock management, idiotic play calling, the "I meant to do that" comment about that challenge, getting into fights with other coaches, letting Suh become nothing more than joke, not to mention the waste of Calvin Johnson's talent.
 
2012-11-27 10:17:26 AM

Mr Guy: Nonsense, and the rule interpretation is incoherent.


Even if everything you say is true, 1) Schwartz admitted that he doesn't agree with you and that he screwed up, and 2) Even if you're right, this EXACT SAME PENALTY was called the week before on a turnover in another game. So there was precedent from all of four days before.

The bottom line is that Schwartz is an undisciplined buffoon, which is in no small part directly responsible for the undisciplined buffoonery displayed by his players.
 
2012-11-27 10:21:22 AM
For the record, the refs blew a pretty easy call that caused the whole kerfuffle; the defense should have been playing to the whistle but they tackled the ball carrier. Schwartz just made their f*ckup un-fixable.

The refs blew it. I'm not sure what game they were watching.

scottydoesntknow: And he did know that. Last year the exact same thing happened in the 49ers-Lions game and Schwartz screamed to Harbaugh on the other side of the field "Learn the f*cking rules!"


His temper is a liability.
 
2012-11-27 10:22:30 AM

Robert1966: Why do we have to stop saying "Norved?"


It's too mean.
 
2012-11-27 10:23:32 AM

IamKaiserSoze!!!: As a life long Lions fan, they deserve better.


No they don't. This team deserves anything and everything bad that could possibly befall it. They are one of the worst run franchises in the history of American professional sports. 

Stop giving them your money.
 
2012-11-27 10:26:08 AM

factoryconnection: For the record, the refs blew a pretty easy call that caused the whole kerfuffle; the defense should have been playing to the whistle but they tackled the ball carrier. Schwartz just made their f*ckup un-fixable.

The refs blew it. I'm not sure what game they were watching.

scottydoesntknow: And he did know that. Last year the exact same thing happened in the 49ers-Lions game and Schwartz screamed to Harbaugh on the other side of the field "Learn the f*cking rules!"

His temper is a liability.


The refs did miss the call, but they are usually instructed to let the play run if they didn't see it. The thinking is that they can always call the play back if they need to. Doesn't excuse missing an elbow down, though.
 
2012-11-27 10:26:26 AM

sigdiamond2000: No they don't. This team deserves anything and everything bad that could possibly befall it. They are one of the worst run franchises in the history of American professional sports.

Stop giving them your money.


Yep. You always hear about what a "class act" and "good guy" William Clay Ford is. You hear this for two reasons: 1) His team has only presented a threat in one year of his decades of ownership (1991) and 2) His family's company is a huge source of income for the league.

The reality is, he's the drunken black sheep dumbass of the Ford family, and he is the one and only reason that in a league driven by parity, the Lions are consistently a joke.
 
2012-11-27 10:28:13 AM
I like Subby's idea, but Robert1966 makes a valid point, as well.

We may have to put this to a vote. -.-
 
2012-11-27 10:30:27 AM
So here's a question...

Let's say that Schwartz, in a moment of clarity, does NOT throw the challenge flag.

Since the touchdown would have (theoretically) been reversed, could Kubiak have thrown the challenge flag, to negate the review that would reverse the touchdown call? 15 yard penalty for a touchdown?
 
2012-11-27 10:30:59 AM

rcantley: sigdiamond2000: No they don't. This team deserves anything and everything bad that could possibly befall it. They are one of the worst run franchises in the history of American professional sports.

Stop giving them your money.

Yep. You always hear about what a "class act" and "good guy" William Clay Ford is. You hear this for two reasons: 1) His team has only presented a threat in one year of his decades of ownership (1991) and 2) His family's company is a huge source of income for the league.

, and 3) the Ford family owns the mainstream Detroit sports media like Sigfried owns Roy 
 
2012-11-27 10:32:01 AM

rcantley: The bottom line is that Schwartz is an undisciplined buffoon, which is in no small part directly responsible for the undisciplined buffoonery displayed by his players.


That not withstanding, it's still an incoherent decision by the referees that shouldn't be supported. Can we agree that he was an idiot, and that the referees were idiots, and that at least some of the undisciplined behavior by teams like the Lions and the Raiders is because of a perception they are getting screwed by the referees, and letting an example of where they obviously were screwed by the referees go encourages them to be more defiant?
 
2012-11-27 10:33:40 AM

Mouthoy: Since the touchdown would have (theoretically) been reversed, could Kubiak have thrown the challenge flag, to negate the review that would reverse the touchdown call? 15 yard penalty for a touchdown?


No.
 
2012-11-27 10:41:18 AM

Orgasmatron138: Doesn't excuse missing an elbow down, though.


And a knee! I could see why Schwartz was so livid.
 
2012-11-27 10:41:57 AM
Is that like the time the Steelers "Steratore'd the game" away from my team?
 
2012-11-27 10:43:22 AM

Mouthoy: So here's a question...

Let's say that Schwartz, in a moment of clarity, does NOT throw the challenge flag.

Since the touchdown would have (theoretically) been reversed, could Kubiak have thrown the challenge flag, to negate the review that would reverse the touchdown call? 15 yard penalty for a touchdown?


No, the rule says you cannot benefit from a review if you cause the penalty; it does not say that the review cannot happen.
 
2012-11-27 10:46:19 AM
Maybe they should give the refs a little more discretion, so if something is clearly against the spirit of the game, they can ignore certain rules? Maybe a call to someone at the league office while under the hood? Predictability of rules makes the game fair for everyone, but there's a point where an incorrect call undermines the integrity of the game. Wouldn't be too hard for an official to say f it in that circumstance and let the review proceed. Seems every season there's at least one stupid wrinkle in the rule book that completely screws up a game, and if the refs were allowed to use common sense, there is an obvious equitable solution available. Of course all these poorly written rules go against the Lions, so no one cares. Process of the catch
 
2012-11-27 10:59:44 AM
This dude can't be paying too much attention to the Lions if he's using the Jefferson-Linehan sideline 'argument' as evidence against Schwartz. Likewise, while I don't particularly like the strategy of kicking on 3rd down, I'm confused by all the folks who suddenly want to pretend that this is the first time in the world a coach has ever used that strategy, and that there isn't some precedent to it. Finally all the hindsight questioning of "Why not obviously try to run it once more and get some extra yards before the FG try?" ignores the fact that the Texans had just missed their previous FG by doing exactly that, running it twice before the kick, and losing yardage both times.
 
2012-11-27 11:04:22 AM

rorypk: Maybe they should give the refs a little more discretion, so if something is clearly against the spirit of the game, they can ignore certain rules? Maybe a call to someone at the league office while under the hood? Predictability of rules makes the game fair for everyone, but there's a point where an incorrect call undermines the integrity of the game. Wouldn't be too hard for an official to say f it in that circumstance and let the review proceed. Seems every season there's at least one stupid wrinkle in the rule book that completely screws up a game, and if the refs were allowed to use common sense, there is an obvious equitable solution available. Of course all these poorly written rules go against the Lions, so no one cares. Process of the catch


There are plenty of times where a ref has simply picked up a challenge flag, told the coach a play was not able to be challenged, and let everything slide. Why Coleman would choose to be extra harsh on a 80+ yard scoring play that was an obvious mis-call is just another small mystery for the Lions history book.
 
2012-11-27 11:10:14 AM
farm6.staticflickr.com
 
2012-11-27 11:12:16 AM

thesloppy: Likewise, while I don't particularly like the strategy of kicking on 3rd down, I'm confused by all the folks who suddenly want to pretend that this is the first time in the world a coach has ever used that strategy, and that there isn't some precedent to it.


There's precedent to it when you're sitting on the 10 yard line and the field goal is a chipshot. If the snap is bobbled, you can fall on it and just kick a 34 yarder instead of a 27 yarder. A 47 yarder is about a 60/40 proposition, and a mishandled snap puts it at the cusp of Hanson's range on 4th down anyway.

I guess I understand it given that Stafford had twice taken sacks when the Lions were in borderline field goal range. But the higher percentage play was still to try to gain a few more yards.
 
2012-11-27 11:19:36 AM
Schwartz is an idiot. And a weapons-grade douche-nozzel.
 
2012-11-27 11:19:37 AM

macadamnut: Is that like the time the Steelers "Steratore'd the game" away from my team?


Give it up already.

No one cares. Get over it.
 
2012-11-27 11:20:53 AM
When the ghost of Joe Gibbs made a return coaching trip to the Redskins he blew a game by calling a 4th timeout.
The season was over and the team had under-performed. He took it as a sign to bow out gracefully after accepting responsibility.

Detroit fans......heh. At least it's not Millen.
You got that going for ya.
 
2012-11-27 11:27:44 AM
The rule was and is moronic. The refs blew the call, and get to hide behind this instead of correcting their mistake.

Keep Norved where it is.
 
2012-11-27 11:42:25 AM

xaks: macadamnut: Is that like the time the Steelers "Steratore'd the game" away from my team?

Give it up already.

No one cares. Get over it.



Never!
 
2012-11-27 11:43:54 AM

Orgasmatron138: The refs did miss the call, but they are usually instructed to let the play run if they didn't see it. The thinking is that they can always call the play back if they need to. Doesn't excuse missing an elbow down, though.


I understand that's the rule of thumb they go by, but the more I think about it the less I like it. The rule of thumb should just be: make what you think is the right call in your best judgment. What if Forsett had run for another 10 yards but been stopped short of the goal line? There's a whole cost-benefit analysis that Schwartz would have to do: is it worth it for just 10 yards, what if all the cameras are blocked and they can't produce irrefutable video evidence, what if it costs a time-out that he'll need later, etc. And even if he's successful, he has just used up one of only two challenges (or three, if his next one is also successful, but he has no way of knowing that).

I guess it's a little like a trial judge in criminal court: err on the side of admitting evidence because it can always be appealed, whereas if you keep the evidence out and the defendant is acquitted then the case is done for good. But criminal defendants don't have the same limits on appeals and practical limitations with the cameras.
 
2012-11-27 11:44:05 AM

rcantley: thesloppy: Likewise, while I don't particularly like the strategy of kicking on 3rd down, I'm confused by all the folks who suddenly want to pretend that this is the first time in the world a coach has ever used that strategy, and that there isn't some precedent to it.

There's precedent to it when you're sitting on the 10 yard line and the field goal is a chipshot. If the snap is bobbled, you can fall on it and just kick a 34 yarder instead of a 27 yarder. A 47 yarder is about a 60/40 proposition, and a mishandled snap puts it at the cusp of Hanson's range on 4th down anyway.

I guess I understand it given that Stafford had twice taken sacks when the Lions were in borderline field goal range. But the higher percentage play was still to try to gain a few more yards.


Jason Hanson is historically a 75% kicker between 40 and 49 yards, a 56% kicker over 50. A mishandled snap that's fallen on means a kick from around the 54 or so, which is certainly within his range. If you run the ball, there's a good chance at getting stuffed -- the defense knows you're going to run, they'll stack you up in the box.
 
2012-11-27 11:53:21 AM
Ok, there's two things going on here.

First, the farking rule is nonsensical and needs to be revised.

Second, Schwartz is an asshole and needs to be gone. I was a huge supporter of his three years ago, but it's become apparent that his lack of discipline has flowed down through the entire team. I've been waiting forty years for a decent football team in Detroit and now that they have the talent, they've got a shift head coach.
 
2012-11-27 11:55:40 AM
I see that Detroit's Shwartz is as big as mine.
encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2012-11-27 12:01:20 PM
static.nameberry.com
 
2012-11-27 12:02:54 PM

IamKaiserSoze!!!: Ok, there's two things going on here.

First, the farking rule is nonsensical and needs to be revised.

Second, Schwartz is an asshole and needs to be gone. I was a huge supporter of his three years ago, but it's become apparent that his lack of discipline has flowed down through the entire team. I've been waiting forty years for a decent football team in Detroit and now that they have the talent, they've got a shift head coach.


Man, sorry. At least the Bears won the SB in my lifetime. Granted, I was 6 years old, but I do remember it.
 
2012-11-27 12:10:34 PM

meanmutton: A mishandled snap that's fallen on means a kick from around the 54 or so, which is certainly within his range.


This line of thinking is so stupid and coaches really need to stop thinking it's acceptable. You don't coach based on "well, if this extremely unlikely play happens, we MIGHT still have a shot at making a play" - you coach to put your team in the best possible position to win.

/just because everyone does it doesn't make it a good decision
 
2012-11-27 12:13:50 PM
Seriously. I was born and raised in Detroit and schooled at Michigan. Every Detroit franchise i've followed has had success during my lifetime with the exception of the Lions. They have even more talent than the Barry Sanders days but are wasting it with Schwartz
 
2012-11-27 12:16:52 PM

IAmRight: meanmutton: A mishandled snap that's fallen on means a kick from around the 54 or so, which is certainly within his range.

This line of thinking is so stupid and coaches really need to stop thinking it's acceptable. You don't coach based on "well, if this extremely unlikely play happens, we MIGHT still have a shot at making a play" - you coach to put your team in the best possible position to win.

/just because everyone does it doesn't make it a good decision


Well, I can see the reasoning when the offense gets so close that the kick is, say, 95% likely to go in. If you're at the opponent's 10 yard line, by all means kick now, no matter what down it is. If you run a play you might fumble. But when you're out around the 25 or 30, as the Lions were, incremental yards make a huge difference in probabilities, I agree with you there.
 
2012-11-27 12:19:29 PM

Farkn Yaj Yenrac: It's isn't often I feel sorry for a divisional rival of my team, I even enjoyed the 0-16 season, but Schwartz has brought me to that place. Terrible clock management, idiotic play calling, the "I meant to do that" comment about that challenge, getting into fights with other coaches, letting Suh become nothing more than joke, not to mention the waste of Calvin Johnson's talent.


It's not that I think the Lions are terrible, it's that I don't think of them at all. I respect the Bears as a rival and organization, I think the Vikings are head to tail trash, but I just pencil in the Detroit games as wins and that's it. It's like they aren't even in the division.
 
2012-11-27 12:22:12 PM

Super Chronic: Well, I can see the reasoning when the offense gets so close that the kick is, say, 95% likely to go in. If you're at the opponent's 10 yard line, by all means kick now, no matter what down it is.


Well, yeah. But at that point it's more of a "do it because it's sealing the win for you" rather than "I'm doing it because I fear a negative play," which is what the people talking about botched snaps do. It has to be botched, but the holder or kicker have to get ahold of it before it goes past them, but not botched so little that the holder tries to get it down anyway and causes a terrible kick. Unless you're working with a third-string center or something, it's not something you really need to worry about happening. If it happens, it happens, but no one's going to say "oh man, they really should've just tried to kick on third down rather than trying to get into a better position - so dumb to not expect something that happens less than 1% of the time to happen!"
 
2012-11-27 12:29:06 PM

IamKaiserSoze!!!: Ok, there's two things going on here.

First, the farking rule is nonsensical and needs to be revised.

Second, Schwartz is an asshole and needs to be gone. I was a huge supporter of his three years ago, but it's become apparent that his lack of discipline has flowed down through the entire team. I've been waiting forty years for a decent football team in Detroit and now that they have the talent, they've got a shift head coach.


We had a really solid club in 91. Lots of talent in the Barry era. Just like now, the problem is the ownership. They don't make changes until years after they are needed, and they don't even make an effort to hire quality talent. Who (besides Ford) would promote Millen's #2 man after that fiasco? Mayhew may be doing ok, but that is the straw that caused me to turn against the Lions and replace it with college ball.

I'm sick of hearing how nice a guy Ford is. Nice hasn't done jack.
 
2012-11-27 12:45:23 PM

IAmRight: Super Chronic: Well, I can see the reasoning when the offense gets so close that the kick is, say, 95% likely to go in. If you're at the opponent's 10 yard line, by all means kick now, no matter what down it is.

Well, yeah. But at that point it's more of a "do it because it's sealing the win for you" rather than "I'm doing it because I fear a negative play," which is what the people talking about botched snaps do. It has to be botched, but the holder or kicker have to get ahold of it before it goes past them, but not botched so little that the holder tries to get it down anyway and causes a terrible kick. Unless you're working with a third-string center or something, it's not something you really need to worry about happening. If it happens, it happens, but no one's going to say "oh man, they really should've just tried to kick on third down rather than trying to get into a better position - so dumb to not expect something that happens less than 1% of the time to happen!"


I believe we are in agreement. It's just that the cost-benefit calculus might be different at different parts of the field. The "in case of a bad snap" rationale isn't bad when you're at the 5 with a 99% chance of making it, and a bad snap would mean being pushed back to the 14 with a 95% chance of making it. But when you're out at the 25 and looking at probabilities closer to, I don't know, 60% (and below 50% in the unlikely event you get pushed back 9 yards), it definitely makes more sense to try to gain another 5 yards or so and increase your probability into the 70-80% range, rather than guard against a risk that is, as you point out, remote.
 
2012-11-27 12:58:40 PM

stewbert: IamKaiserSoze!!!: ***snip***

Who (besides Ford) would promote Millen's #2 man after that fiasco? Mayhew may be doing ok, but that is the straw that caused me to turn against the Lions and replace it with college ball.

I'm sick of hearing how nice a guy Ford is. Nice hasn't done jack.


I think the funniest part of Matt Millen's career is that someone is paying him, like real money dollars, to be an on-air analyst. The guy was universally thought of as one of the worst GMs in the NFL, but now a network thinks people want to hear what he has to say about the current game? WTF?
 
2012-11-27 01:08:56 PM

Super Chronic: I believe we are in agreement.


We are. I'm just saying it's a different mentality - at those close ranges, you're not kicking early because of "well, in case something weird happens and there's a missed snap...," you're kicking early at close range because "this sh*t's automatic and it ends the game, why f*ck around and waste everyone's time?"
 
2012-11-27 01:17:19 PM

IAmRight: meanmutton: A mishandled snap that's fallen on means a kick from around the 54 or so, which is certainly within his range.

This line of thinking is so stupid and coaches really need to stop thinking it's acceptable. You don't coach based on "well, if this extremely unlikely play happens, we MIGHT still have a shot at making a play" - you coach to put your team in the best possible position to win.

/just because everyone does it doesn't make it a good decision


That's not the only potential bad outcome, though. There's also the chance of a negative yard play on 3rd down or a turnover. With Hanson, they had about a 75% chance of winning the game RIGHT THEN. That seems like good numbers to me.
 
2012-11-27 01:18:27 PM

Mr Guy: IamKaiserSoze!!!: I can't disagree with one word in this article. I was thinking the same thoughts as I watched the game last Thursday. As a life long Lions fan, they deserve better. They are the most undisciplined team in sports led by the least disciplined coach.

Nonsense, and the rule interpretation is incoherent. The refs just aren't used to dealing with the new automatic review process, and applied the rule incoherently. All rules in the NFL are applied individually, and sequentially, in a way that most benefits the team not being penalized without breaking any other rules. It should have been applied in a way that made sense:

1) Coach throws challenge flag incorrectly. Coach can not challenge, penalty applied after result of play.
2) Automatic review process takes place, review calls the touchdown back.
3) Ball spotted at the down, 15 yard penalty applied or declined, based on where the ball was spotted, either first down or automatic first down.

The coach can't benefit from throwing his flag at the time he threw it, engendering a future penalty. Once the play continued, as a seperate isolated event, the referees automatic should have started a second review, as all scoring plays are now reviewed. The refs thought of the play as "one review chance", but it wasn't. It was two seperate events, a review event started by the coach, and a later review event initiated by the referees. The rule change to an automatic review made this equivalent to a chop foul on the defense followed later by a blocking foul down the field on the offensive. Two different events.


Exactly this. The refs very obviously screwed up the interpretation of the rule. The automatic review should have kicked in regardless of how you look at it. The challenge did not delay the next snap because it was a score, and as mentioned here, the automatic review occurs immediately upon scoring, and cannot be overrriden by a flag on the play.

The NFL's bullshiat defense is not correct, and is simply being used as damage control. The refs screwed up, there's no alternative interpretation.

And no, I'm not a Lions fan, just a fan of correct rulings.

As proof, given the current interpretation, a coach whose team scores a touchdown on a play where the receiver had a foot out of bounds or did not maintain control could throw a challenge flag, negating the automatic review due to penalty, and have the 15 yards enforced between plays at the kickoff. Obviously this cannot happen and therefore we know for a fact the rule was incorrectly applied.
 
2012-11-27 01:48:12 PM

meanmutton: With Hanson, they had about a 75% chance of winning the game RIGHT THEN. That seems like good numbers to me.


Then why not kick on first down if it's such a great chance? Would've even been a yard closer.

Answer: because it's not a good decision.

justtray: As proof, given the current interpretation, a coach whose team scores a touchdown on a play where the receiver had a foot out of bounds or did not maintain control could throw a challenge flag, negating the automatic review due to penalty, and have the 15 yards enforced between plays at the kickoff.


No, it can't, but it's not like facts have stopped you from claiming things before.
 
2012-11-27 02:33:40 PM
Any team that willingly keeps N'DonkeyKong Suh* on the roster deserves this kind of karma.

*I don't remember which Farker coined the name, but i like it so i stole it 
 
2012-11-27 02:44:25 PM
While I think Schwartz is a hotheaded dumbass, let's remember that this is a league with Norv Turner and let's never forget that Jason Garrett iced his own kicker. So Schwartz doesn't get tagged with this.
 
2012-11-27 02:50:45 PM

IAmRight:
Then why not kick on first down if it's such a great chance? Would've even been a yard closer.

Answer: because it's not a good decision.


I don't want to engage in the argument of whether the decision was fundamentally wrong, considering I'd be starting out with a losing argument, since the field goal has already been missed. Personally, I actually would've preferred kicking on 1st down. I'll not again that the Texans did go the conservative, conventional route all of 4 minutes earlier. They started with a 1st down that would've been a 44 yard kick, and 3 downs later they were 3 yards further back and missed a 47 yard kick:

1-10-DET 27 - (12:02) PENALTY on HOU-83-K.Walter, False Start, 5 yards, enforced at DET 27 - No Play.
1-15-DET 32 - (11:34) 23-A.Foster left end to DET 29 for 3 yards (39-R.Silva).
2-12-DET 29 - (11:05) 28-J.Forsett right tackle to DET 31 for -2 yards (98-N.Fairley).
Timeout #1 by HOU at 10:20.
3-14-DET 31 - (10:20) 23-A.Foster left end to DET 33 for -2 yards (54-D.Levy; 91-SamL.Hill).
Timeout #1 by DET at 09:43.
4-16-DET 33 - (9:43) 17-S.Graham 51 yard field goal is No Good, Wide Left, Center-46-J.Weeks, Holder-5-D.Jones.

If you consider the two plays the Lions ran, than 4 out of the last 6 plays in field goal range had gone for negative yardage. Finally, if context is worth anything, I'd remind everybody that we are talking about the Lions running Joique Bell behind a line in command of terminally undersized Dominic Raiola and without starting left tackle Jeff Backus for the first time in 186 games, in the waning minutes of an overtime period, after all of 3 days rest since their last game. That is certainly not any kind of lock, as far as I'm concerned, and personally I would prefer to test Jason Hanson's leg in that situation......which I suppose isn't much of an argument for Schwartz'es logic in this particular situation, considering he tried to run Bell twice before kicking on 3rd down.
 
2012-11-27 03:07:27 PM

meanmutton: IAmRight: meanmutton: A mishandled snap that's fallen on means a kick from around the 54 or so, which is certainly within his range.

This line of thinking is so stupid and coaches really need to stop thinking it's acceptable. You don't coach based on "well, if this extremely unlikely play happens, we MIGHT still have a shot at making a play" - you coach to put your team in the best possible position to win.

/just because everyone does it doesn't make it a good decision

That's not the only potential bad outcome, though. There's also the chance of a negative yard play on 3rd down or a turnover. With Hanson, they had about a 75% chance of winning the game RIGHT THEN. That seems like good numbers to me.


I won't argue too vehemently because I think you're going about it the right way, weighing relative probabilities. But I think that whenever you're at a range where the probability is less than 90% or so, you should keep playing football until it becomes a gimme. The average play nets, what, 5 yards or so? Just spitballing numbers here, but that probably increases your odds of making the field goal by something like 5 percentage points, and of course there's the possibility of a longer play that increases the odds even more. The odds of a turnover on any given play, meanwhile, are just a couple percent. I think there's more to gain by trying to advance the ball than there is to lose, unless you're so close that it's a near-lock and added yards don't improve your probability. The tipping point, I would guess, is somewhere around the 20 yard line.

I may be way off with the numbers since, as I said, I'm spitballing. This has probably been written about with concrete numbers by someone smart, like the Football Outsiders guys. (And probably cited at length by someone who just thinks he's smart, like Gregg Easterbrook.)
 
2012-11-27 03:11:00 PM

thesloppy: Finally, if context is worth anything, I'd remind everybody that we are talking about the Lions running Joique Bell


Who said you have to run directly into the line?

/I like passing when everyone assumes you're going to run
 
2012-11-27 03:16:20 PM

roc6783: stewbert: IamKaiserSoze!!!: ***snip***

Who (besides Ford) would promote Millen's #2 man after that fiasco? Mayhew may be doing ok, but that is the straw that caused me to turn against the Lions and replace it with college ball.

I'm sick of hearing how nice a guy Ford is. Nice hasn't done jack.

I think the funniest part of Matt Millen's career is that someone is paying him, like real money dollars, to be an on-air analyst. The guy was universally thought of as one of the worst GMs in the NFL, but now a network thinks people want to hear what he has to say about the current game? WTF?


The only upside is he's at least honest about the fact that he totally SUCKED at it, and he flat-out says so.
 
2012-11-27 03:17:48 PM

justtray: Mr Guy: IamKaiserSoze!!!:
***snip***

As proof, given the current interpretation, a coach whose team scores a touchdown on a play where the receiver had a foot out of bounds or did not maintain control could throw a challenge flag, negating the automatic review due to penalty, and have the 15 yards enforced between plays at the kickoff. Obviously this cannot happen and therefore we know for a fact the rule was incorrectly applied.


The rule in the rulebook is worded incorrectly. On page 89, near the end it says: (The Replay Official) must initiate a review before the next legal snap or kick and cannot initiate a review of any ruling AGAINST a team that commits a foul that delays the next snap.

From a bit above this section: Initiating a challenge when a team is prohibited from doing so: 15 yard penalty.

The word AGAINST in the rule above should read FOR. Makes a lot more sense written like this: (The Replay Official) must initiate a review before the next legal snap or kick and cannot initiate a review of any ruling FOR a team that commits a foul that delays the next snap.

So delaying the game by throwing a flag before an automatic review would then negate the review since the coach who threw the flag is delaying the game.

The 2 things confusing this situation are A: the rule has a typo and should say "for", not "against" and B: sometimes refs will explain why something is not allowed to be challenged rather than hit the team with a 15 yarder. My guess is that Little Helmet got his Schwartz in a twist and pissed of the ref.
 
2012-11-27 03:20:49 PM

roc6783: justtray: Mr Guy: IamKaiserSoze!!!:
***snip***

As proof, given the current interpretation, a coach whose team scores a touchdown on a play where the receiver had a foot out of bounds or did not maintain control could throw a challenge flag, negating the automatic review due to penalty, and have the 15 yards enforced between plays at the kickoff. Obviously this cannot happen and therefore we know for a fact the rule was incorrectly applied.

***snip***


Forgot to add, with my wording change, the review would not be initiated FOR the offensive team in that situation, it would be initiated FOR the defensive team.
 
2012-11-27 03:26:21 PM
I still dont't understand why people are talking about the possible Suh groin shot or the Schwartz mistake with the challenge flag while I can't find a single article about how the refs literally Big Ben'd the Lions on national TV. Without mentioning the challenge flag debacle, here are 3 more travesties by the refs:

1) Non-call on whichever CB was covering Mike Thomas on a fade route towards the end of regulation. The CB had a hold of Mike Thomas the entire time and never once turned his head to find the ball.

2) The punt challenge. The ball clearly changed its trajectory, and the Houston player immediately tried to recover the ball. Why on earth would the Houston player attempt to recover the ball after it changed direction if ti didn't hit him (reminder - the Houston player had his back to the ball, so he didn't try to recover it because he saw it). There was enough evidence there to call that a fumble, but the refs farked that up.

3) There were 0 holds on the offensive line for Houston. If you believe that the Houston OL had a clean sheet in that game, I know a prince who needs some funds but will totally make it worth your effort.

However, instead of a discussion about whether or not the refs are better than the replacements, the focus of the media has been about the two possible mistakes by the Lions organization. If this had been the Packers, Patroits, etc., there would be plenty of stories about the high number of controversial calls that went Houston's way. It reminds me of one of the Packers-Lions game where a Lions player (Kevin Smith I think) made a catch for a touchdown and a GB CB gave him a nice helmet to helmet shot after he had secured the ball. A few Lions players go over to defend their player, and the announcer immediately starts talking about how undisciplined the Lions team is, not how the GB CB shouldn't have made a late shot.

/Done with watching the NFL for the season
 
2012-11-27 03:31:00 PM

IAmRight: thesloppy: Finally, if context is worth anything, I'd remind everybody that we are talking about the Lions running Joique Bell

Who said you have to run directly into the line?

/I like passing when everyone assumes you're going to run


Well, I'm not personally against that strategy, but if we're talking about conservative/conventional coaching decisions, I'd argue passing or running outside could be considered just as questionable as kicking early, considering that it also increases the chances of lost yardage and/or turnovers. Had Schwartz failed at those calls, he'd still have been crucified, and I'd still maintain that a ~45 yard Hanson kick probably has a better probability of success. Note that the previous 2 Lions possessions ended in a reception that was fumbled by Pettigrew and an interception that was overturned, and Stafford had (uncharacteristically) already twice taken sacks that knocked them out of field goal range.
 
2012-11-27 03:43:53 PM

thesloppy: Note that the previous 2 Lions possessions ended in a reception that was fumbled by Pettigrew and an interception that was overturned, and Stafford had (uncharacteristically) already twice taken sacks that knocked them out of field goal range.


Yes, I already know all that, as I pointed it out as factors that lessen the stupidity of it. Still dumb, though.
 
2012-11-27 03:44:58 PM

Doogled: ***snip***

/Done with watching the NFL for the season


You were watching the Lions, that's hardly NFL.
 
2012-11-27 03:48:21 PM

Doogled: /Done with watching the NFL for the season


www.examiner.com
 
2012-11-27 04:11:06 PM

IAmRight: thesloppy: Note that the previous 2 Lions possessions ended in a reception that was fumbled by Pettigrew and an interception that was overturned, and Stafford had (uncharacteristically) already twice taken sacks that knocked them out of field goal range.

Yes, I already know all that, as I pointed it out as factors that lessen the stupidity of it. Still dumb, though.


Well, you and lots of other folks are suggesting that these are outlandish things that could happen "less than 1% of the time", incredulously saying "How often do you A) lose yardage, B) turn the ball over, or C) get sacked when in similar FG position?" ignoring that in the context of this game the answers were A: 4 out of the last 6 plays, B: the last time the Lions were there, and C: often enough that it had already happened twice in this game.
 
2012-11-27 04:18:21 PM

roc6783: Doogled: ***snip***

/Done with watching the NFL for the season

You were watching the Lions, that's hardly NFL.


Considering the current state of the NFL, any game featuring two QBs that started week 1 has to be considered a premiere matchup at this point. This season has been an absolute gut punch for Lions fans, but I guess I can take solace that we're not playing/watching the equivalent of preseason games yet (knock on particle board), unlike a lot of the league's fans.
 
2012-11-27 04:26:10 PM

roc6783: Farkn Yaj Yenrac: It's isn't often I feel sorry for a divisional rival of my team, I even enjoyed the 0-16 season, but Schwartz has brought me to that place. Terrible clock management, idiotic play calling, the "I meant to do that" comment about that challenge, getting into fights with other coaches, letting Suh become nothing more than joke, not to mention the waste of Calvin Johnson's talent.

It's not that I think the Lions are terrible, it's that I don't think of them at all. I respect the Bears as a rival and organization, I think the Vikings are head to tail trash, but I just pencil in the Detroit games as wins and that's it. It's like they aren't even in the division.


www.suntimes.com 

Nothing but class and a perfect playoff record against the cheeseheads.
 
2012-11-27 04:33:55 PM

Farkn Yaj Yenrac: roc6783: Farkn Yaj Yenrac: ***snip***
[www.suntimes.com image 240x423] 

Nothing but class and a perfect playoff record against the cheeseheads.


No worries, the Vikings were responsible for the best call in the history of broadcasting, so they got that going for them, which is nice.
 
2012-11-27 04:36:54 PM

IAmRight: meanmutton: A mishandled snap that's fallen on means a kick from around the 54 or so, which is certainly within his range.

This line of thinking is so stupid and coaches really need to stop thinking it's acceptable. You don't coach based on "well, if this extremely unlikely play happens, we MIGHT still have a shot at making a play" - you coach to put your team in the best possible position to win.

/just because everyone does it doesn't make it a good decision


That is coaching to put your team in the best possible position to win. Two tries at a game winning kick gives you a better chance to win than one try. I think you accidentally posted your "punting on 4th and short in your own territory" argument.
 
2012-11-27 04:56:07 PM

roc6783: Farkn Yaj Yenrac: roc6783: Farkn Yaj Yenrac: ***snip***
[www.suntimes.com image 240x423] 

Nothing but class and a perfect playoff record against the cheeseheads.

No worries, the Vikings were responsible for the best call in the history of broadcasting, so they got that going for them, which is nice.


You and I both know that Joe Buck's reaction to Moss in that shot above is the best call in the history of broadcasting.
 
2012-11-27 04:59:23 PM

Farkn Yaj Yenrac: roc6783: Farkn Yaj Yenrac: roc6783: Farkn Yaj Yenrac: ***snip***
[www.suntimes.com image 240x423] 


Joe Buck


Immediate disqualification on any "Best List" ever. Unless the list is for something like, "Which broadcaster would it feel best to hit with a piano?".
 
2012-11-27 05:23:44 PM
Are we sticking with just sports for that category? If so, I will go with Colin Cowherd.
 
2012-11-27 05:33:19 PM

Farkn Yaj Yenrac: Are we sticking with just sports for that category? If so, I will go with Colin Cowherd.


Ha.
 
2012-11-27 05:44:40 PM
Everybody whined and biatched about the scab refs until they brought back the real referees and they are just as blind, stupid, and completely lacking in common sense as the poor schlubs they brought in to replace them.

These NFL officials are morans. Didn't they get enough farking attention when they were out of a job and then brought back.
They must have gotten used to all of those people demanding to see and cheering them for a change and they got the wrong impression.
 
2012-11-27 08:03:22 PM
Never underestimate the power of the Schwartz!

JasonThomasX: Everybody whined and biatched about the scab refs until they brought back the real referees and they are just as blind, stupid, and completely lacking in common sense as the poor schlubs they brought in to replace them.


Yeah, no. Compare the amount of "GODDAMN REFS" moments in those first three weeks to the amount in the weeks since. Officials will always make mistakes, but incompetent officials will make a season's worth of mistakes in a single game.
 
2012-11-27 10:41:19 PM

Olympic Trolling Judge: Never underestimate the power of the Schwartz!

JasonThomasX: Everybody whined and biatched about the scab refs until they brought back the real referees and they are just as blind, stupid, and completely lacking in common sense as the poor schlubs they brought in to replace them.

Yeah, no. Compare the amount of "GODDAMN REFS" moments in those first three weeks to the amount in the weeks since. Officials will always make mistakes, but incompetent officials will make a season's worth of mistakes in a single game.


Don't worry, he's a replacement poster. The real threadjackers will be back in a few weeks.
 
2012-11-28 07:31:49 AM
As a long sufferer of the Lions - I can only surmise - God, Jesus and Bobby Layne all hate the Lions.
All three are pointing and laughing at the futility of arguably the worst team to ever play the game.
There has never been, is not now, and never will appear in the Super Bowl.
I always wonder why the NFL lets them stay around - is it for the lulz, easy wins for teams heading to Super Bowl, occasional upset for teams that shouldn't go the Super Bowl?

/Some day, they promise we'll have a professional NFL in Michigan - almost had one in the Panthers
 
2012-11-28 09:52:52 AM

umad: Two tries at a game winning kick gives you a better chance to win than one try. I think you accidentally posted your "punting on 4th and short in your own territory" argument.


You don't get two chances UNLESS you get a poor snap or a mis-hold that somehow you recover without losing more than 7 yards. If you got to try more times if you missed the kick, though, hell yeah, start kicking from there on first down.
 
2012-11-28 12:31:39 PM

johnnygew: As a long sufferer of the Lions - I can only surmise - God, Jesus and Bobby Layne all hate the Lions.
All three are pointing and laughing at the futility of arguably the worst team to ever play the game.
There has never been, is not now, and never will appear in the Super Bowl.
I always wonder why the NFL lets them stay around - is it for the lulz, easy wins for teams heading to Super Bowl, occasional upset for teams that shouldn't go the Super Bowl?

/Some day, they promise we'll have a professional NFL in Michigan - almost had one in the Panthers


The last game of every season should be Lions vs. Browns. They could call it the Tears of Infinite Sadness, Suckiness, And Disasters Bowl.
 
2012-11-28 01:31:16 PM

roc6783: johnnygew:

The last game of every season should be Lions vs. Browns. They could call it the Tears of Infinite Sadness, Suckiness, And Disasters Bowl.


Few folks outside of Cleveland or Detroit know that the Browns & Lions actually DO play every year. It's called the Great Lakes Classic, and it has a trophy and everything....or at least it would, if someone hadn't lost it.

God, how I wish I was joking.
 
2012-11-28 04:23:21 PM

thesloppy: roc6783: johnnygew:

The last game of every season should be Lions vs. Browns. They could call it the Tears of Infinite Sadness, Suckiness, And Disasters Bowl.

Few folks outside of Cleveland or Detroit know that the Browns & Lions actually DO play every year. It's called the Great Lakes Classic, and it has a trophy and everything....or at least it would, if someone hadn't lost it.

God, how I wish I was joking.


Ya, but that's preseason, I want this one to count. Wouldn't you throw a party for the TIS SAD Bowl?
 
2012-11-28 06:30:39 PM
For now on?
 
Displayed 83 of 83 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report