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.

(Deadspin)   "I'd like to apply for your vacancy as head coach of North Dakota football." "Okay, what's your experience?" "My years of dominating Madden and NCAA Football on the Playstation, of course"   (deadspin.com) divider line 62
    More: Amusing, NCAA Football, North Dakota, PlayStation, head coaches, North Dakota football, Christopher McComas, call for bids, University of North Dakota  
•       •       •

1917 clicks; posted to Sports » on 12 Dec 2013 at 2:49 AM (35 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-12 01:48:42 AM
His secret weapon is starting Michael Vick in 2004. Unstoppable.
 
2013-12-12 02:56:17 AM

farkingismybusiness: His secret weapon is starting Michael Vick in 2004. Unstoppable.


Hey man, if you know how to run the coast to coast with Vick in '04 he is. 4 WR out, run far backwards, get all the defenders to bunch up, and take off with Vick.
 
2013-12-12 02:56:24 AM
My resume:

1. Hours of Tecmo Bowl
2. Run Bo Jackson
3. Win
 
2013-12-12 03:03:01 AM
It worked for Chip Kelly....
 
2013-12-12 03:54:39 AM
the Weeners made me gigglesnort a snot bubble.
 
2013-12-12 03:57:35 AM
I don't have anything to add to the thread, but since I don't have a Deadspin account any more, I'll post it here. This comment made me laugh, so thank you "HatsForBats".

An all Hail Mary offense makes sense in North Dakota. Though in South Dakota, I'm assuming they...Rushmore. ...Yeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaahhhh
 
2013-12-12 06:49:58 AM
Someone actually got a job managing a low-tier soccer team because of the lengthy Football Manager section on his resume.
 
2013-12-12 07:00:29 AM
OK, his PowerPoint presentation had me laughing.
 
2013-12-12 07:30:50 AM
Hire me instead....I have seen "Necessary Roughness" at least five times.
 
2013-12-12 07:38:03 AM
The NFL is full of lousy coaches. It's not a meritocracy. A single actuarial scientist could absolutely dominate as a head coach. Almost none of the head coaches in the league understand risk/reward. This is why you see stupid shiat like people kneeling the ball down at the end of the half because the other team might return an interception for a TD (2% likelihood, meanwhile your likelihood of scoring at TD on a hail mary is more like 10%) and punting from the other team's 40 yard line (once you cross midfield, you should always go for it on 4th, unless you can kick a FG.)

I'm not exaggerating when I say that I could out coach anyone in the league using only math. I'd hire other guys to train the players, as that's not my specialty. I'd simply sit there and let a computer pick the highest probability play for each situation, and I would win, I promise you. But you have to be someone's buddy to be hired in the NFL. The 32 teams create the illusion of competition. The only real competition is all 32 of them colluding together to take as much money as possible from the public.
 
2013-12-12 07:54:38 AM

Tommy Moo: The NFL is full of lousy coaches. It's not a meritocracy. A single actuarial scientist could absolutely dominate as a head coach. Almost none of the head coaches in the league understand risk/reward. This is why you see stupid shiat like people kneeling the ball down at the end of the half because the other team might return an interception for a TD (2% likelihood, meanwhile your likelihood of scoring at TD on a hail mary is more like 10%) and punting from the other team's 40 yard line (once you cross midfield, you should always go for it on 4th, unless you can kick a FG.)

I'm not exaggerating when I say that I could out coach anyone in the league using only math. I'd hire other guys to train the players, as that's not my specialty. I'd simply sit there and let a computer pick the highest probability play for each situation, and I would win, I promise you. But you have to be someone's buddy to be hired in the NFL. The 32 teams create the illusion of competition. The only real competition is all 32 of them colluding together to take as much money as possible from the public.


But when that 2% happens, the fans will be screaming for your head and the announcers will LOL all over you.
 
2013-12-12 08:04:14 AM
So this means I can be the coach of an NHL team based on my utter dominance of all my friends in NHL94?
 
2013-12-12 08:20:32 AM

Tommy Moo: The NFL is full of lousy coaches. It's not a meritocracy. A single actuarial scientist could absolutely dominate as a head coach. Almost none of the head coaches in the league understand risk/reward. This is why you see stupid shiat like people kneeling the ball down at the end of the half because the other team might return an interception for a TD (2% likelihood, meanwhile your likelihood of scoring at TD on a hail mary is more like 10%) and punting from the other team's 40 yard line (once you cross midfield, you should always go for it on 4th, unless you can kick a FG.)

I'm not exaggerating when I say that I could out coach anyone in the league using only math. I'd hire other guys to train the players, as that's not my specialty. I'd simply sit there and let a computer pick the highest probability play for each situation, and I would win, I promise you. But you have to be someone's buddy to be hired in the NFL. The 32 teams create the illusion of competition. The only real competition is all 32 of them colluding together to take as much money as possible from the public.


Sounds like you'd make an excellent coordinator or film study guy. Coaches often don't make the best choice percentage wise because you're not playing percentages, you're playing people. What can your team conceivably accomplish, how will your players execute, can you get their heads right if they do give up the end of half return for the TD?

It's great to know that a bubble screen to your RB will avg 4.3yrds - but it's 13 degrees outside, your rb has already fumbled twice this game and you know he's beating himself up mentally. So instead you run a slant to the TE for 3 yrds and hope he can pick up the extra for the first down.

But this is the internet, where everyone is an expert about everything.
 
2013-12-12 08:39:26 AM

fatalvenom: So this means I can be the coach of an NHL team based on my utter dominance of all my friends in NHL94?


Yup....except instead of KO'ing Gretzky its Crosby now
 
2013-12-12 08:43:12 AM

Harry_Seldon: My resume:

1. Hours of Tecmo Bowl
2. Run Bo Jackson Barry Sanders
3. Win


fixed that for you
 
2013-12-12 08:53:03 AM
Back in the day, I could finish Street Fighter 2 on one quarter while using Blanca. That should qualify me to be a UFC fighter, right?

/loved how he mentioned that he prefers coke to pepsi so they should stock the fridge accordingly
 
2013-12-12 09:04:15 AM

Tommy Moo: I'm not exaggerating when I say that I could out coach anyone in the league using only math. I'd hire other guys to train the players, as that's not my specialty. I'd simply sit there and let a computer pick the highest probability play for each situation, and I would win


Because you know that something like a a double A blitz is coming, you know it's not like defenses disguise what they're doing, and have enough time to let the computer pick the play with the correct blocking scheme accordingly.

You would lose, and lose bad.
 
2013-12-12 09:06:46 AM

INeedAName: Tommy Moo: The NFL is full of lousy coaches. It's not a meritocracy. A single actuarial scientist could absolutely dominate as a head coach. Almost none of the head coaches in the league understand risk/reward. This is why you see stupid shiat like people kneeling the ball down at the end of the half because the other team might return an interception for a TD (2% likelihood, meanwhile your likelihood of scoring at TD on a hail mary is more like 10%) and punting from the other team's 40 yard line (once you cross midfield, you should always go for it on 4th, unless you can kick a FG.)

I'm not exaggerating when I say that I could out coach anyone in the league using only math. I'd hire other guys to train the players, as that's not my specialty. I'd simply sit there and let a computer pick the highest probability play for each situation, and I would win, I promise you. But you have to be someone's buddy to be hired in the NFL. The 32 teams create the illusion of competition. The only real competition is all 32 of them colluding together to take as much money as possible from the public.

Sounds like you'd make an excellent coordinator or film study guy. Coaches often don't make the best choice percentage wise because you're not playing percentages, you're playing people. What can your team conceivably accomplish, how will your players execute, can you get their heads right if they do give up the end of half return for the TD?

It's great to know that a bubble screen to your RB will avg 4.3yrds - but it's 13 degrees outside, your rb has already fumbled twice this game and you know he's beating himself up mentally. So instead you run a slant to the TE for 3 yrds and hope he can pick up the extra for the first down.

But this is the internet, where everyone is an expert about everything.


I was going to say the exact same thing.
 
2013-12-12 09:14:38 AM

INeedAName: Tommy Moo: The NFL is full of lousy coaches. It's not a meritocracy. A single actuarial scientist could absolutely dominate as a head coach. Almost none of the head coaches in the league understand risk/reward. This is why you see stupid shiat like people kneeling the ball down at the end of the half because the other team might return an interception for a TD (2% likelihood, meanwhile your likelihood of scoring at TD on a hail mary is more like 10%) and punting from the other team's 40 yard line (once you cross midfield, you should always go for it on 4th, unless you can kick a FG.)

I'm not exaggerating when I say that I could out coach anyone in the league using only math. I'd hire other guys to train the players, as that's not my specialty. I'd simply sit there and let a computer pick the highest probability play for each situation, and I would win, I promise you. But you have to be someone's buddy to be hired in the NFL. The 32 teams create the illusion of competition. The only real competition is all 32 of them colluding together to take as much money as possible from the public.

Sounds like you'd make an excellent coordinator or film study guy. Coaches often don't make the best choice percentage wise because you're not playing percentages, you're playing people. What can your team conceivably accomplish, how will your players execute, can you get their heads right if they do give up the end of half return for the TD?

It's great to know that a bubble screen to your RB will avg 4.3yrds - but it's 13 degrees outside, your rb has already fumbled twice this game and you know he's beating himself up mentally. So instead you run a slant to the TE for 3 yrds and hope he can pick up the extra for the first down.

But this is the internet, where everyone is an expert about everything.


And it's not just the math - you have to be able to manage the roster, know who needs to be in on a given play, and make fifty choices in the span of fifteen seconds.  Being an NFL head coach means putting in 100+ hours a week.  Joe Gibbs' wife made him retire when he was only 53 because he was killing himself; he slept most nights in a cot in his office.

Down at the college level, it's not just Xs and Os either.  A college head coach has to be a salesman as well.  You have to spend a lot of time pitching to boosters and recruits.  In the NFL you ideally have a general manager or director of player personnel to assist in building the roster and take care of a lot of logistical things.  In college, the head coach is the one offering all the scholarships, and the one making all the appearances at the booster clubs.  It's equal parts politics and whiteboards.

whizbangthedirtfarmer: But when that 2% happens, the fans will be screaming for your head and the announcers will LOL all over you


And this is why the coaching profession is so conservative (in a non-political sense).  A head coach knows it only takes one bad season to get fired, and it only takes one really bad game or outcome to turn a good season into a mediocre one, or a mediocre season into a terrible one.  The NFL is a league where a guy can go 14-2 and miss the Super Bowl because of a fumbled interception and still get fired.  Mistakes kill careers, which is why the risk/reward ratio seems ridiculously skewed when you're on field-level.
 
2013-12-12 09:22:19 AM

INeedAName: Coaches often don't make the best choice percentage wise because you're not playing percentages, you're playing people.


That's a charitable way of saying they make opinions based on emotion, which is a hallmark of bad leadership.

INeedAName: But this is the internet, where everyone is an expert about everything.


The NFL's best and brightest collectively (yes, that includes New England, who had to make sure Jeff Marriott was in the fold first) thought Spergon Wynn was a better QB than Tom Brady.  The fact of the matter is that the NFL's old boy club has yet to see its incarnation of the MLB's Billy Beane.
 
2013-12-12 09:38:11 AM

INeedAName: Tommy Moo: The NFL is full of lousy coaches. It's not a meritocracy. A single actuarial scientist could absolutely dominate as a head coach. Almost none of the head coaches in the league understand risk/reward. This is why you see stupid shiat like people kneeling the ball down at the end of the half because the other team might return an interception for a TD (2% likelihood, meanwhile your likelihood of scoring at TD on a hail mary is more like 10%) and punting from the other team's 40 yard line (once you cross midfield, you should always go for it on 4th, unless you can kick a FG.)

I'm not exaggerating when I say that I could out coach anyone in the league using only math. I'd hire other guys to train the players, as that's not my specialty. I'd simply sit there and let a computer pick the highest probability play for each situation, and I would win, I promise you. But you have to be someone's buddy to be hired in the NFL. The 32 teams create the illusion of competition. The only real competition is all 32 of them colluding together to take as much money as possible from the public.

Sounds like you'd make an excellent coordinator or film study guy. Coaches often don't make the best choice percentage wise because you're not playing percentages, you're playing people. What can your team conceivably accomplish, how will your players execute, can you get their heads right if they do give up the end of half return for the TD?

It's great to know that a bubble screen to your RB will avg 4.3yrds - but it's 13 degrees outside, your rb has already fumbled twice this game and you know he's beating himself up mentally. So instead you run a slant to the TE for 3 yrds and hope he can pick up the extra for the first down.

But this is the internet, where everyone is an expert about everything.


Remember that a highly-paid professional coach suggested PITCH IT TO TASHARD CHOICE and is still a highly-paid professional coach.
 
2013-12-12 09:45:22 AM
1. Be handsome.
2. Be attractive.
3. Don't be unattractive.
 
2013-12-12 09:46:20 AM
i used to dominate in tecmo bowl by passing deep every down on the left side of the field - since the passing defense AI in that game goes first for your primary receiver - you can open that lane up everytime by just cycling through your receivers
 
2013-12-12 09:52:40 AM

RminusQ: INeedAName: Tommy Moo: The NFL is full of lousy coaches. It's not a meritocracy. A single actuarial scientist could absolutely dominate as a head coach. Almost none of the head coaches in the league understand risk/reward. This is why you see stupid shiat like people kneeling the ball down at the end of the half because the other team might return an interception for a TD (2% likelihood, meanwhile your likelihood of scoring at TD on a hail mary is more like 10%) and punting from the other team's 40 yard line (once you cross midfield, you should always go for it on 4th, unless you can kick a FG.)

I'm not exaggerating when I say that I could out coach anyone in the league using only math. I'd hire other guys to train the players, as that's not my specialty. I'd simply sit there and let a computer pick the highest probability play for each situation, and I would win, I promise you. But you have to be someone's buddy to be hired in the NFL. The 32 teams create the illusion of competition. The only real competition is all 32 of them colluding together to take as much money as possible from the public.

Sounds like you'd make an excellent coordinator or film study guy. Coaches often don't make the best choice percentage wise because you're not playing percentages, you're playing people. What can your team conceivably accomplish, how will your players execute, can you get their heads right if they do give up the end of half return for the TD?

It's great to know that a bubble screen to your RB will avg 4.3yrds - but it's 13 degrees outside, your rb has already fumbled twice this game and you know he's beating himself up mentally. So instead you run a slant to the TE for 3 yrds and hope he can pick up the extra for the first down.

But this is the internet, where everyone is an expert about everything.

Remember that a highly-paid professional coach suggested PITCH IT TO TASHARD CHOICE and is still a highly-paid professional coach.


and the Colts just signed Choice this week. I'll be spending all of Sunday hoping he doesn't get any PT.

/sigh
 
2013-12-12 10:17:28 AM

dragonchild: The fact of the matter is that the NFL's old boy club has yet to see its incarnation of the MLB's Billy Beane.


There's another thing though that makes NFL and MLB quite different.

In the MLB, you have 162 games. You can screw one up badly and it won't kill your season. You can have a run of bad luck where a few low percentage options occur in terrifyingly quick succession and you could lose 5-6 games. That's still recoverable.

In the NFL, you only have 16 games. You screw one up, it may not kill your season, but it hurts a lot more. You drop 3 or 4 games due to statistical anomalies, and you've pretty much killed your season.

That's why football, in general, plays it SUPER safe with everything they can.
 
2013-12-12 10:20:14 AM

Tommy Moo: The NFL is full of lousy coaches. It's not a meritocracy. A single actuarial scientist could absolutely dominate as a head coach. Almost none of the head coaches in the league understand risk/reward. This is why you see stupid shiat like people kneeling the ball down at the end of the half because the other team might return an interception for a TD (2% likelihood, meanwhile your likelihood of scoring at TD on a hail mary is more like 10%) and punting from the other team's 40 yard line (once you cross midfield, you should always go for it on 4th, unless you can kick a FG.)

I'm not exaggerating when I say that I could out coach anyone in the league using only math. I'd hire other guys to train the players, as that's not my specialty. I'd simply sit there and let a computer pick the highest probability play for each situation, and I would win, I promise you. But you have to be someone's buddy to be hired in the NFL. The 32 teams create the illusion of competition. The only real competition is all 32 of them colluding together to take as much money as possible from the public.



So then apply for a job, maybe it will make the news and you'll get your own thread where we can ridicule you.
 
2013-12-12 10:34:22 AM

dragonchild: INeedAName: Coaches often don't make the best choice percentage wise because you're not playing percentages, you're playing people.

That's a charitable way of saying they make opinions based on emotion, which is a hallmark of bad leadership.


Er, um, no. Not even close.  Think of it this way: If, normally, your best sniper could kill a guy from 1,000 yards 95% of the time, but yesterday he just got a letter from his wife saying his baby who he's never met has cancer, would you still have him take the shot that could make or break your operation?  How about the same guy, but he's blown a couple of operations by missing the target?

Emotion plays a huge part in percentages.  I mean, take a look at the teams that are perpetually at the bottom of the league: Cleveland has at least one "Factory of Sadness"-level fan blowup a year; we know what a clownhouse the Jets are, and no one in Florida seriously expects their team to finish above .500.  Are you saying that Tommy Moo could turn all of that around with just his statistics?
 
2013-12-12 10:44:37 AM

IlGreven: Are you saying that Tommy Moo could turn all of that around with just his statistics?


Well, to be fair what have they got to lose?
 
2013-12-12 10:44:55 AM

kidgenius: There's another thing though that makes NFL and MLB quite different.


Not in this sense, though.  Innovation happens at the bottom in every league.  The successful have no incentive to change their formulas.

The only reason why Beane was given a shot in the MLB was because Oakland was a losing team under stingy and apathetic ownership, so he was free to do what he wanted (as long as he didn't spend money).  The number of games weren't as much of a factor as six straight losing seasons.  Your argument only makes sense from the perspective of teams that have "3 or 4 games due to statistical anomalies" to lose in the first place.  If you're sitting at 7-2, yeah, why would you mess with what you're doing in the off chance you finish 7-9?  You could get blamed for the collapse and fired.  Teams sitting at 2-7 aren't going to fire their coach for taking risks; NOT changing things at that point is what gets the coach fired.  But the decisions by perennial NFL losers aren't much less conservative, if at all, and their disinclination to try anything new is identical to the climate Beane walked into, except half the MLB now employ Beane disciples.  They got humiliated and learned the lesson.

Sports fanbases are stupid in general and second-guess every decision, so teams that listen to their fans don't do well in general.  Fans were angrily calling for Belichick's firing when he played Brady over Bledsoe.  The year they won the Super Bowl.  For the first time, ever.  That should tell you all you need to know about how fans factor into decision-making.

Mind you, I'm not saying coaching is easy; what Tommy Moo said was spectacularly stupid.  But I think the intended point was more that the NFL has a long way to go to reach 21st century thinking, and the things they do that are still old-boy style are not only plain to see, but embarrassing to watch.
 
2013-12-12 10:47:52 AM

Tommy Moo: A single actuarial scientist could absolutely dominate as a head coach


If I owned an NFL team I'd hire Mike Leach
 
2013-12-12 10:48:52 AM

UNC_Samurai: The NFL is a league where a guy can go 14-2 and miss the Super Bowl because of a fumbled interception and still get fired.


Well, that firing wasn't due to on-field performance.
 
2013-12-12 11:05:49 AM

Soup_In_A_Basket: IlGreven: Are you saying that Tommy Moo could turn all of that around with just his statistics?

Well, to be fair what have they got to lose?


...just ask the mangled and dessicated corpses of the careers of guys like Phil Savage, Carmen Policy, and Mike Holmgren. Not to mention Chris Palmer, Eric Mangini, and that dude who was so unremarkable as head coach no one remembers his name.
 
2013-12-12 11:18:37 AM

dragonchild: kidgenius: There's another thing though that makes NFL and MLB quite different.

Not in this sense, though.  Innovation happens at the bottom in every league.  The successful have no incentive to change their formulas.

The only reason why Beane was given a shot in the MLB was because Oakland was a losing team under stingy and apathetic ownership, so he was free to do what he wanted (as long as he didn't spend money).  The number of games weren't as much of a factor as six straight losing seasons.


I think the point here is that the statistics in baseball have a much more expansive data set and are less apt to be ruined by an anomaly.

Roughly speaking there are 25,000 (16 teams, 50 plays a game, 16 games a season) plays in a regular NFL season. Comparatively, across MLB, there are 131,000 strikes (not including extra innings or balls). So it would take 5 years for the NFL to produce as much data as MLB.

This means fluke things like a pistol offense may have little statistical support but can be wildly successful for a short period of time. Or a team (say the Ravens) that is statistically very poor, can overcome that and string together a few very solid performances.

In short football is not baseball.
 
2013-12-12 11:20:15 AM

Tommy Moo: The NFL is full of lousy coaches. It's not a meritocracy. A single actuarial scientist could absolutely dominate as a head coach. Almost none of the head coaches in the league understand risk/reward. This is why you see stupid shiat like people kneeling the ball down at the end of the half because the other team might return an interception for a TD (2% likelihood, meanwhile your likelihood of scoring at TD on a hail mary is more like 10%) and punting from the other team's 40 yard line (once you cross midfield, you should always go for it on 4th, unless you can kick a FG.)

I'm not exaggerating when I say that I could out coach anyone in the league using only math. I'd hire other guys to train the players, as that's not my specialty. I'd simply sit there and let a computer pick the highest probability play for each situation, and I would win, I promise you. But you have to be someone's buddy to be hired in the NFL. The 32 teams create the illusion of competition. The only real competition is all 32 of them colluding together to take as much money as possible from the public.


Isn't this pretty much what Ernie Adams does for Bill Belichick?

http://espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=adams
 
2013-12-12 11:45:05 AM

AdamK: i used to dominate in tecmo bowl by passing deep every down on the left side of the field


I'm a DOS-era guy, so my game of choice was Mike Ditka's Ultimate Football on an old 386. My go-to play was to set up a pass formation, run a QB keeper downfield until all the defense was keying on me, and then throw a pass to a wide-open receiver because the game designers forgot about the whole "line of scrimmage" thing.

Once you find a bug like that in a game, it's hard to not keep exploiting it.
 
2013-12-12 12:05:18 PM

IlGreven: Soup_In_A_Basket: IlGreven: Are you saying that Tommy Moo could turn all of that around with just his statistics?

Well, to be fair what have they got to lose?

...just ask the mangled and dessicated corpses of the careers of guys like Phil Savage, Carmen Policy, and Mike Holmgren. Not to mention Chris Palmer, Eric Mangini, and that dude who was so unremarkable as head coach no one remembers his name.


Literally no one has ever tried what I'm talking about, including the guys you just mentioned. No head coach has ever attempted to run a play style based entirely on percentages. Every head coach in history has downed the ball at the end of the half and punted from the wrong side of the 50. The first person to try this might prove me wrong, but I'd bet money it would, in fact, revolutionize the game. Remember when an 0-8 Miami team destroyed a 6-2 (I think) New England team by 30 points by suddenly introducing the Wildcat a few years ago? Someone needs to shake the league up.
 
2013-12-12 12:11:52 PM

MBP2112: Tommy Moo: The NFL is full of lousy coaches. It's not a meritocracy. A single actuarial scientist could absolutely dominate as a head coach. Almost none of the head coaches in the league understand risk/reward. This is why you see stupid shiat like people kneeling the ball down at the end of the half because the other team might return an interception for a TD (2% likelihood, meanwhile your likelihood of scoring at TD on a hail mary is more like 10%) and punting from the other team's 40 yard line (once you cross midfield, you should always go for it on 4th, unless you can kick a FG.)

I'm not exaggerating when I say that I could out coach anyone in the league using only math. I'd hire other guys to train the players, as that's not my specialty. I'd simply sit there and let a computer pick the highest probability play for each situation, and I would win, I promise you. But you have to be someone's buddy to be hired in the NFL. The 32 teams create the illusion of competition. The only real competition is all 32 of them colluding together to take as much money as possible from the public.

Isn't this pretty much what Ernie Adams does for Bill Belichick?

http://espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=adams


Is there something wrong with my browser or does that page use black text on a black background?
 
2013-12-12 12:13:20 PM

fatalvenom: So this means I can be the coach of an NHL team based on my utter dominance of all my friends in NHL94?


It wasn't so much you as it was Roenick.  He was good.

/regular swing dancer
 
2013-12-12 12:18:30 PM

Tommy Moo: IlGreven: Soup_In_A_Basket: IlGreven: Are you saying that Tommy Moo could turn all of that around with just his statistics?

Well, to be fair what have they got to lose?

...just ask the mangled and dessicated corpses of the careers of guys like Phil Savage, Carmen Policy, and Mike Holmgren. Not to mention Chris Palmer, Eric Mangini, and that dude who was so unremarkable as head coach no one remembers his name.

Literally no one has ever tried what I'm talking about, including the guys you just mentioned. No head coach has ever attempted to run a play style based entirely on percentages. Every head coach in history has downed the ball at the end of the half and punted from the wrong side of the 50. The first person to try this might prove me wrong, but I'd bet money it would, in fact, revolutionize the game. Remember when an 0-8 Miami team destroyed a 6-2 (I think) New England team by 30 points by suddenly introducing the Wildcat a few years ago? Someone needs to shake the league up.


Help me figure your argument out. You are saying the next great NFL coach should never look up from an odds chart that accounts for all of the moving parts in an NFL game, essentially yelling across the field what the other team should expect and your example is a statistical anomaly that has already gone the way of the run and shoot? I sure do hope the Browns hire you.
 
2013-12-12 12:36:10 PM

Tommy Moo: The NFL is full of lousy coaches. It's not a meritocracy. A single actuarial scientist could absolutely dominate as a head coach. Almost none of the head coaches in the league understand risk/reward. This is why you see stupid shiat like people kneeling the ball down at the end of the half because the other team might return an interception for a TD (2% likelihood, meanwhile your likelihood of scoring at TD on a hail mary is more like 10%) and punting from the other team's 40 yard line (once you cross midfield, you should always go for it on 4th, unless you can kick a FG.)

I'm not exaggerating when I say that I could out coach anyone in the league using only math. I'd hire other guys to train the players, as that's not my specialty. I'd simply sit there and let a computer pick the highest probability play for each situation, and I would win, I promise you. But you have to be someone's buddy to be hired in the NFL. The 32 teams create the illusion of competition. The only real competition is all 32 of them colluding together to take as much money as possible from the public.


Fascinating. Groundbreaking really. Do you have a scheme for your defense too?
 
2013-12-12 12:41:31 PM

Great clown Pagliacci's pick-me-up: Help me figure your argument out. You are saying the next great NFL coach should never look up from an odds chart that accounts for all of the moving parts in an NFL game, essentially yelling across the field what the other team should expect and your example is a statistical anomaly that has already gone the way of the run and shoot? I sure do hope the Browns hire you.


My argument is that by going with the highest percentage plays, you might make what appears to be an embarrassing gaffe once per season, but for every time you give up a TD at the end of the half, you sneak four or five extra TDs in at the end of halfs. For every time you turn the ball over on downs because you failed to convert a 4th and 3 and your opponent gets the ball on their own 40 instead of 20 (WOW! 20 whole yards of field position!) there would be another time where you convert and get to actually put points on the board.

7 points > 3 points >> 20 yards of field position

Forget the wildcat thing. It's not related to this argument, I'm simply saying that this game style would be as revolutionary to the game as that was. All 32 teams employ a wildcat today. If one coach had the balls to start playing moneyball in the NFL, the other 31 would follow suit.
 
2013-12-12 12:42:26 PM

mikaloyd: Tommy Moo: The NFL is full of lousy coaches. It's not a meritocracy. A single actuarial scientist could absolutely dominate as a head coach. Almost none of the head coaches in the league understand risk/reward. This is why you see stupid shiat like people kneeling the ball down at the end of the half because the other team might return an interception for a TD (2% likelihood, meanwhile your likelihood of scoring at TD on a hail mary is more like 10%) and punting from the other team's 40 yard line (once you cross midfield, you should always go for it on 4th, unless you can kick a FG.)

I'm not exaggerating when I say that I could out coach anyone in the league using only math. I'd hire other guys to train the players, as that's not my specialty. I'd simply sit there and let a computer pick the highest probability play for each situation, and I would win, I promise you. But you have to be someone's buddy to be hired in the NFL. The 32 teams create the illusion of competition. The only real competition is all 32 of them colluding together to take as much money as possible from the public.

Fascinating. Groundbreaking really. Do you have a scheme for your defense too?


He's just going to hit "Ask Madden." Even if it only works on 1 drive a game, he's golden. Obviously no one is going to be able to stop his offense. Honestly it's kind of embarrassing you had to ask.
 
2013-12-12 12:44:08 PM

Tommy Moo: Great clown Pagliacci's pick-me-up: Help me figure your argument out. You are saying the next great NFL coach should never look up from an odds chart that accounts for all of the moving parts in an NFL game, essentially yelling across the field what the other team should expect and your example is a statistical anomaly that has already gone the way of the run and shoot? I sure do hope the Browns hire you.

My argument is that by going with the highest percentage plays, you might make what appears to be an embarrassing gaffe once per season, but for every time you give up a TD at the end of the half, you sneak four or five extra TDs in at the end of halfs. For every time you turn the ball over on downs because you failed to convert a 4th and 3 and your opponent gets the ball on their own 40 instead of 20 (WOW! 20 whole yards of field position!) there would be another time where you convert and get to actually put points on the board.

7 points > 3 points >> 20 yards of field position

Forget the wildcat thing. It's not related to this argument, I'm simply saying that this game style would be as revolutionary to the game as that was. All 32 teams employ a wildcat today. If one coach had the balls to start playing moneyball in the NFL, the other 31 would follow suit.


I can't tell if this is the 2nd stupidest thing you've posted today or the stupidest thing you've posted today.
 
2013-12-12 12:45:51 PM

mikaloyd: Tommy Moo: The NFL is full of lousy coaches. It's not a meritocracy. A single actuarial scientist could absolutely dominate as a head coach. Almost none of the head coaches in the league understand risk/reward. This is why you see stupid shiat like people kneeling the ball down at the end of the half because the other team might return an interception for a TD (2% likelihood, meanwhile your likelihood of scoring at TD on a hail mary is more like 10%) and punting from the other team's 40 yard line (once you cross midfield, you should always go for it on 4th, unless you can kick a FG.)

I'm not exaggerating when I say that I could out coach anyone in the league using only math. I'd hire other guys to train the players, as that's not my specialty. I'd simply sit there and let a computer pick the highest probability play for each situation, and I would win, I promise you. But you have to be someone's buddy to be hired in the NFL. The 32 teams create the illusion of competition. The only real competition is all 32 of them colluding together to take as much money as possible from the public.

Fascinating. Groundbreaking really. Do you have a scheme for your defense too?


I'd do much the same. Plug the situation into the data. The computer has tens of thousands of plays from 30 years of games. It knows that on 3rd and 6 from the 49 yard line the offense plays 3 wide out from the shotgun 72% of the time. Putting in a nickel package results in a punt or turnover 67% of the time, while running a corner blitz results in a punt or turnover 63% of the time (I'm making these numbers up, but a computer wouldn't) so you go with the nickel.
 
2013-12-12 12:47:05 PM

Tommy Moo: mikaloyd: Tommy Moo: The NFL is full of lousy coaches. It's not a meritocracy. A single actuarial scientist could absolutely dominate as a head coach. Almost none of the head coaches in the league understand risk/reward. This is why you see stupid shiat like people kneeling the ball down at the end of the half because the other team might return an interception for a TD (2% likelihood, meanwhile your likelihood of scoring at TD on a hail mary is more like 10%) and punting from the other team's 40 yard line (once you cross midfield, you should always go for it on 4th, unless you can kick a FG.)

I'm not exaggerating when I say that I could out coach anyone in the league using only math. I'd hire other guys to train the players, as that's not my specialty. I'd simply sit there and let a computer pick the highest probability play for each situation, and I would win, I promise you. But you have to be someone's buddy to be hired in the NFL. The 32 teams create the illusion of competition. The only real competition is all 32 of them colluding together to take as much money as possible from the public.

Fascinating. Groundbreaking really. Do you have a scheme for your defense too?

I'd do much the same. Plug the situation into the data. The computer has tens of thousands of plays from 30 years of games. It knows that on 3rd and 6 from the 49 yard line the offense plays 3 wide out from the shotgun 72% of the time. Putting in a nickel package results in a punt or turnover 67% of the time, while running a corner blitz results in a punt or turnover 63% of the time (I'm making these numbers up, but a computer wouldn't) so you go with the nickel.


A relatively smart QB sees you're in the nickel and runs a quick FB handoff that gains the yardage needed, thus skewing your percentages in the future.
 
2013-12-12 12:59:19 PM

Tommy Moo: I'd do much the same. Plug the situation into the data. The computer has tens of thousands of plays from 30 years of games. It knows that on 3rd and 6 from the 49 yard line the offense plays 3 wide out from the shotgun 72% of the time. Putting in a nickel package results in a punt or turnover 67% of the time, while running a corner blitz results in a punt or turnover 63% of the time (I'm making these numbers up, but a computer wouldn't) so you go with the nickel.


Your system sounds purely reactive to past plays and probabilities
What if the other guy has a computer too? He can pretty accurately predict what you will do.
 
2013-12-12 01:14:10 PM

Tommy Moo: mikaloyd: Tommy Moo: The NFL is full of lousy coaches. It's not a meritocracy. A single actuarial scientist could absolutely dominate as a head coach. Almost none of the head coaches in the league understand risk/reward. This is why you see stupid shiat like people kneeling the ball down at the end of the half because the other team might return an interception for a TD (2% likelihood, meanwhile your likelihood of scoring at TD on a hail mary is more like 10%) and punting from the other team's 40 yard line (once you cross midfield, you should always go for it on 4th, unless you can kick a FG.)

I'm not exaggerating when I say that I could out coach anyone in the league using only math. I'd hire other guys to train the players, as that's not my specialty. I'd simply sit there and let a computer pick the highest probability play for each situation, and I would win, I promise you. But you have to be someone's buddy to be hired in the NFL. The 32 teams create the illusion of competition. The only real competition is all 32 of them colluding together to take as much money as possible from the public.

Fascinating. Groundbreaking really. Do you have a scheme for your defense too?

I'd do much the same. Plug the situation into the data. The computer has tens of thousands of plays from 30 years of games. It knows that on 3rd and 6 from the 49 yard line the offense plays 3 wide out from the shotgun 72% of the time. Putting in a nickel package results in a punt or turnover 67% of the time, while running a corner blitz results in a punt or turnover 63% of the time (I'm making these numbers up, but a computer wouldn't) so you go with the nickel.


Wow. So, ignoring the fact that football was different 30 years ago thus your data set is going to either be wrong or much smaller, you want to play a game where you are a slave to some computer output and really really hope the other team plays along? And so when the offense knows exactly what you are going with, and pulls out that super revolutionary wildcat that you've never seen them run (except all of them do) and they pick up 50 yards on the play, you just say "dems da numbas"? There is playing smart and/or aggressive and there is slavishly hitting the Ask Madden button which is just asking for disaster. If you do not think NFL teams are doing analysis right now based on down,  distance, formation, set, motion, weather etc. you are not paying attention. Ive seen games lost when those sorts of statistical models break down (like the 2004 Tiatns/Ravens playoff game), or inapplicable like this weekend in Philly.  Players now have tablets with interactive playbooks with stats, near immediate access to game film broken down by every possible factor (want to see every play from the last three year your opponent has had the ball on their side of the field on second down and 5+ to go with the wind at their back on turf? Just open your laptop). Teams are hiring guys specifically to just do these kinds of breakdowns. Can they get better? Probably. Will it ever be able to solely deliver a championship NFL team? No.
 
2013-12-12 01:41:17 PM
If this guy had included the "My top 32 guys at UND will each be drafted in the first round of the 2017 NFL Draft" bullet, I'd have been sold.

Oh well.
 
2013-12-12 01:54:27 PM

UNC_Samurai: Someone actually got a job managing a low-tier soccer team because of the lengthy Football Manager section on his resume.


That's awesome.  Source?

/won Champsions League with Swansea, nbd.
 
2013-12-12 01:59:34 PM
http://espnfc.com/blog/_/name/thetoepoke/id/690?cc=5901
 
Displayed 50 of 62 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report