Pete Carroll’s time management and late game decisions

[Ozzy]

The onside kick makes sense. You needed a 3 and out regardless like you said if Pittsburgh had the ball after kick off. So you get the chance to recover the onside kick, if that doesn’t work you need to get that 3 and out. Maybe you have a slightly shorter field if you do a normal kick off and get that three and out but not much and then you don’t have the chance to recover the kickoff .

Even Pete said it wasn’t the right call in a normal game but myers wasn’t kicking it deep enough so they were FORCED to do it. The right call if myers is healthy or whatever is to kick it out of the end zone save the two minute stoppage and see what happens.

 

[NoGain]

Even Pete said it wasn’t the right call in a normal game but myers wasn’t kicking it deep enough so they were FORCED to do it. The right call if myers is healthy or whatever is to kick it out of the end zone save the two minute stoppage and see what happens.

I had no idea about that. Was Myer really incapable of kicking into the endzone? At the time, I thought it was definitely the wrong call. Kick it in the endzone, you have three TO's to stop the clock. You have about a 5% chance of recovering an onside kick. As bad as our D was the other day, I think we clearly have a better than 5% chance of forcing them to punt. With the home crowd, who knows, maybe we force a mistake, an illegal procedure penalty or something positive for us.

It's water under the bridge now.

 

[Ozzy]

I had no idea about that. Was Myer really incapable of kicking into the endzone? At the time, I thought it was definitely the wrong call. Kick it in the endzone, you have three TO's to stop the clock. You have about a 5% chance of recovering an onside kick. As bad as our D was the other day, I think we clearly have a better than 5% chance of forcing them to punt. With the home crowd, who knows, maybe we force a mistake, an illegal procedure penalty or something positive for us.

It's water under the bridge now.

Yep I guess Meyers wasn’t getting the distance but not sure if he was hurt?

It’s water under the bridge like you said. On to next week!

 

[cymatica]

Even Pete said it wasn’t the right call in a normal game but myers wasn’t kicking it deep enough so they were FORCED to do it. The right call if myers is healthy or whatever is to kick it out of the end zone save the two minute stoppage and see what happens.

Then kick it out of bounds

 

[RiverDog]

I had no idea about that. Was Myer really incapable of kicking into the endzone? At the time, I thought it was definitely the wrong call. Kick it in the endzone, you have three TO's to stop the clock. You have about a 5% chance of recovering an onside kick. As bad as our D was the other day, I think we clearly have a better than 5% chance of forcing them to punt. With the home crowd, who knows, maybe we force a mistake, an illegal procedure penalty or something positive for us.

It's water under the bridge now.

I call BS. Meyers kicked 3 touchbacks, one kick 2 yards deep that was returned, and one to the 2 yard line, and that on a cold, heavy day at sea level.

 

[Maelstrom787]

I call BS. Meyers kicked 3 touchbacks, one kick 2 yards deep that was returned, and one to the 2 yard line, and that on a cold, heavy day at sea level.

It doesn't make sense on the face of it. I think it might've been similar to what Hauschka did once where he just straight up said "I'm not confident in this kick at this point" to the coaches. Assuming ST coach Larry Izzo had a say in that decision. Wonder what happened to make them reconsider?

 

[Maelstrom787]

Then kick it out of bounds

If they're spotting them a starting position of the 40 yard line, why WOULDN'T they kick it onside instead?

That's risking 10 yards of field position for a chance to get the ball back now. A chance that's better than rolling a natural 20 on a d20, even. In a game where we needed to stop them within 10 yards anyway to even have a chance, at that!

 

[cymatica]

If they're spotting them a starting position of the 40 yard line, why WOULDN'T they kick it onside instead?

That's risking 10 yards of field position for a chance to get the ball back now. A chance that's better than rolling a natural 20 on a d20, even. In a game where we needed to stop them within 10 yards anyway to even have a chance, at that!

Because the onside puts them in FG range without getting a first down and burns the 2 minute warning. If you give up a first after kicking out of bounds you still have time with an extra 40 seconds and not in FG range. Even with the way the defense played, it's still a higher percentage chance to force a stop than get an inside, which is relying on a lucky bounce.

There's literally zero logical reason to kick the inside except hoping for a prayer. It was the dumbest time to be aggressive in a game where Pete was conservative.

 

[Maelstrom787]

Because the onside puts them in FG range without getting a first down and burns the 2 minute warning. If you give up a first after kicking out of bounds you still have time with an extra 40 seconds and not in FG range. Even with the way the defense played, it's still a higher percentage chance to force a stop than get an inside, which is relying on a lucky bounce.

There's literally zero logical reason to kick the inside except hoping for a prayer. It was the dumbest time to be aggressive in a game where Pete was conservative.

The game at that point WAS hoping for a prayer, and it was nigh unwinnable anyway. An onside conversation was the only thing that'd increase our win probability in that situation regardless. The onside will generally put you around the 44-48, and the Steelers needed to be stopped anyway. A sub-50% field goal attempt being forced is not the worst outcome in a game that was very lost anyway, and the Steelers may not attempt it anyway because we'd have field position of about the 40 should they miss that likely-to-miss attempt.

The chance to force a stop being low is low regardless of whether it's kicked conventionally or onside, because the stop needed to happen in literally any scenario.

We had to stop them anyway in any situation. The field position was not as important as the chance to get the ball back was, because that was our most feasible shot by leaps and bounds.

The "zero logical reason" comment is just false. I can understanding it not being what you'd do, but if you think there's no logical reason as to that attempt, I don't think you're considering every angle here.

 

[cymatica]

The game at that point WAS hoping for a prayer, and it was nigh unwinnable anyway. An onside conversation was the only thing that'd increase our win probability in that situation regardless. The onside will generally put you around the 44-48, and the Steelers needed to be stopped anyway. A sub-50% field goal attempt being forced is not the worst outcome in a game that was very lost anyway, and the Steelers may not attempt it anyway because we'd have field position of about the 40 should they miss that likely-to-miss attempt.

The chance to force a stop being low is low regardless of whether it's kicked conventionally or onside, because the stop needed to happen in literally any scenario.

We had to stop them anyway in any situation. The field position was not as important as the chance to get the ball back was, because that was our most feasible shot by leaps and bounds.

The "zero logical reason" comment is just false. I can understanding it not being what you'd do, but if you think there's no logical reason as to that attempt, I don't think you're considering every angle here.

Considering the probability of getting an inside kick compared to making a defensive stop combined with burning the 2 minute warning, no there wasn't a logical reason.

It was a 1 score game with 2 timeouts just over 2 minutes. You don't hope for a prayer in that situation, you rally your defense and give them a chance to redeem themselves.

 

[nanomoz]

The onside kick was a fine decision. Hear me out before screaming at me.

The human mind wants to try to "keep hope alive" by default, and this leads to some irrationality when it comes to how we think about football decisions.

The initial instinct would be to kick deep for most, because it is further away from the mental line of "we now have no possible way to come back." The human mind wants to DELAY that point for as long as we can in a chronological sense. We are wired to avoid the feeling of loss or hopelessness, and we're wired to ignore stacked odds when we have no control over the situation.

When considering the full picture, the actual win probability that we lost by failing to convert onside kick attempt was less than 1%. Pittsburgh, mathematically, was already in the high 90th percentiles in terms of win probability at that point.

The chance to steal a possesion by converting an onside kick attempt is about 5.6% leaguewide this year. That 5.6% chance is absolutely worth gambling a fraction of your infinitesimal chance of winning the game for the upside of suddenly having a REAL shot at winning the game.

Refusing to take a chance on the onside there would've been the type of cowardice that people bemoan when discussing fourth down punt/go decisions. It would've been objectively wrong to kick it deep just to prolong the inevitable as we stared down that barrel of what was, at that point, about a 96% probable loss.

Hardly matters to me. We were almost fully boned at that point, just went out with a bigger swing this way. Even with 3 timeouts, we would've needed to stop them in a single set of downs. I dunno. I'd rather take that 6% chance of making it an actual game instead of preserving like an additional 0.7% of the 3% chance we had to win anyway. The only reason I think we all have such aversion to the idea of it is just human nature to avoid confronting the precipice before we are forced to.

Same principle applied to the whole "take the 2 pt conversion attempt as soon as you need to" debate. The facts are clear, but it's so incredibly unintuitive.

You apply overall odds of winning only to kicking off and attempting to force a punt, but not to the onside option. Neither choice occurs in a vacuum, but you pose it as if the onside option does.

An honest comparison would be to compare odds of forcing a 3-and-out to that of an onside recovery. Onside kick recoveries this season, league wide, are like 2/40.

I'd be shocked if forcing a 3 and out occurs at a lower rate. A three and out, with the two minute warning, would have left more than 1:30+ on the clock--incl. a punt return.

 

[cymatica]

You apply overall odds of winning only to kicking off and attempting to force a punt, but not to the onside option. Neither choice occurs in a vacuum, but you pose it as if the onside option does.

An honest comparison would be to compare odds of forcing a 3-and-out to that of an onside recovery. Onside kick recoveries this season, league wide, are like 2/40.

I'd be shocked if forcing a 3 and out occurs at a lower rate. A three and out, with the two minute warning, would have left more than 1:30+ on the clock--incl. a punt return.

Even Seattle's defense has a much much higher probability of getting a 3 and out than 2/40.

 

[Maelstrom787]

You apply overall odds of winning only to kicking off and attempting to force a punt, but not to the onside option. Neither choice occurs in a vacuum, but you pose it as if the onside option does.

An honest comparison would be to compare odds of forcing a 3-and-out to that of an onside recovery. Onside kick recoveries this season, league wide, are like 2/40.

I'd be shocked if forcing a 3 and out occurs at a lower rate. A three and out, with the two minute warning, would have left more than 1:30+ on the clock--incl. a punt return.

That's not an especially applicable comparison, though, because that stop has to happen anyway regardless of Pittsburgh receiving the ball near midfield. You're giving up some field position for a 5.6% chance (based on league-wide 2023 conversion percentage) to get the ball back. The defensive objective remains the exact same anyway - stop Pittsburgh within a single set of downs. The field position is less important given that only a very low chance of winning remained anyway, with an onside conversion being the most likely method to significantly boost those odds and failing to convert presenting limited downside in a game that was extremely unlikely to provide feasible alternative avenues to victory.

Even if they are on the brink of field goal range at the point of onside conversion, the still-required defensive stop would put Pittsburgh in a position where they have to either attempt a 50%-or-less field goal (high risk of Seattle receiving excellent field position) or punt the ball away (Seattle is given worse field position but now has the same objective as they would had they kicked it deep to begin with).

Plus, they were of the opinion that Myers could not reliably force a touchback in that situation, which is likely a decision made with context that we do not have available.

 

[Maelstrom787]

Even Seattle's defense has a much much higher probability of getting a 3 and out than 2/40.

They have to force a Pittsburgh stop in either case.

 

[cymatica]

They have to force a Pittsburgh stop in either case.

Except they lost the timeout at 2 minutes and Pittsburgh needed less than 10 yards for FG range.

If they had another timeout or 10 more seconds on the clock then maybe try that. Electing to discard a free timeout at 2 minutes is not smart football

 

[Maelstrom787]

Except they lost the timeout at 2 minutes and Pittsburgh needed less than 10 yards for FG range.

If they had another timeout or 10 more seconds on the clock then maybe try that. Electing to discard a free timeout at 2 minutes is not smart football

The stacked odds were present with or without the deep kick. My contention would be that trying the only avenue to keep that unit off the field and boost our chances to win, despite a 5.6% success rate, is defensible considering the chances of a win were miniscule regardless of onside outcome. I'd even consider it an advisable situational decision, and I'm not the only one who agrees.

 

[cymatica]

The stacked odds were present with or without the deep kick. My contention would be that trying the only avenue to keep that unit off the field and boost our chances to win, despite a 5.6% success rate, is defensible considering the chances of a win were miniscule regardless of onside outcome. I'd even consider it an advisable situational decision, and I'm not the only one who agrees.

You're arguing for a play with a much lower success rate than a defensive stop while wasting a free timeout. You've made up your mind to defend Pete's decision no matter what

 

[Maelstrom787]

You're arguing for a play with a much lower success rate than a defensive stop while wasting a free timeout. You've made up your mind to defend Pete's decision no matter what

I don't appreciate the insinuation that I'm predetermining my opinion on this. I'm sticking to the issue. I'm defending the logic based on my own understanding and research into the effect these actions would've had on win probability given all of the situational variables involved, and that's it.

I've criticized Pete and the majority of our coaching staff when I feel it warranted. I'm not on a crusade.

 

[cymatica]

I don't appreciate the insinuation that I'm predetermining my opinion on this. I'm sticking to the issue. I'm defending the logic based on my own understanding and research into the effect these actions would've had on win probability given all of the situational variables involved, and that's it.

I doubt that, you're ignoring the probability of the onside and the extra timeout

 

[Maelstrom787]

I doubt that, you're ignoring the probability of the onside and the extra timeout

I'm not ignoring the probability of the onside nor am I ignoring the extra timeout, and my posts in this thread have in-depth reasoning as to why I feel the onside attempt was justified regardless.