Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 95
  1. #61
    moklerman's Avatar
    moklerman is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Bakersfield, CA
    Age
    43
    Posts
    1,597
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Mike Martz #8 on FSN's Top 10 Dumbest Moments

    I agree that Martz's decision was the safe one but I don't agree with the rational that "if at first you don't succeed...give up". I understand that there is an inherint risk in running another play or two in the red zone, but championship teams play to win, not try not to lose.

    I still feel the message that was sent to the offense was a lot more damaging than anything else. I know I could see it in Marshall's reaction at the time. And in overtime, the offense didn't seem to have much passion either. Psychology is a critical part of a coach's job and it can't be measured in stats.

    If Martz was always a "by the numbers" type of coach and never took any risks then his decision may not have affected the team the way it did. However, when his whole history is based on being a balls to the wall, take no prisoners, type of coach and he then chooses to take the ball out of the offense's hands at the most critical point in the season...I think the morale of the O was adversely effected.


  2. #62
    sbramfan is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    los angeles
    Age
    42
    Posts
    894
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Mike Martz #8 on FSN's Top 10 Dumbest Moments

    This will be know as the day Martz "jumped the Shark".

    I wouldn't trade him for any other coach, but don't kid yourself into thinking he had any clue what to do on that play. Going for the tie was an acceptable choice (although completely uncharacterstic of the former Mike Martz we all grew to know and love), but the reason he chose the FG was because it was the ONLY choice left after he wasted half the time on the clock. I thought hiring Fairchild was supposed to help him with his absent mindedness?

    You could never convince me that Martz is anywhere near as good a Head Coach as he was an Offensive Coordinator. Apparently multi-tasking is not his specialty. He would have called in the right play if he were upstairs ONLY calling plays. You're too much in the trenches to be calling plays from the sidelines, unless you've been doing that your whole career, which he hasn't.

  3. #63
    HUbison's Avatar
    HUbison is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kentucky
    Age
    40
    Posts
    13,550
    Rep Power
    144

    Re: Mike Martz #8 on FSN's Top 10 Dumbest Moments

    Quote Originally Posted by NickSeiler
    As I've said about a dozen times thus far, I sincerely doubt anyone would be criticizing him had the Rams won that game.
    Actually, I would have praised him for winning in OT, but I would have criticized him for that last minute debacle.
    Quote Originally Posted by NickSeiler
    If you're still asking why we didn't try, then no, I don't think you're hearing what I'm saying. The whole point and position of my debate has been that it was better not to risk a shot at the endzone.
    But you said...
    Quote Originally Posted by NickSeiler
    But anyways, that's 20% of their attempts leading to the endzone. Meanwhile, of Bulger's 46 attempts, nearly 7% were interceptions.
    How is 7% a higher probability than 20%? As I stated earlier, there were no fumbles in the game, so according to your stats, there was a 93% chance of not losing the game had we gone for it. Now if going for it gives you nearly a 3-1 shot at scoring, I think Martz has to go for it.

    Now, again, I don't think these probabilities are all that useful when it comes down to one call at the end of a game, anything could have happened, but I'm trying to understand you're viewpoint on this one. I really am.
    "Before the gates of excellence the high gods have placed sweat; long is the road thereto and rough and steep at first; but when the heights are reached, then there is ease, though grievously hard in the winning." --- Hesiod

  4. #64
    txramsfan's Avatar
    txramsfan is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Poplar Bluff, MO
    Age
    50
    Posts
    7,266
    Rep Power
    65

    Re: Mike Martz #8 on FSN's Top 10 Dumbest Moments

    What's it going to take for Martz to squelch the "he's a great OC but not a great HC" mantra? I mean, he's only taken this team to the playoffs every year but once in his HC career. Went to a Super Bowl. Won two divisional titles. All in 4 years. The guy rocks as a HC. He may be the best HC the Rams have ever had. Better than Knox. Better than Malavasi. On the same level with Vermeil. You could make the case he's better than Vermeil due to the fact Vermeil never once had a winning record in STL without Martz.

  5. #65
    thoey's Avatar
    thoey is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas, United States
    Age
    50
    Posts
    2,017
    Rep Power
    32

    Thumbs up Re: Mike Martz #8 on FSN's Top 10 Dumbest Moments

    Quote Originally Posted by moklerman
    I agree that Martz's decision was the safe one but I don't agree with the rational that "if at first you don't succeed...give up". I understand that there is an inherint risk in running another play or two in the red zone, but championship teams play to win, not try not to lose.

    I still feel the message that was sent to the offense was a lot more damaging than anything else. I know I could see it in Marshall's reaction at the time. And in overtime, the offense didn't seem to have much passion either. Psychology is a critical part of a coach's job and it can't be measured in stats.

    If Martz was always a "by the numbers" type of coach and never took any risks then his decision may not have affected the team the way it did. However, when his whole history is based on being a balls to the wall, take no prisoners, type of coach and he then chooses to take the ball out of the offense's hands at the most critical point in the season...I think the morale of the O was adversely effected.
    Someone else saw the same game I saw...
    This space for rent...

  6. #66
    adarian_too's Avatar
    adarian_too is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    The Hollow
    Posts
    1,378
    Rep Power
    16

    Re: Mike Martz #8 on FSN's Top 10 Dumbest Moments

    Quote Originally Posted by NickSeiler
    How could a TD be just as easy? The Rams couldn't do jack in the red zone all day in terms of reaching the end zone. Based on the events of that game, it would seem a touchdown would be fairly hard to achieve, whereas a turnover -- Carolina had come up with two INTs already -- or a protection break-down was more likely.

    I retract an earlier statement Ferter, you are not the most argumentative on this site.

    How could a TD be just as easy? Because statistically it is true. I am not about to revisit Statistics 101 but I will refer you to the International Standards Organization' (ISO) document entitled Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement which is the internationally recognized way of expressing the mathematical measurement of uncertainty.

    You start from the premise that the Rams did "jack in the red zone all day." And as a statement of fact, no one will disagree with you. You combine that premise with the following proposition: a pass into the endzone is likely to result in a turnover because 2 INTs had already happened. You add other conceivable variables like pass-protection breakdown to justify your conclusion that sMartz' decision was justified.

    But your logic is specious. In other words, it looks OK on the surface but underneath the foundation is unstable. Let's briefly look again at what the red-zone failures early in the game could tell us. The obvious trend is that repetitive failure begets repetitive failure. If you want to add the other variables that give you cause to doubt the prospect of success like previous turnovers, blocking scheme failures or even poor QB decision-making, then your mindset will see a pattern emerging that raises red flags. Apparently, sMartz saw something and you have been at pains to help us see that rationale.

    But. Go back to flipping a coin and calling a heads every time (or a TD if I prefer). Just because I fail to get a TD 4 times in a row (or a heads) does not mean that the probability of not getting a TD on the 5th call has increased. The pattern suggests that I will fail for a 5th time in a row. But the mathematical probability that I will get that TD actually increased with each new chance following a previous failure. Clearly, the outcome is not guaranteed ... but the odds are actually getting better to get a TD with each new chance.

    So statistically speaking, a TD would have been mathematically more probable ... I just hedged my bet to say it could have been a TD just as easily as not ... 50/50. [Again, "having already a couple of INTs" could just be a statement of fact to show that the Panthers already had exceeded their allotment of INTs for the game and that a blown coverage on the particular play was a more likely scenario].

    Who's right? As the ISO recommends: "all measurement uncertainties, including those that are not 'statistical' in nature, be quantified by means of probabilities. The probabilities used to quantify the systematic uncertainties are to correspond to a degree of belief that an event will occur."

    Whether it is the stock market, gambling, or any other competitive endeavor, in the end one is simply attempting to evaluate the probability of success given any number of inputs and maximizing the possibility of success by exploiting the odds of success by waging high when they are in one's favor.


    I submit sMartz was right. The event he feared - Failure (loss) - did occur. What he didn't understand was the the odds were in his favor to change the feared event. His problem? The logic he used to convince himself of how that event would arrive was tortured and flawed. He eventually admitted as much. Perhaps you should too Nick.
    Last edited by adarian_too; -07-21-2004 at 02:24 PM.

  7. #67
    r8rh8rmike's Avatar
    r8rh8rmike is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    29 Palms, Ca.
    Age
    55
    Posts
    11,242
    Rep Power
    127

    Re: Mike Martz #8 on FSN's Top 10 Dumbest Moments

    adarian, I'm going to nominate you for the Fields Medal dude.

  8. #68
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,300
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: Mike Martz #8 on FSN's Top 10 Dumbest Moments

    Quote Originally Posted by r8rh8rmike
    Gotta love your tenacity on this Nick although I really think your reaching in trying to speak for Martz.
    This could be true. Who knows what Martz's mind was going through. What I'm saying is as much conjecture as any other opinion that's been presented, but I think the position I'm offering is supported by a number of game facts.


    Quote Originally Posted by moklerman
    I understand that there is an inherint risk in running another play or two in the red zone, but championship teams play to win, not try not to lose.
    Who says he was trying not to lose? It seems to me he was executing what he thought was the best plan of action for his team to win.


    Quote Originally Posted by sbramfan
    don't kid yourself into thinking he had any clue what to do on that play.
    What do you have to support this claim?


    Quote Originally Posted by HUbison
    Actually, I would have praised him for winning in OT, but I would have criticized him for that last minute debacle.
    You know I respect you and your opinion, but I have to question whether or not this would have occured.


    Quote Originally Posted by HUbison
    As I stated earlier, there were no fumbles in the game, so according to your stats, there was a 93% chance of not losing the game had we gone for it.
    There's always a chance for a fumble any time a player handles the ball. While one had not occured thus far on the day, that doesn't mean the chance for a fumble was 0%. Perhaps this only magnifies the actual problems of trying to put percentages on these sort of probabilities. The Rams might not have had an exact 20% chance of getting a touchdown, but the fact that of their red zone drives prior to that moment, only one in five had been successful seems to indicate a large problem in finding the endzone. I think what it boils down to is whether or not you think the risk of a turnover was great enough to warrant a couple of shots to the endzone. Based on the inefficiency our team experienced in the red zone on their previous five attempts, in my opinion, it wasn't worth taking the shot. We'll probably have to agree to disagree on that, it seems.


    Quote Originally Posted by adarian_too
    Go back to flipping a coin and calling a heads every time (or a TD if I prefer). Just because I fail to get a TD 4 times in a row (or a heads) does not mean that the probability of not getting a TD on the 5th call has increased. The pattern suggests that I will fail for a 5th time in a row. But the mathematical probability that I will get that TD actually increased with each new chance following a previous failure.
    You're comparing this situation to a coin flip and you're saying that since the Rams failed four times to reach the end zone, that makes the probability for a TD greater on their fifth try. I disagree with applying that logic in this scenario.

    We're not talking about an evenly weighted coin where the odds are 50/50 for two outcomes. We're talking about two teams with their own strengths and weaknesses that have to be factored in with multiple outcomes. We're talking about a Carolina team who has consistently made it difficult for the Rams to successfully reach the end zone. We're talking a Rams team who throughout the year had problems converting their red zone attempts into touchdowns.

    Perhaps I'm just not fully grasping your position. After all, I got a C in Statistics. But it doesn't seem to me like this was an even 50/50 chance here when you have so many variables to factor in.


    Quote Originally Posted by adarian_too
    Perhaps you should too Nick.
    I won't admit to something I don't believe. You think my logic is tortured and flawed, and I disagree. I'm not sure what would be served by my abandoning my position and just conforming to a popular opinion I don't believe in.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Two
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  9. #69
    HUbison's Avatar
    HUbison is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kentucky
    Age
    40
    Posts
    13,550
    Rep Power
    144

    Re: Mike Martz #8 on FSN's Top 10 Dumbest Moments

    Quote Originally Posted by NickSeiler
    We'll probably have to agree to disagree on that, it seems.
    Alright, I can live with that.
    Quote Originally Posted by NickSeiler
    Perhaps I'm just not fully grasping your position. After all, I got a C in Statistics.
    So then you're getting between 70%-79% of his post. I figure that's better than most. :redface:
    "Before the gates of excellence the high gods have placed sweat; long is the road thereto and rough and steep at first; but when the heights are reached, then there is ease, though grievously hard in the winning." --- Hesiod

  10. #70
    adarian_too's Avatar
    adarian_too is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    The Hollow
    Posts
    1,378
    Rep Power
    16

    Re: Mike Martz #8 on FSN's Top 10 Dumbest Moments

    Quote Originally Posted by NickSeiler
    What I'm saying is as much conjecture as any other opinion that's been presented. ... Based on the inefficiency our team experienced in the red zone on their previous five attempts, in my opinion, it wasn't worth taking the shot. ... [Y]ou're saying that since the Rams failed four times to reach the end zone, that makes the probability for a TD greater on their fifth try.
    Statistically speaking, yes. And since sMartz isn't the Big Blue Chess Computer able to factor in every variable and permutation he did what he did with what he thought he had.

    I'm not going to argue for the sake of argument, but I will analogize my point this way. The House has the edge in Blackjack. To maximize your chance of success you need to bet large when the cards lie in your favor and bet low when they aren't. Card counting is not illegal but the casino can ask you to leave if they spot you doing it. If you are card counting you are just using mathematics/statistics to decide when to ask for a card or not and increase or lower your bets, blah, blah, blah. sMartz should have been counting the cards.

    OK. Red-zone trend was poor. But red-zone effciency cannot go on indefinitely (so when will it break? You know for sure, go buy a lottery ticket). This red-zone attempt is a whole different deck of cards ... Rams at home, scored, got the on-zide kick - what were the chances there?, playoffs, Panthers not stopping them at the very moment it counts. The cards were turning in the Rams favor. Now is not the time to turn your nose up at lady luck. The cards were turning up because statistically things were balancing themselves out. The five previous attempts in the red-zone were only part of the cards on the table. They had just scored. Wilkens of all people got the on-side kick. Time to up the bet.

    And as for proving the point mathematically we will just give it to some aspiring ph.d in sports management to show in his dissertation that ... mathematically, statistically ... which is scientifically speaking ... going for the endzone was the better choice ...

    and as Jim Morrison said this is ... the end, my friend, ... the end.

  11. #71
    moklerman's Avatar
    moklerman is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Bakersfield, CA
    Age
    43
    Posts
    1,597
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Mike Martz #8 on FSN's Top 10 Dumbest Moments

    Another thing that occurred to me was the theory that if you want to succeed or win, you have to visualize it to make it happen. Conversely, if you visualize failure, you will fail. On a subconscious level, if you think you're going to throw an interception, even when you don't want to throw one, your subconscious makes it come true.

    Jim Morrison also said: "show me...the way...to the next whisky bar."

  12. #72
    r8rh8rmike's Avatar
    r8rh8rmike is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    29 Palms, Ca.
    Age
    55
    Posts
    11,242
    Rep Power
    127

    Re: Mike Martz #8 on FSN's Top 10 Dumbest Moments

    Another thing that occurred to me was the theory that if you want to succeed or win, you have to visualize it to make it happen. Conversely, if you visualize failure, you will fail. On a subconscious level, if you think you're going to throw an interception, even when you don't want to throw one, your subconscious makes it come true.
    This occured to Martz too in contemplating the Carolina game, he called it "negative thinking".

  13. #73
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,300
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: Mike Martz #8 on FSN's Top 10 Dumbest Moments

    Quote Originally Posted by adarian_too
    OK. Red-zone trend was poor. But red-zone effciency cannot go on indefinitely (so when will it break? You know for sure, go buy a lottery ticket). This red-zone attempt is a whole different deck of cards ... Rams at home, scored, got the on-zide kick - what were the chances there?, playoffs, Panthers not stopping them at the very moment it counts. The cards were turning in the Rams favor. Now is not the time to turn your nose up at lady luck. The cards were turning up because statistically things were balancing themselves out. The five previous attempts in the red-zone were only part of the cards on the table. They had just scored. Wilkens of all people got the on-side kick. Time to up the bet.
    Well, look at it this way. The Rams had yet to turn the ball over in the red zone prior to that drive. Could that trend also go on indefinitely?

    The problem I have is saying the Panthers weren't stopping them and using that to show the Rams had an advantage. The Panthers hadn't been stopping the Rams for the majority of the day. Look at some of the Rams' drives in the game. Their moving the ball on Carolina wasn't out of the ordinary, so it's hard for me to believe that the Panthers not stopping St. Louis in this instance was some sign that things were balancing out.

    I agree that the red zone trend cannot go on indefinately, but I'm not seeing any substantial reason to believe the trend would suddenly break at this moment, on this drive. There were times earlier in the game when the cards seemed to be in the Rams favor as well and they couldn't get it done. I'm just not seeing a reason to think this trip would have been any different.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Two
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  14. #74
    Curly Horns's Avatar
    Curly Horns is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    1st & Goal
    Posts
    2,573
    Rep Power
    58

    Re: Mike Martz #8 on FSN's Top 10 Dumbest Moments

    Whatever Nick.


    Sorry I don't have much time to give the point a decent debate. You are correct it is my opinion. But the point stands and you have offered nothing to counter the point or defend Martz' decision. Hell I'll give you the decision to go for the FG. Won't even argue it a bit. Having said that, let me speculate. The head coach decides to go for the onside kick. What is he thinking he will do if he recovers? Attack the endzone aggresively and risk a turnover? Play it safe and try and move the ball into FG range. Or does he just take a seat of the pants approach by taking each play as it comes? When does he finally decide to try and tie the game? At the very least, he should try and tie the game if he can't get the TD, in a certain amount of time. So, as I say, I'll give him the FG attempt, but at that point he should take every conceivable precaution to get the 3 points. What does he do? He takes a huge risk by running the clock down to 3 seconds and calling the last timeout. Please explain as to how this is the smartest and most logical approach to securing, at the very least, a tie? Just as soon as you come up with a sound explaination, for the logic in that decision, I'll back right off from calling Martz a boneheaded fool without a plan of attack. I don't see how anyone can claim that he is a crunch time tactician and definately not in that case. He screwed up in the heat of the moment--plain and simple!!



    :ramlogo:

  15. #75
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,300
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: Mike Martz #8 on FSN's Top 10 Dumbest Moments

    Quote Originally Posted by Ferter
    What does he do? He takes a huge risk by running the clock down to 3 seconds and calling the last timeout. Please explain as to how this is the smartest and most logical approach to securing, at the very least, a tie?
    Would you have prefered he leave, say, eight seconds on the clock, kick the field goal, and leave enough time for Carolina to receive a kickoff and possibly run it back for a TD? After all, the Rams' special teams coverage over the past couple seasons has been suspect at best. I sure wouldn't have wanted to give Carolina that free shot.

    And to my knowledge, Dane Looker is not a man who has made it a habit of mishandling holds.

    We'll see whether or not this is a sound enough explanation for you. I think it makes a lot of sense, considering very rarely do I see coaches leave extra time on the clock in case of a muffed handle by the holder. To criticize Martz for not doing so in this situation seems like a reach to me.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Two
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Mike Martz' fall from grace
    By ramsbruce in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: -09-23-2007, 05:52 PM
  2. Martz does things his own way--ESPN Insider
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: -07-05-2005, 08:54 AM
  3. Hadley on Martz (long and pretty good)
    By Nick in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: -12-28-2004, 07:12 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •