The CardBoard
Untestable counterfactuals - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Untestable counterfactuals (/thread-6636.html)


Untestable counterfactuals - BostonCard - 01-21-2014

I can't help but compare Stanford's loss in the Rose Bowl against a very strong MSU defense with a superlative backfield to the 49ers loss to in the NFC championship against a very strong Seahawks defense with a superlative backfield.  The parallels are quite eerie.  Both teams relinquished an early lead but had a chance to win the game with about two minutes to go in the game, needing a touchdown to win.  And, on that final drive, both coaches faced a fourth down.  Of course, both teams ultimately fell short in the end... Even the final scores were fairly similar (24-20 vs. 23-17).

With 4th and 1, David Shaw put his faith in the running game, and unfortunately we know what happened; MSU stuffed the run and took over on downs.

With 4th and 2, Harbaugh put his faith in Colin Kapernick's arm, and he converted, hitting Frank Gore on a short pass that he turned into 17 yards.

So, you might be tempted to think that maybe Shaw should have tried something other than the play that everyone thought we were going to run, and maybe the outcome would have been different.

Of course, five plays later (after three of the four prior plays had been passes), Harbaugh again puts his faith in Colin Kapernick's arm, challenging one of the top cornerbacks in the league (or maybe the top cornerback)... the result was a tipped ball that resulted in an interception. 

TMQ's Gregg Easterbrook questioned Harbaugh's play calling by writing:

Quote:TMQ took a lot of heat halfway through the season with a column saying San Francisco couldn't pass the ball. Then the Niners finished 30th in passing and in the NFC title game were held to 147 passing yards. The game concluded with San Francisco trying to throw into the right corner of the end zone -- exactly what San Francisco tried at the end of last year's Super Bowl -- and like in that Super Bowl, were unsuccessful. In both instances, the intended receiver was double-covered -- maybe defensive coordinators know something?

And, of course, Shaw took a lot of heat for calling the run play that ended our drive in the Rose Bowl.  Was one of them right, and the other wrong.  Were they both wrong?  Could you have known that before the ball was snapped?

This brings us to the title of my post.  Obviously, with the benefit of hindsight, we shouldn't have run between the tackles in the Rose Bowl, and Harbaugh shouldn't have called a pass against Sherman in the NFC championship.  But we can only say that because we have the benefit of hindsight, and because our counterfactual -- that Shaw should have called a reverse or a pass or a bootleg or a read option or anything other than what he called (and that Harbaugh should have called a pass to Davis, or another receiver, or should have simply given the ball to Gore) --  is completely untestable. Maybe Shaw calls a pass to Ty Montgomery lined up against Dennard on an island and Dennard tips it in the end zone for a game sealing interception.  Or Harbaugh gives the ball to Gore, who is stuffed on fourth down. Is there a sequence of play calls that would have led to victory for Stanford or the 49ers?  Almost certainly (and probably a very large permutation of calls).  Is that sequence knowable in advance?  Absolutely not.

I'm not someone who believes coaches should all be above reproach.  They are human.  I certainly like to think about what play "ought to be called" in many situations, and yeah, a fullback dive was not what I would have called on fourth and 1 with 1:46 left and the game on the line.  But I also am not so arrogant to think that the play I would have called in that situation (I was thinking a read option) would have worked any better, or that if it did, that some other play call I would have made in that drive would not have resulted in an interception or fumble or failed fourth down.

The fan in me is of course disappointed in the results.  But the fan in me has also accepted the results and is ok acknowledging that MSU and the Seahawks earned their respective wins.  Both the Rose Bowl and the NFC championship were incredibly entertaining games.

BC

Enough of this reasoned, insightful discourse! - Redrum - 01-21-2014

Can't you just post " Fire Shaw!" and be done with it?

Re: Untestable counterfactuals - BostonCard - 01-21-2014

(01-21-2014, 10:49 PM)Redrum link Wrote:Can't you just post " Fire Shaw!" and be done with it?

Go to the Bootleg for that.

BC

Re: Untestable counterfactuals - JeffInCorvallis - 01-21-2014

Play calls are hailed as genius when they work.  Coaches are pilloried when their play calls fail.  Thus is the way of football.

I guess I'm not going to totally defend Shaw's call on 4th down in the Rose Bowl - I was hoping for a naked bootleg myself - but I'm betting that on the sideline with people barking in your headset and about 20 seconds to call a play it's a touch harder than it looks.  Still, that's why we pay these guys the big bucks.

Re: Untestable counterfactuals - BostonCard - 01-21-2014

Funny... I remember thinking that we should run a naked bootleg against Washington late in the game when we were facing third and short.  I think a conversion would have iced the game.  And, indeed, that was exactly the play Shaw/Bloomberg called.  How brilliant of him!  Except, it turns out both Shaw and I are morons, because the Huskies snuffed it out and we were forced to punt. Thankfully we still won the game when on the ensuing possession we force a fourth down incompletion and kneel down to end the game.  After that, I thought, "next time, don't get cute; just run it".

BC

Re: Untestable counterfactuals - Sea Loon - 01-22-2014

As Jim Harbaugh reportedly said, "Woulda coulda shoulda is undefeated."




Re: Untestable counterfactuals - OutsiderFan - 01-22-2014

I think there is a little bit of difference between the last play calls in the Rose Bowl and NFC CG.

While Shaw made a call that didn't work, he was in fact betting on the team's strong suit.  Now, you can say Stanford hadn't been successful running the ball all game long, so why would it work now, but all it takes is one time, and honestly, how many times had Hewitt been stuffed in those situations?

By contrast, Harbaugh (and Roman) called a play that relied on the weakest ability of the offense to execute.  Kaepernick's two greatest strengths are his legs and throwing "rocket balls" in tight windows.  Touch passes are not his forte.  Therefore, the fade pass is arguably the weakest component of the Niner's offense, and they called on this weakest capability to win the game.

When a call doesn't work, it's ripe for criticism, but as much as both calls didn't work, Shaw and Bloomgren at least went down with their best.  The Niners lost with their weakest hand. 

Re: Untestable counterfactuals - stupac2 - 01-22-2014

(01-22-2014, 09:05 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Touch passes are not his forte.

Unless you have a receiver like Megatron, fade passes just flat-out suck. Maybe this is just me being myopic and confirmationally biased about it, but I would really be happy if every team I root for never threw one again. Maybe in a game with a big lead, or on 1st and and goal from the 3, just so defenders have to respect the route, but fades in critical situations drive me nuts. They never work! And throwing one when the receiver is shorter than the DB is just foolish.

Everyone has that one play that they just completely hate, for me it's the fade. I'm sure that, had I been watching the game, my main reaction would've been "serves them right for throwing that stupid pass."

Re: Untestable counterfactuals - Papa John - 01-22-2014

At least Harbaugh didn't call for the Wildcat with no motion...

Re: Untestable counterfactuals - CJ90 - 01-22-2014

(01-22-2014, 10:13 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=9446.msg82403#msg82403 date=1390406720]Touch passes are not his forte.

Unless you have a receiver like Megatron, fade passes just flat-out suck.
[/quote]

Completely agree, though I might make an occasional exception for . . . Cajustatron.

Re: Untestable counterfactuals - Nan3cy - 01-22-2014

(01-22-2014, 10:35 AM)CJ90 link Wrote:[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=9446.msg82405#msg82405 date=1390410826]
[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=9446.msg82403#msg82403 date=1390406720]Touch passes are not his forte.

Unless you have a receiver like Megatron, fade passes just flat-out suck.
[/quote]

Completely agree, though I might make an occasional exception for . . . Cajustatron.
[/quote]

I don't remember it working all that well with the Toilolotron.

Re: Untestable counterfactuals - Papa John - 01-22-2014

The fade worked OK for Tavita Pritchard and Mark Bradford in the Greatest. Upset. Ever.

Re: Untestable counterfactuals - BostonCard - 01-22-2014

(01-22-2014, 11:11 AM)Papa John link Wrote:The fade worked OK for Tavita Pritchard and Mark Bradford in the Greatest. Upset. Ever.

2nd and Goal at USC 5 Tavita Pritchard pass incomplete to Evan Moore.
3rd and Goal at USC 5 Tavita Pritchard pass incomplete to Evan Moore.
4th and Goal at USC 5 Timeout STANFORD, clock 00:54.
4th and Goal at USC 5 Timeout Usc, clock 00:54.
4th and Goal at USC 5 Stanford penalty 5 yard substitution infraction accepted.
4th and Goal at USC 10 Tavita Pritchard pass complete to Mark Bradford for 10 yards for a TOUCHDOWN. 23 23

It did take three tries to get it right, not that this matters a lick (who knows how any other sequence of plays would have gone, speaking of untestable counterfactuals).

The fade also worked reasonably OK with Toilolo in 2010/2011.  The stats show him with 10 TD's over his last two years, most on fade routes.

BC

Re: Untestable counterfactuals - washingtonismoney - 01-22-2014

Tron was briefly the richest person in the country, though it doesn't have anything to do with fades. (Hot hand in a dice game.)