Upon Further Review: Mangini Made The RIGHT Calls

[SAR I]

We're talking about this in multiple threads, so let's get it all in one place.

There are two Mangini issues tonight:

1. "Why did he pass up the TD attempt with 1:43 on the clock and a 4th and 10 situation?"

Answer: The Jets wound up having plenty of time to score the needed second FG. There was so much time, in fact, that Cleveland had time to score a TD, convert an extra point, and kickoff, too. Eric kept the Jets alive in the game instead of going for the TD and losing the game right there on that play.

2. "Why did Mangini risk a second onsides kick with 1:40 on the clock with all of his timeouts left?"

Answer: Since the Browns only needed one first down to end the game, it did not matter whether the attempt at that first down occured at the +30 or the -30 yard line. Either way, a 3-and-out gets the Jets the ball back. Additionally, any pee wee coach would be crucified for not trying to keep possession by trying an onsides kick when needing 2 scores with under 2 minutes to play. He got the first score and went for the onsides kick just like any other coach would do needing 2 scores with under 2 minutes to play.

One can see how the combination of events makes things look like Mangini wasn't thinking straight, but both situations looked at individually show that he actually got it right.

SAR I

[SAR I]

[QUOTE=CTM;2255701]Immaterial.

If the Browns hadn't scored a TD there, and Lewis was dropped after a 5 yeard gain, the browns simply would've run the clock out..

The only reason we got the ball back there is BECAUSE the browns scored a TD[/QUOTE]

If the Jets stopped the 3rd and 4, we get the ball back with 1:30 on the clock. We'd get Leon Washington a touch on the punt, and then we'd get Kellen and Jericho touches for the winning FG.

Nugent [I]did [/I]have time to get that second FG attempt. That's the point. The coach put his team in a position to win. He extended the game. He didn't lose it on a risky 4th and 10 with all his timeouts and 2 minutes on the clock.

SAR I

[IM3]

[QUOTE=SAR I;2255707]If the Jets stopped the 3rd and 4, we get the ball back with 1:30 on the clock. We'd get Leon Washington a touch on the punt, and then we'd get Kellen and Jericho touches for the winning FG.

Nugent [I]did [/I]have time to get that second FG attempt. That's the point. The coach put his team in a position to win. He extended the game. He didn't lose it on a risky 4th and 10 with all his timeouts and 2 minutes on the clock.

SAR I[/QUOTE]

They wouldn't kick to Leon, they would pin us deep, with the worst case scenario for the Browns being a touchback.

Nugent only had time for the second FG because Lewis scored a TD instead of getting tackled in play which would have let the Browns kneel down to end the game.

[U]Mangini made three bad "statistical strategy decisions" IMO[/U]

1) Kicking the first onsides kick (worked out)
2) Kicking the FG and eschewing the 4th and 10 (worked out/made the FG)
3) kicking onsided instead of kicking deep (failed)

[CTM]

[QUOTE=SAR I;2255707]If the Jets stopped the 3rd and 4, we get the ball back with 1:30 on the clock. We'd get Leon Washington a touch on the punt, and then we'd get Kellen and Jericho touches for the winning FG.

Nugent [I]did [/I]have time to get that second FG attempt. That's the point. The coach put his team in a position to win. He extended the game. He didn't lose it on a risky 4th and 10 with all his timeouts and 2 minutes on the clock.

SAR I[/QUOTE]

Ok, but the foundation of your argument "we had enough time to kick the second FG", was only possibly because the Browns did score a TD, putting the game out of reach. If Jamal Lewis picked up the first down and then fell down, the Browns would've simply run out the clock - game over..

If the plan was hold to a 3 and out all along, why not go for the win and then "plan" on holding to a 3 and out after the failed conversion, leaving us in much better field position then we would've had if the browns punted from our 40..

Mangini kicked the FG planning to recover the onside kick. That much is clear..

[chirorob]

I didn't have a problem with how he got points at the end of the game.

4th and 10, probably not going to get it. get some points, and try to get the ball back.

Of course, if the Jets could get points out of a first and goal from the 1 against the worst D in the league, this would be an easier discussion.

[SAR I]

[B]Ikeyman3 The Jets only got the ball back because they gave up the game ending TD, for all intents and purposes. If Lewis takes a knee after he gets the first down the Jets never get the ball back and lose by two. [/B]

...and if Lewis doesn't get the first down, the Browns punt and we get the ball back with 1:30 on the clock. We don't need to fantasize on what might have happened or if there was enough time left. Nugent did get a chance at a second FG and he hit it.

[B]Yes, so Mangini is saying the odds are better that we recover an onsides kick than getting a defensive stop. Which is bad logic, IMO. [/B]

No, what Mangini is saying is that since 1 first down ends the game anyway, better to take a shot at the onsides kick and keeping posession since the worst the situation would be is having the Browns recover on the 30 yard line still needing just 1 first down to end the game.

[B]The results did show that he was "right", as the Defense didn't get the stop, but the "probable" play would have been to kick deep. Because once the Browns recover the onsided kick the best we could do is get the ball at our 20 with no TO's left with 75-80 seconds left. That is assuming that the Browns do not try a long FG.[/B]

That's the beauty of the situation. If he kicked it deep and we get the 3-and-out, we get the ball at the 30 with 1:30 and no timeouts. If he went for the onsides kick and we get the 3-and-out, we get the ball around the same spot with 1:30 and no timeouts.

Had the D gotten the 3-and-out after the onsides kick failed, we're only talking about a 10 yard differential in field position and that's a good risk to take and thus why the onsides kick was the right call.

SAR I

[thebigragu]

[QUOTE=SAR I;2255707]If the Jets stopped the 3rd and 4, we get the ball back with 1:30 on the clock. We'd get Leon Washington a touch on the punt, and then we'd get Kellen and Jericho touches for the winning FG.

Nugent [I]did [/I]have time to get that second FG attempt. That's the point. The coach put his team in a position to win. He extended the game. He didn't lose it on a risky 4th and 10 with all his timeouts and 2 minutes on the clock.

SAR I[/QUOTE]

Wrong we ARE NOT playing for a playoff spot. We are the spoiler for other teams.And we are coaching like we are playing for home field advantage pathetic at best

[SAR I]

[QUOTE=Ikeyman3;2255715]They wouldn't kick to Leon, they would pin us deep, with the worst case scenario for the Browns being a touchback.

Nugent only had time for the second FG because Lewis scored a TD instead of getting tackled in play which would have let the Browns kneel down to end the game.

Think about it the odds of converting the 4th and 10 >>>>> odds of recoveing one onsides kick/stopping the Browns 3 and out

then after we kick the FG

odds of winning when kicking deep > odds of onsides kicking[/QUOTE]

Right, touchback. So instead of getting the ball on our 30 after the Browns punt from Jets territory, we get the ball on our 20 after attempting an onsides kick.

It's 10 yards of field position vs. keeping the ball. A good diceroll if you ask me.

SAR I

[SAR I]

[QUOTE=CTM;2255716]Ok, but the foundation of your argument "we had enough time to kick the second FG", was only possibly because the Browns did score a TD, putting the game out of reach. If Jamal Lewis picked up the first down and then fell down, the Browns would've simply run out the clock - game over..

If the plan was hold to a 3 and out all along, why not go for the win and then "plan" on holding to a 3 and out after the failed conversion, leaving us in much better field position then we would've had if the browns punted from our 40..

Mangini kicked the FG planning to recover the onside kick. That much is clear..[/QUOTE]

We're not talking about player execution here. We're talking about coaching strategy.

The two Mangini coaching decisions were good ones if you look at it.

He decided his chances were better at getting 2 field goals with 1:43 left than getting the TD.

And, in the end, he did indeed get his 2 field goals within that time. If our D had held on that 3rd and 4, we'd have gotten the ball back with time to get a Nugent FG. That proves that his coaching decisions were sound.

SAR I

[SAR I]

[QUOTE=Ikeyman3;2255715]

[U]Mangini made three bad "statistical strategy decisions" IMO[/U]

3) kicking onsided instead of kicking deep (failed)[/QUOTE]

The failure is accurate, but the reason is not.

What failed was the D getting a 3-and-out. That happened at the Jets 30 instead of the Browns 30. But in either field location, our D getting that 3-and-out puts the Jets in a position to win the game on a FG.

That's good coaching.

SAR I

[IM3]

[QUOTE=SAR I;2255721]Right, touchback. So instead of getting the ball on our 30 after the Browns punt from Jets territory, we get the ball on our 20 after attempting an onsides kick.

It's 10 yards of field position vs. keeping the ball. A good diceroll if you ask me.

SAR I[/QUOTE]

[B]first situation[/B]: A 3 and out after a onsided kick that failed
Best case "realistic" scenario: Touchback
Most likely scenatio: a fair catch or kick out of bounds from about the 10
Worst case: punt inside the 5

[B]second situation[/B]: A 3 and out after kicking deep

Best case: Leon returns a punt to about the 50
Realistic: We get the ball around our 35
Worst case: Leon doesn't field the punt and it takes a huge Browns bounce and clock runs off.

I like situation two better.

[jetfan1983]

Good post. I'm not going to criticize the decision. Mangini had to weigh the liklihood of each way to win the game.

[U]Scenario 1[/U]
a) Convert the 4th and 10, in the bad weather; and
b) Score a TD from inside the Browns' 30 yard line with plenty of time on the clock.

[U]Scenario 2[/U]
a) Make a 40 yard FG; and either
1. Recover the onside kick, drive 30 yards into FG range, make another FG, all with Plenty of time on the clock; or
2. Lose the onside kick, stop the Cleveland 3 and out, drive from deep in our own territory into FG range with around 1:20 to go in the game, Make another FG


With the benefit of hindsight, I think Mangini would opt to go on the 4th down if given the same scenario again. It wasn't such a bad decision to warrant criticism

[SAR I]

[QUOTE=thebigragu;2255719]Wrong we ARE NOT playing for a playoff spot. We are the spoiler for other teams.And we are coaching like we are playing for home field advantage pathetic at best[/QUOTE]

Okay, you're talking about our playcalling all game long and on that we agree.

But if you're talking about how Mangini handled the 4th and long with 1:43 on the clock and all his timeouts left, sorry, you're off base here.

SAR I

[jetstream23]

With 3 TO's I like the call to kick the FG with the way, to that point, our D had been playing. Should have had the Brownies 3 and out but Jamal busted one. If they punt to us we only need the FG, not the TD. I'd take my chances with that. I see no way that we convert that 4th and 10. AND, here's the important part, EVEN IF WE DO convert the 4th and 10 we still aren't assured a TD and could end up in a FG position again on a 4th and long but would NOW HAVE CONSIDERABLY LESS TIME ON THE CLOCK so we'd be forcing ourselves to go for it on every 4th down remaining. I like the decision to take the points, keep the clock and TO's and play field position football there.

EDIT: Not an easy decision and by the conversation here it is very debateable. But it is a very defendable strategy.

[IM3]

[QUOTE=SAR I;2255727]We're not talking about player execution here. We're talking about coaching strategy.

The two Mangini coaching decisions were good ones if you look at it.

He decided his chances were better at getting 2 field goals with 1:43 left than getting the TD.

And, in the end, he did indeed get his 2 field goals within that time. If our D had held on that 3rd and 4, we'd have gotten the ball back with time to get a Nugent FG. That proves that his coaching decisions were sound.

SAR I[/QUOTE]

He only got his two FG's because his "strategy" of not trusting his defense to get a 3 and out worked.

[SAR I]

[QUOTE=Ikeyman3;2255730][B]first situation[/B]: A 3 and out after a onsided kick that failed
Best case "realistic" scenario: Touchback
Most likely scenatio: a fair catch or kick out of bounds from about the 10
Worst case: punt inside the 5

[B]second situation[/B]: A 3 and out after kicking deep

Best case: Leon returns a punt to about the 50
Realistic: We get the ball around our 35
Worst case: Leon doesn't field the punt and it takes a huge Browns bounce and clock runs off.

I like situation two better.[/QUOTE]

I like situation two better as well, but you can't throw Mangini under the bus for trying the riskier move, especially since a) the first onsides attempt went so well and b) he wound up having enough time to get that second FG with the worse of the two field position options anyway.

SAR I

[CTM]

[QUOTE=SAR I;2255727]We're not talking about player execution here. We're talking about coaching strategy.

The two Mangini coaching decisions were good ones if you look at it.

[B]He decided his chances were better at getting 2 field goals with 1:43 left than getting the TD.[/B]
[/quote]
Ok so:

Convert a 4th down

vs.

Kick Fg successfully & recover onside kick & move the ball 30 yards & kick another FG..

OR

Kick Fg successfully & hold the browns to 3 and out & move the ball 50 yards & kick another FG

--

It's fine to argue which is more likely, what you can't do is use what happened after the Browns DID score a TD to prove your point. It makes no sense.

What I laid out above is pretty much what Mangini should've been considering at the time. Nothing that ended up happening is relevant to that decision..





[quote]
And, in the end, he did indeed get his 2 field goals within that time. If our D had held on that 3rd and 4, we'd have gotten the ball back with time to get a Nugent FG. That proves that his coaching decisions were sound.

SAR I[/QUOTE]

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Argue the merits of the decision, don't try and prove it's worthiness based on what actually happened while ignoring 1 crucial plays result. It makes no sense.

[red75bronco]

Why not go for it on 4th down against one of the worst defenses in the league instead of putting it in the hands of the other worst defense in the league against a good offense. Doesn't make sense. go for it on 4th down. Take a damn chance once this season instead of playing like a bunch of damn pansies. I am now on the fire Mangini bandwagon.

[SAR I]

[QUOTE=Ikeyman3;2255735]He only got his two FG's because his "strategy" of not trusting his defense to get a 3 and out worked.[/QUOTE]

His strategy was to force his defense to get a 3-and-out no matter what. He just decided that the risk of 10 or 20 yards of desperation field position was worth it for a second onsides attempt.

And, again, he turned out to be right as he had enough time to bake a cake in that 1:30 of remaining playing time.

The point here, big picture, is that Mangini's decisions tonight were no worse than his decisions around Pennington, Vilma, schemes, and the other stuff we've accepted all season long. No less risky than last year's decisions that led to a 10 win playoff season.

For those that are using tonight's playcalling as some lynchpin to run Eric out of town, that's just not right. This wasn't some severely bad playcalling at the end. If anything, he was aggressive. Not some horrible Hermball bumble.

SAR I

[IM3]

[QUOTE=jetfan1983;2255732]Good post. I'm not going to criticize the decision. Mangini had to weigh the liklihood of each way to win the game.

[U]Scenario 1[/U]
a) Convert the 4th and 10, in the bad weather; and
b) Score a TD from inside the Browns' 30 yard line with plenty of time on the clock.

[U]Scenario 2[/U]
a) Make a 40 yard FG; and either
1. Recover the onside kick, drive 30 yards into FG range, make another FG, all with Plenty of time on the clock; or
2. Lose the onside kick, stop the Cleveland 3 and out, drive from deep in our own territory into FG range with around 1:20 to go in the game, Make another FG


With the benefit of hindsight, I think Mangini would opt to go on the 4th down if given the same scenario again. It wasn't such a bad decision to warrant criticism[/QUOTE]

Good post.

However there are two decisions with two scenarios each

First decision : 4th and 10

A: Kick the FG (not a gimmie) ~80% success rate
B: Go for it ~20% success rate

Now a conversion almost guarantees victory there, while a FG needs an additional sequence of events to occur to win.

Second decision" Kick deep or onsides kick

A: Onsides kick: Probablility of recovery ~ 18%
B: Kick Deep, getting a stop when you know three runs are coming should be simple. ~75%

Now in choice A, you are more likely to not succeed, however you still will stop them 75% of the time meaning you get the ball back, however in worse field position. I would say your normal field position in that situation would be at your 15 yard line. If you kick deep your normal field position would be at the 35, now do you think that 20 yards of position is worth risking for the chance of the recovery of the onsides kick? Where an onsides kick would give us ample time and TO's to win the game with a FG, Id say that would give us a 85% win rate.

At the 35 with 75 seconds left down 2 you'd probably win 65& of the time, at the 15 I'd put it around 35%.