More here: "Tony Romo ripped for head-scratching analysis at end of Bengals-Chiefs game" (NY Post).#NeverForget Tony Romo suggesting the Bengals — who were winning by 3 — might want to let the Chiefs score a touchdown from the 9 yard line with under a minute left so they could get the ball back. Perhaps the single worst piece of football analysis ever uttered on air.
— Tim Alberta (@TimAlberta) January 30, 2022
३१ जानेवारी, २०२२
"Perhaps the single worst piece of football analysis ever uttered on air."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
७७ टिप्पण्या:
It's been done before. When it comes to questioning Tony Romo, I wanna see the analytics.
It’s a stunner but explains why some teams lose year after year. Key people in charge of on field strategy have very low football IQs…
Give me Belichick for my pick in the first round every time. You can have Brady and Romo and Aaron and…
Yeah, not really. He was thinking out loud about what was on the table. Since the next couple of plays went poorly for KC, it seems like a crazy idea in hindsight. But at the time he said it, it was something reasonable to look at.
I would rather be 4 points down with 53 seconds than 4 points down with 3 seconds, just saying. But Cincinnati's defense won them that game, and it was right not to diss them and deny them their chance to do it, which they made good on. To suggest that the coach wasn't tempted though is kind of ignorant of football.
What a strange avatar Tim Alberta chose for Twitter.
I think Romo somehow lost track of the score (and the math). I've heard this strategy mentioned in other games in the past, but usually when the team on defense is winning by one or two points.
Romo is a moron with an obnoxious voice attached to it. Yet the network, in it's genius, signed him to a massive contract. I literally have to turn the volume off and find a streaming version of the game to listen to that backs up the video from CBS.
Aside from that, I love that the Bengals won.
I wanna see the analytics
Hood point. Me, too. The stats do come up with some head scratchers and that would certainly be one of them…
Downing the ball on the one would have been like the "Underarm Bowling Incident" which still engenders bad blood between fans of cricket in NZ and OZ. Or at least did when I lived in Sydney for a year in the '90s, it wouldn't be as bad though, because it wouldn't completely deny the other team a say in the outcome. Actually the kneel down play is like underarm bowling, I guess.
Steve Spurier once let the opposition score in order to buy time to get his QB another touchdown. It was widely viewed as a no-class move because he was doing it to run up stats in a blowout.
Tony Romo sees the game better than the other announcers who are mostly journalists.
His success as an undrafted free agent quarterback was due in large part to his intuitive understanding of the game.
The people making these comments are typical of those who look up. They can only see so far.
Belichick tried this tactic in 2012 against the Giants in Super Bowl XLVI. It didn’t work.
Any football game not played in hopelessly bad conditions (sub zero blizzard restricting TV visibility, deep mud) is not worth watching.
"Romo is a moron"
Remember that Kansas City game he called where he got the K.C. coordinator fired by calling his every play in advance based on the defense and how the offense lined up? He might be obnoxious, but he's no moron. Of course, it's possible that the Chiefs shared some of their strategy with Romo prior to the game, like teams often do with broadcasters, and he couldn't be trusted with it, that's another take. I only thought of that on the death of Madden, when Bill Cower mentioned how much coaches trusted Coach Madden, and they would often share stuff with him, and he never sold them out.
That's just speculation on my part, but Romo is no moron. He's a fan of the game that he knows inside and out. I really enjoy the games he calls. He only offered it as speculation, not as "coach is an idiot if he doesn't do this!" As speculation, here we are talking about it the next day. Job well done.
It was an interesting option to air but he kept on talking about it as if it were a tough decision that the Bengals coach had to make. Don't think it was. Letting KC get a TD would mean that the Bengals would be 4 points behind and need to score a TD with little time on the clock. They were moving the ball well but that's still risky. I think trying to hold KC to a FG made sense as they Bengals were the much better team in the second half and there was a good chance of them prevailing in OT.
I have become a Bengals fan too, during these playoffs. As a Bills fan, I loved seeing those fans who probably jolted seismographs from Chicago to Phoenix with their cheer on winning the farking coin toss, which is the only way they beat the Bills, then file out silently.
I also see that the Bengals beat the Chiefs fair and square, and did something the Bills couldn't do, for all the touchdown passes, and a little bitterness at the loss last week went away. The Bills are a little like the Dan Fouts Chargers right now, or the Dan Marino Dolphins.
I would rather be 4 points down with 53 seconds than 4 points down with 3 seconds, just saying
…but under the Romo scenario the choice is to trade the lead for a few, unknown amount of ‘extra’ seconds on the clock, but surely less than a minute. How much time does the offense need to get into field goal range from the kickoff? Tom Brady needs about 90 seconds and two capable receivers…and the offense needs a touchdown, the field won’t do it…
Like you said, I wanna see the analytics.
Ann's Packers employed this very strategy in the final minutes of the Super Bowl against the Broncos. But she probably didn't watch that game because that was before the NFL neutered itself in order to attract the persons with a vagina demographic.
One example from the 'what would Belichick do?' file was in the second Super Bowl against the Giants. Giants had the ball at maybe the Pats 5 with maybe a minute left and Pats with no timeouts, Giants down 2 so a FG would win. Pats opened a lane and Giants RB ran through it. He realized at the last minute what was happening and tried to hold up but his momentum carried him into the end zone. Pats ended up losing anyway
As a Ravens fan I get no joy from a Bengals win. But they played a great half of football. And I'll admit the thought of letting KC score did cross my mind at that point as a game strategy.
Not the best advice but not a head scratcher. Seems like clickbait, but at least it isn’t stirring the pot of war with Russia and the Ukraine. I’ll take Romo over Biden and Harris.
Concussions might explain a lot, but don't we all have moments when we are confronted with "what to do" situations and some cool thing we saw on TV or some neat idea somebody told us about at a party comes to mind, even though it doesn't fit the situation?
I think the real problem is the US sports announcers just can't shut up, so saying head-scratching stuff is standard fare. How often have you heard an analysts say a play in the first quarter is critical or game-turning? I wish they'd take a hint from British announcers who are much less hyperbolic and let fans watch without blah-blah-blah.
The current crop of play-by-play analysts are banal motormouths who rarely shut up long enough to let us enjoy the game. If it wasn’t for the huge volume of verbal diarrhea the tendency to use jargon and insider-speak (he missed the cover four, the pick-and-punch didn’t work, etc.) strung in incomprehensible combinations would put me off. But nobody beats the “color commentator” position for dumb shit inserted far too often. OMG! The best part of going to games is the lack of yacking. PA announcers at least keep it to just the facts for the most part.
The Professor’s wide ranging interests surprise again.
There are no “analytics” — what would define the dataset?
Bengals had shut out the Chiefs all half and had stopped them at the goal line at the end of the first half (hey, I found a dataset!)
Assuming the PAT, then Bengals would have to drive not for a field goal but for a touchdown. At the end of the Patriots/ Seahawks Super Bowl, when the Patriots had a 4 point lead and the Seahawks were on their goal line with a minute left, Belichick didn’t even stop the clock, much less let the Seahawks score when the Patriots would “only” have needed a field goal to tie the game had Seattle scored. A field goal would have done nothing for the Bengals.
I’d like to think the Bengals would have ignored any coaching instruction to surrender a touchdown. After all, they wouldn’t have to worry about repercussions since the coaching staff would be fired that evening.
Tony Romo got to live his boyhood dream of playing QB in the NFL, for America's team the Dallas Cowboys no less. He made millions doing it, and now is the top paid NFL color guy making millions more. He has a super hot wife who has given him three fine children. And he's scratch golfer.
So how many fucks do you think he has to give about what some hack political writer from a dying publication has to say about his analysis?
Watching the Bengals go to Super Bowl again brought back memories of Sammy Wyche.
There are situations where you would want the other team to score a touchdown even if you are in the lead. Suppose the Bengals were up by two and Bengals have no timeouts. First and ten and ball on the nine. 2 min left. Odds KC will score at least 3 points is prob. over 95%. If they score TD on first play they go up by 5, but Bengals get a real opportunity to come down and score a td - certainly odds better than 5%.
Here KC had a first and goal from the 5. What are the odds they would get a touchdown there assuming Bengals tried to stop them. Prob. around 75%. And what are the odds they would score a TD and still leave significant time on the clock. IDK.
It's all about analytics. In the situation yesterday the answer seemed pretty clear. But Romo never said that Bengals should let them score - just that it was something to be considered.
But that doesn't change the fact that Romo (a Wisconsin boy) is one of the best announcers out there.
My question - I thought Trump told his supporters that they are not permitted to watch the NFL. Are you guys disobeying the Supreme Leader? Naughty naughty.
Sounds like Romo has a bright future as a Republican strategist.
I don't think I've ever before participated in this mythic thing I've always heard about: Monday morning quarterbacking.
Cincinnati defense was great in the second half.
Given that, it was bad analysis. Romo analysis is usually very good.
Mahomes was holding the ball too long.
The Chiefs trying to get a touchdown at end of first half was bad decision.
Jump in, Ann. It’s fun! Dazzle yourself with your own brilliance…
"I've heard this strategy mentioned in other games in the past, but usually when the team on defense is winning by one or two points."
Where it makes sense is first and goal at the 1 yard line (like after pass interference), and under two minutes to play, and the game tied or the team on defense one or two points ahead. In that situation (depending on time outs), the offense can take the clock down to nothing and kick a game-winning FG. But giving up a 3-point lead from the 9 yard line, when you can only lose to a TD (because a FG would only tie the game), is ridiculous.
Romo has a tremendous ability to sense play calls and their likelihood of success. That's not quite the same skill as situational football at the end of the game. And he has something going for him in this analysis: last week's back-and-forth game between the Chiefs and Bills would suggest that the idea wasn't crazy after all. In games like that, having the ball last is a big deal, and the Chief's defense had previously shown they are porous in two-minute drill.
So even if we think him wrong, calling the idea ridiculous is itself ridiculous.
rehajm: "It’s a stunner but explains why some teams lose year after year. Key people in charge of on field strategy have very low football IQs…
Give me Belichick for my pick in the first round every time. You can have Brady and Romo and Aaron and…"
Belichick is the very coach who directed his Patriots to let Giants running back Bradshaw score a TD with under a minute to go, because Belichick had complete confidence in Brady.
"What about Superbowl XLVI?
When asked if “he allowed the Giants to score that touchdown at the end”, head coach Bill Belichick replied “Right.” After the follow up question on his though process, he responded, “Ball inside the 10-yard line, a 90 percent field goal conversion (in that territory).” In the most important game of the NFL season, Belichick allowed the Giants to score the go ahead touchdown with just over a minute left to play.
And he should have. Ahmad Bradshaw made the wrong play by crossing the goal line. On screen, it even looks like he at least thought about taking a knee at the one-yard line. Instead, he falls over and crosses the plane to score the Superbowl-winning touchdown.
But no one knew that his score would decide the game. Before he ran the ball in, the Giants had 0.94 win probability (per Advanced NFL Stats). After the play, the Giants’ win probability dropped to 0.85."
Ann Althouse: "I don't think I've ever before participated in this mythic thing I've always heard about: Monday morning quarterbacking."
Sure you have. Everyday of your life, because Monday morning quarterbacking is simply post hoc second guessing of anything.
back in the days of Jim Walden, Iowa State was up against 4th ranked (or such) Oklahoma
(Iowa State was like, bottom of the big 8)
Some Report asked Coach Walden; "What Will It Take, For Iowa State to Beat Oklahoma this Sat?")
And Coach Walden showed, that Unlike Others; HE understood the game, when he answered;
"Score More Points Than Them"
THIS, is the Fundamental Truth of football;
your best bet (your Very best bet) for beating your opponent, is to "Score More Points Than Them"
Many people lose sight of this
ps. (the Cyclones lost, like 52 to 3)
I would say almost all sports analysts are terrible.
Punt on 4th down. Why? Statistics show that going for it pays bigger dividends.
I'm showing my age.
Back in the original iteration of Monday night Football with Howard Cosell.
for a couple of seasons they put Alex Karras in the booth to do color. Cosell would give the down and distance and explain the 'logical' next offensive call. Karras would interject that "maybe not just yet. If you have been paying attention the last couple times they pulled the weak side guard, the linebacker got caught up in traffic. Look for a dive here to pickup a first down, or it might go big of the D misreads the tight end like they have for a full quarter now"
More often than not, Karras made Cosell look like a fool, when the exact play predicted by Karras, played out seconds later.
"Ann Althouse said...
I don't think I've ever before participated in this mythic thing I've always heard about: Monday morning quarterbacking."
You're kidding right?
Tim alberta, is nearly as stupid on other matters, romo wants participation trophies
"Monday morning quarterbacking."
Before the designated hitter, questioning the manager's decisions were a big part of the fun of baseball, but now people would rather see some guy knock a ball over the centerfield fence who can't do anything else, than contemplate the intellectual side of baseball.
Did he fixate on this strategy and talk it into the ground? Romo did that a few games ago; it was the Bengals and KC on Jan 2; tie game, time is short and Cinn has ball close to KC goal line. Romo went on and on and on about how Cinn should purposefully NOT score a TD in order to eat clock and give the ball back to Mahomes. It's a possibility, though the problem with these too-clever-by-half strategies is the game is very unpredictable. They're likely to come back and bite you. Anyways, the bad part was listening to Romo beat this idea into the ground. We got it already, Tony.
Considering how the Bills/Chiefs game went last week, it wasn't a bad suggestion.
Even Richard Roma thought Tony Romo's idea was bad.
If KC gets a TD while running off most of the clock, game is very likely over. If KC gets a FG (which is essentially assured at that point) while running off the clock, there is a 50% chance they win the coin toss in overtime, etc.
It's a logical approach - whether it would be the best statistical approach or not depends on the likelihood of your defense stopping KC in overtime.
Green Bay allowed Denver to score near the end of the Super Bowl rather than letting them run out the clock, which gave Green Bay a tiny chance at coming back. Belichick once went for first down on fourth and long rather than punting, because he was concerned about being able to stop the other team if they got the ball back.
It's been done before. When it comes to questioning Tony Romo, I wanna see the analytics
I'm having a very hard time coming up with any scenario where this works other than when Belichick did it in the Super Bowl (up 2, only one timeout, opponent with 1st down within field goal range, 60 seconds left). If you don't allow them to score, they can run down the clock and kick a winning fg at the buzzer. Worth noting that this didn't work.
Very different from the KC situation because a FG only results in OT, whereas a TD would require that Cincy also score a TD. Holding them to a FG is a heckuvalot easier than scoring a TD. See, for example, the Pats loss to the Giants, supra.
Tony Romo was framing his vast experience in winning the big game. LOL
I missed the comment because I was actually watching the game and not listening to the announcers. Both games were exciting and well worth watching.
Having proved himself, Romo may be tapped by the Democrats to run for Congress.
The contrast between the Cincinnati defense and the Bills' defense the week before was the outstanding feature of the game.
>But Cincinnati's defense won them that game<
Well, perhaps, but they had tremendous help from SF's pass "defense", which leaked like a sieve. SF simply gave LA mid-range completed passes all night long. Their embarrassing performance was highlighted by Jaquiski Tartt's muffed easy interception in the final minutes. Had he caught that crip, Niners would have won.
Keep in mind in the Belichick Super Bowl scenario his team was behind. Romo was talking about giving up the lead. Romo may have knowledge of the TD percentage being quite high from short yardage and therefore worthwhile to contemplate giving up the lead…but wow…
…its also the kind of decision that, when it fails, it permanently ends your career as a coach.
I thought I heard him say that. Even I know that makes no sense. And he was a star quarterback for the Cowboys?
"I thought Trump told his supporters that they are not permitted to watch the NFL. Are you guys disobeying the Supreme Leader? Naughty naughty."
Maybe you should stop believing everything the people who tell you what to think are telling you.
I thought the Chiefs might have lost the game on the last play of the first half. Patrick lost track of both the clock and his time-outs, and threw the ball in the field of play with three Bengals waiting for Hill at the goal line. Running the ball north south had a better chance of success than what was done, Taking the three points plus the second half kickoff would have maintained the momentum. Instead, the pass interference call ironically worked in the Bengals favor. The Chiefs got greedy.
"Let them score" is not an obscure tactic. It has been used before...to lead to victory.
But in this case, it was an idea to be flirted with and then immediately dispensed with.
This is another one of those "furthest thing from the truth" cases. I would more put it as Romo was not very far from right, still wrong, out of deference to the great defensive play, that game, of Cincinnati, but it wasn't a total "boneheaded" idea, and there were plenty of likely scenarios where KC could have scored and given The Bengals back the ball without enough time to manage any response. Not to mention what the Bills did to KC in the final two minutes just last week.
Blogger Assistant Village Idiot said...
Romo has a tremendous ability to sense play calls and their likelihood of success. That's not quite the same skill as situational football at the end of the game. And he has something going for him in this analysis: last week's back-and-forth game between the Chiefs and Bills would suggest that the idea wasn't crazy after all. In games like that, having the ball last is a big deal, and the Chief's defense had previously shown they are porous in two-minute drill.
So even if we think him wrong, calling the idea ridiculous is itself ridiculous.
Well said
As an older, late to the party female football fan, very much still learning the intricacies of the game - I LOVE Tony Romo. I learn a lot from the games he commentates. And I love his enthusiasm. Always very happy when he's calling a game I am watching.
Bengals won.
Can we please stop talking about the Chiefs "dynasty" and Mahomes as "soon to be greater than Brady".
Please?
Announcers I like are few and far between. One constant thing Romo does is announce, "now we got a game going on". Oh, really? Im watching a game?
Bring back Lindsey Nelson and his checkered suits.
jim5301: "My question - I thought Trump told his supporters that they are not permitted to watch the NFL. Are you guys disobeying the Supreme Leader? Naughty naughty."
Wow. You actually wrote that and then hit "Publish Your Comment".
Almost as if you were proud of that comment.
Amazing.
Given the ball was on the 9 yard line, that was pretty stupid. But if it was on the 1 or 2 yard line, the analysis would've made sense.
I'm sure NFL teams have all the stats. Number of times a NFL team scores from the 9 vs. scoring from the 1 or 2.
Tony throw football good (well, comparatively).
Tony not scholar.
Tony not big brain.
Don't be like Tony.
"I'm sure NFL teams have all the stats. Number of times a NFL team scores from the 9 vs. scoring from the 1 or 2."
I'd like to see the stat that tells coaches to throw the challenge flag over a 5-yard play in the 1st quarter. Drives me nuts…
"Mahomes was holding the ball too long."
As a Chiefs fan I cringed. Mahomes has had great success scrambling then throwing. There were a couple of key instances where his self (over) confidence let him down.
That advice does make zero sense. That strategy only makes sense if you are leading by less than 3 points. Maybe Romo forgot that the Bengals were up by 3.
Romo is at his best as a predictor of where the next play is going to go. Probably the best ever.
In this case, he was giving out possible scenarios. The criticism is unwarranted.
As an aside, the network gives Romo and his broadcast partner the top game every week for a reason. He knows what he talking about.
Monday morning quarterbacking? Ann, you do that everyday, just not about sports.
If USC let Vince Young and Texas score about 20 seconds earlier they probably would have been the national champs.
Are people not allowed to brainstorm, to think out loud, and to consider various options any more? An idea isn't necessarily a recommendation.
On a side note.
Instead of watching the Football game, we went to the Sunday matinee to watch "American Underdog" The Kurt Warner story. He is an Iowa guy, played at division 2 UNI and sat on the bench for 4 years. Had a great 5th year and had draft talk, but never happened.
His story of failure, Stocking grocery shelves, moving on to playing Arena Football and earning a $100 bill for every touchdown, and path to the NFL and success.
They did a good job, moving, a very emotional roller coaster ride for viewers.
I think KC made a mistake punting in OT. The Bengals were moving the ball so well that KC should have decided to use all 4 downs no matter what, because if they didn't score first the Bengals were very likely to. Surprised that option wasn't talked about.
My question - I thought Trump told his supporters that they are not permitted to watch the NFL. Are you guys disobeying the Supreme Leader? Naughty naughty.
Dumas.
I stopped watching the NFL when they started the kneeling crap back in 2016. That was before Trump said a single word about it.
You do realize there's an entire world out here that has nothing to do with Trump, right?
Right?
>>One constant thing Romo does is announce, "now we got a game going on". Oh, really? Im watching a game?
How about my pet peeve, which you hear during almost every game now: "He put his foot in the ground!"
What were the other options, I wonder?
>>I think KC made a mistake punting in OT. The Bengals were moving the ball so well that KC should have decided to use all 4 downs no matter what, because if they didn't score first the Bengals were very likely to.
Considering that the 2nd team to possess only needs a field goal, that makes a lot of sense.
Also, the team winning the coin toss in overtime in the playoffs are now 10-2, 7-2 on the first possession.
The coin flip is supposed to be a 50/50 proposition.
If you flip a coin 9 times and it's 7:2 heads, it's not exactly a fair coin.
The strategy the Romo suggested is like giving up a run to get the double play in baseball. It may work for you, but it is a risk. Anyway, did anyone else catch Romo's mentioning why waiting to kick a field goal on fourth down isn't always a good idea. Something about the holder mishandling the snap.... At least he can laugh at himself. As a Cowboys' fan, I can laugh at it now.
Seeing the blog post title put me in mind of the end of Super Bowl XXXVI (2002), the Patriots vs. the Rams. If I recall, John Madden noted that with just minutes to go in the 4th quarter and the score tied, Tom Brady should just take a knee and go into overtime. I suspect that was conventional wisdom, but we Pats fans, having watched the almost magical precision of Adam Vinatieri's field goal kicking that season, said, "Nah." And he boomed another beauty through the uprights.
No surprise. Romo has a long history of screwing up in the late- or post-season.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा