Football Coaches Are Dumb (e.g. Mike Singletary and San Francisco)

Now the title is an indefensible generalization. Many football coaches are very bright, and almost all of them have motivational skills that the Republican Party, for one, could use. On average, I think they compare very favorably in intelligence with "journalists", "historians" (see next entry), politicians, and people in the social "sciences" in general (yes, even with lawyers, or maybe especially with lawyers, which is the career to which I devoted most of my life). It is not snobbishness that makes me say this about football coaches (some), but observation.

I mahe mentioned before in this blog the infamous "prevent defense, which has cost more coaches more footbal games than any other single "strategy". This, of course, has little to do with "intelligence", and a lot to do with CYA (cover your ass). Obama almost managed to lose the Presidency with this losing strategy. But this losing strategy has one outstanding advantage: It does not lose the game in one single play that makes the coach look stupid, and may demoralize the team. Instead, it loses game after game by Chinese ater torture, as the other team drives right down the field inn several (usually not that many) plays, and scores the winning field goal or touchdown.

I watched Monday Night Football (because I like Kurt Warner and had nothing better to do). Arizona alost blew the game at the end by a combination of the "prevent defense", a too conservative offensive play call on third and 2, and spectacularly dumb penalties (did I mention football players are often not too bright?).

But the spectacular stupidity was that of San Francisco coach Mike Singletary. Because of the dumb decisions by the Arizona coaches and players, SF had the ball inside the Arizona 2 yard line, with 20 seconds to go in the game, and no timeouts. Now you would like to be able to run the ball for a touchdown in that situation, but it is a spectacularly dumb decision to run the ball (SF trailed by 5 points, and a touchdown wins the game).

Why is the decision so dumb? It is strictly a function of number of plays. If you pass the ball, or give your quarterback a run/pass option (with instructions not to run without a clear path to the end zone, you will get 4 plays. If you run the ball, you will get only 2 plays. I don't care how much confidence you have in your running game, or how much lack of confidence in your quarterback (within reason), 4 plays are better than 2 plays. It is just stupid to run the ball. Daryl Royal, the legendary Texas coach (who was the hated enemy when I was growing up in Arkansas, would have passed the ball. That is so, even though Royal was famous for saying that 3 things can happen to you when you pass the ball, and two of them are bad. That did not keep Royal from ordering a fourth down pass against Arkansas (which I still remember), to win a national championship. Smart coaches do smart things (and seem to get the "breaks"). Dumb coaches (at least dumb on this one night) restrict themselves to 2 plays, when they could have 4. SF, of course, lost the game.

Yes, I am being just slightly simplistic, but still accurate. Actually, 4 things can happen with a pass, and 3 of them are ad. The pass can be intercepted. The pass can be incomplete, and the quarterback can be sacked (maybe coming close to running out the entire time in one play, in addition to the loss). Doesn't matter. The odds are still overwhelmingly in favor of 4 plays working more often than 2 plays work. And you can give yourself a run option with the quarterback.

Oo, this was an example of spectacular stupidity by a football coach. Playing the real percentages (not th efalse ones of the "prevent defense") is the way to win football games. This loss was primarily the coach's fault.