Sunday, January 14, 2007
The Smart play isn't always the winning play !
I'd like to talk about a key play in the Bears/Seattle game.
Early in the first quarter Grossman was facing a difficult 3rd and 10 situation to keep a drive alive. The Bears offense had called a pass play, and the defense was playing a man under coverage, which was man to man coverage locked up on his receivers with safety help up top. Grossman throws a pass intended for his inside slot receiver Rasheen Davis, who ran a skinny post on Seahawks corner Jordan Babineaux.
Babineaux was in good postion and almost made the interception. The ball slips through his hands which allows Rasheen Davis to make the catch and run for 37 years.
Troy Aikman who was calling the game said it was a " great throw by Grossman". This is what annoys me, people are so focused on what happened, and not the probability of what happened. There is a good saying that " we are all geniuses after the fact". If a field goal kicker misses an extra point, you don't say " they should have went for 2", because 99% of extra points are kicked through, while maybe somewhere around 50% of two point conversions are made. This brings me to MY FAVORITE SAYING in that " The smart play isn't always the winning play". When Tony Romo bobbled the snap on a chip shot field goal attempt, you can't question Parcells for kicking the normally easy Field goal to take the lead. That was failed execution by the players, on a play that you would pretty much call automatic. Now Parcells made the " smart play", because 99 times out of 100 Gramatica kicks that field goal. However Bill Parcells didn't make the " winning play or right play" because his players didn't execute.
The early 3rd and 10 throw by Grossman could have easily went either way. On that specific play I'd probably say that it's intercepted more often than it is completed. It was kind of surprising to see him try and force that ball to his receiver, but it worked and the crowd and announcers loved it. Now if that same pass were intercepted, I'm positive that Joe Buck would have been highly critical of that throw. Joe Buck would have commented on how stupid it was to force that pass into a tight space. Joe Buck started to call that game as if he were looking to be critical, the same way he was with Eli Manning last week. It was in his own personal script to see Grossman fail. On maybe the second or third pass Grossman throw a pass to his fullback Mckie that missed and Buck called a " high throw from Grossman that missed". It just seems to me that sometimes the announcers are looking to taint the perception and value of certain players.
A Wise man once said that he would rather be lucky than good, and on that particular play I would have to say that luck was on the side of Rex Grossman.
I'm more concerned about playing the odds as opposed to focusing on what happened. If somebody invests in buying a lotterty ticket and wins a million dollars, it doesn't mean they are smarter or a better investor than somebody who studies the stock market and makes less than a million dollars after carefully reading financial statments and studying the market. To often people are focused on results, instead of how we get to those results.
Early in the first quarter Grossman was facing a difficult 3rd and 10 situation to keep a drive alive. The Bears offense had called a pass play, and the defense was playing a man under coverage, which was man to man coverage locked up on his receivers with safety help up top. Grossman throws a pass intended for his inside slot receiver Rasheen Davis, who ran a skinny post on Seahawks corner Jordan Babineaux.
Babineaux was in good postion and almost made the interception. The ball slips through his hands which allows Rasheen Davis to make the catch and run for 37 years.
Troy Aikman who was calling the game said it was a " great throw by Grossman". This is what annoys me, people are so focused on what happened, and not the probability of what happened. There is a good saying that " we are all geniuses after the fact". If a field goal kicker misses an extra point, you don't say " they should have went for 2", because 99% of extra points are kicked through, while maybe somewhere around 50% of two point conversions are made. This brings me to MY FAVORITE SAYING in that " The smart play isn't always the winning play". When Tony Romo bobbled the snap on a chip shot field goal attempt, you can't question Parcells for kicking the normally easy Field goal to take the lead. That was failed execution by the players, on a play that you would pretty much call automatic. Now Parcells made the " smart play", because 99 times out of 100 Gramatica kicks that field goal. However Bill Parcells didn't make the " winning play or right play" because his players didn't execute.
The early 3rd and 10 throw by Grossman could have easily went either way. On that specific play I'd probably say that it's intercepted more often than it is completed. It was kind of surprising to see him try and force that ball to his receiver, but it worked and the crowd and announcers loved it. Now if that same pass were intercepted, I'm positive that Joe Buck would have been highly critical of that throw. Joe Buck would have commented on how stupid it was to force that pass into a tight space. Joe Buck started to call that game as if he were looking to be critical, the same way he was with Eli Manning last week. It was in his own personal script to see Grossman fail. On maybe the second or third pass Grossman throw a pass to his fullback Mckie that missed and Buck called a " high throw from Grossman that missed". It just seems to me that sometimes the announcers are looking to taint the perception and value of certain players.
A Wise man once said that he would rather be lucky than good, and on that particular play I would have to say that luck was on the side of Rex Grossman.
I'm more concerned about playing the odds as opposed to focusing on what happened. If somebody invests in buying a lotterty ticket and wins a million dollars, it doesn't mean they are smarter or a better investor than somebody who studies the stock market and makes less than a million dollars after carefully reading financial statments and studying the market. To often people are focused on results, instead of how we get to those results.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]