NFL broadcasts and coaching news conferences are full of football proverbs. Very often, these are simply explanations for a why a situation demanded avoiding risk, or at least delaying it. And very often, the numbers -- while not perfect -- tell us otherwise.In many cases, these unwritten laws of coaching and game management in football are more a function of history and tradition without a space for self-reevaluation or change. Thats not acceptable. Teams who spend all week looking for the tiniest little competitive advantages abandon them when given the opportunity to impact a game. Thats a waste, and its time for a change.Lets run through some of these close scenarios and explain why the traditional method of thinking about them is antiquated. Starting with a classic ...Never take points off the board.Points are valuable! Of course we want points! And when you have to battle for 60 yards, then turn to a questionable kicker who narrowly sneaks one through the uprights, the last thing you want to do as a coach is repeat this process while running the risk of coming away with no points. The possibility of scoring seven points, though, should make three seem much less valuable.There are obvious situations in which teams should keep their points -- to tie or take the lead in a close game, for one -- but early in a game, when the only goal should be to score as many points as possible, coaches need to be open to the idea of leaving their offense on the field to score a touchdown. Since kickers are better than ever before and turnover rates are at their lowest since 1932, the chances are slim that an offense will take three off the board and end up with zero.Lets use the expected points model that underpins ESPNs QBR metrics. Heres a simple scenario: Its early in the second quarter of a 7-7 game with league-average offenses and defenses. Your kicker hits a field goal on fourth-and-2, but the defense is offside, giving you a first down if so inclined. Heres how many points your team would expect to score with a new set of downs from each given yard line:These numbers account for the risk of turning the ball over or not scoring at all versus the reward of scoring a touchdown. In a vacuum, when you expect to score more than three points from a given yard line, you should wipe the field goal off the board and go back out on offense. Just about every feasible situation in which you would be kicking a field goal seems to suggest that taking the points off of the board is the superior option. Even if you are conservative and have an subpar field goal kicker, a new set of downs would most likely get you inside the 30-yard line. Send your quarterback back out there, coach.Never throw when youre running a four-minute offense to kill clock.Thirty years ago, when quarterbacks were throwing farther downfield and completing a far lower percentage of their passes, it made sense for teams to strictly limit their quarterbacks to handing off the football in situations where running clock was more important than picking up a first down. Quarterbacks simply couldnt be trusted not to screw up, and most receivers werent good enough to regularly win one-on-one matchups.Todays game is different. Quarterbacks routinely throw bubble screens and other short passes designed to get the ball out quickly, and their success rate on those throws is remarkable: They complete 70.9 percent of their passes within five yards of the line of scrimmage and throw interceptions 1.1 percent of the time. Thats similar to the fumble rate on rushing plays since 2012 (1.2 percent, although only 0.7 percent are lost to the opposition).Repeat: Many passes are high-percentage plays.In situations where teams are one or two first downs away from ending the game, passing simply has to be part of the equation, if only to prevent teams from teeing off on your running game. The screen Dak Prescott set up with Cole Beasley to seal the game against the 49ers is a perfect example. And, with run-pass options, you can ask your quarterback to make a simple check at the line of scrimmage and either hand the ball off or make a pass that is likely to be completed.In situations where teams simply want to run as much clock as possible and punt without any real concern about getting a first down, theyre probably better off kneeling than running offensive plays, if only because of the risk of a fumble. Theres little logic behind teams half-trying to succeed on offense. Another example of that ...Run to start your two-minute drill, because if it fails, just run out the clock.Many NFL teams are fond of starting their final drives before halftime with a draw or another sort of running play to try to test the waters. If the play goes well, theyll kick it into second gear and start sprinting down the field to try to score. If the play fails, theyll slow down and waste time before hitting the locker room for halftime. In a league where teams constantly talk about dictating the game and imposing their will upon the opposition, the halftime draw is weirdly passive.But the halftime draw doesnt suit either master. If the play works and gains 10 yards, youre now sprinting up to the line of scrimmage to run your next play while wasting precious seconds or youre burning a timeout. Given how far these plays likely are from the end zone, theyre the most likely passes on your drive to be completed and the mostly likely to end with a free pass out of bounds to stop the clock. Teams are afraid of throwing incomplete passes and being stuck punting to the opposition, but if thats such a concern, youre better off kneeling and avoiding the risk of fumbles.The classic example of end-of-half clock mismanagement came in Week 3 from the Titans, who ran a draw on first down for 8 yards from the 25-yard line with 33 seconds left in the first half. The opposing Raiders were down to one timeout. Oakland didnt call a timeout after the play, so Tennessee could have let the game go to halftime or called one of their own remaining timeouts to try to set up the next couple of plays. Instead, they rushed to the line and threw a pass with 11 seconds left, a meaningless 3-yard in-route that was telegraphed and nearly intercepted. On the next play, with eight seconds left, Marcus Mariota threw another pass over the middle that was tipped and intercepted by Reggie Nelson, who stepped out of bounds during his return with no time left on the clock. It was the polar opposite of how to manage a late-half or late-game situation.Teams can get in trouble throwing the ball in these spots, although its often with low-reward decisions; think about the Cowboys throwing a checkdown with time running out in the half against Washington in 2010 and having Tashard Choices fumble returned for a touchdown -- which ended up as the margin of victory in a 13-7 loss. And there are times when the draw works, too. But thats not the point. Its better to have a plan and go all-out in attack or time expenditure without letting the opposition decide what to do on your behalf.When teams are dealing with this decision in the fourth quarter of a tie contest, chances are its better to be aggressive and try to win games. There are too many teams throughout history who have sat on the ball after allowing a late score and regretted the tale. The flip side of that, quite famously in opposition to John Maddens commentary, was the 2001 Patriots. They allowed a back-breaking touchdown to Ricky Proehl with 1:36 left in the Super Bowl to tie the score at 17, and while Madden suggested the Patriots kneel on the ball, Bill Belichick rightly realized he was a massive underdog and would only be running the risk of giving Kurt Warner the ball in overtime.Tom Brady promptly drove the Patriots 53 yards for a game-winning Adam Vinatieri field goal.Never go for two before you have to.The rule differs around the league, but there are a fair number of NFL playcallers who dont go for two until the end of the game is in sight. For some, you start at the beginning of the fourth quarter, while others might not even think about their two-point plays until there are seven minutes or less remaining in the contest.The argument says you shouldnt chase the score until theres a good chance it might be the final score, which makes some sense, even if many of those same teams and commentators ignore that logic in more conservative situations. (Many of them will argue how teams should kick a field goal to tie the score or make it a one-possession game at similar times of the contest.) Its true that teams shouldnt treat the numbers on the scoreboard as if theyre guaranteed to be the final score, but its also naive to suggest that scoring is entirely random from that point forward.Its impossible for humans to imagine all of the possibilities in their head in real time, but its far from impossible to imagine them with a computer, which is why coaches should look to models. The one created by Football Commentary is outdated because it doesnt account for the new extra point rules, but it gives us some broader insight into how teams should think about these sorts of decisions.Their model suggests going for two isnt as meaningful or clear-cut early in the second half as it might be later in the contest, but there are still situations where the choice to go for two should be quite obvious. Teams should basically always be going for two when they are up by five or down by five. The same is true when they are down by two, eight, nine, 13 or 15, which leads to another unwritten rule ...Kick the extra point when down nine to make it a one-score game.The Browns ran into the furor surrounding this unwritten rule a couple of weeks back, when Hue Jackson decided to go for two down 28-19 with 2:10 left to try to make it a one-score game. He failed. This essentially ended the contest: The Browns recovered an onside kick and scored a touchdown, but that was only enough to make it 28-26. They failed on a second onside kick try and subsequently lost.Lets flip that scenario and say the Browns kick the extra point first to go down 28-20 with 2:10 left. Then, lets say that the same stuff happens. The Browns recover the onside kick, score another touchdown, and then go for two and fail. Theyre in the same situation. Theyre down 28-26, but now, its with 30 seconds to go. There is no time left to overcome their failed two-point play.The outcomes are exactly the same. If you get the two-pointer, you need only one score to tie, regardless of whether you get it early or late. And if you dont get the two-pointer, you need two scores to tie, regardless of whether you miss with the first attempt or the second one. The only difference between the two plays, as Chase Stuart first pointed out to me, is that teams who go for two and fail on their first drive have more time to adapt their decision-making for the fact that theyve failed by getting more aggressive with blitzes or offensive playcalling. The team who goes for it late and fails has spent the preceding few minutes assuming they were going to get the two-pointer to tie. (A team who gets the two-pointer on their first drive also can win by going for a two-pointer again on their second touchdown drive, but that is an avenue of aggressiveness coaches are unlikely to pursue.)Coaches dont go for two on the earlier drive for a couple of reasons. 1) They rarely want to do something that will influence the game or take it out of their players hands, and 2) the decision-making is based on putting off losing for as long as possible as opposed to attempting to actively win, which is why they pass up fourth-and-short early in the fourth quarter and are often stuck going for fourth-and-12 later.Ive also heard the argument that players will be demoralized by failing to go for two early and then get shut down, but Im more skeptical there. The Browns had every reason to turn off the switch after failing to score their two-pointer, given the general hopelessness of the short-term situation in Cleveland, and they promptly played their butts off to get the ball back and score again.?The Browns situation wasnt the classic example, if only because they didnt really have a ton of time to optimize their decision-making either way. It makes going for two on the earlier drive less meaningful, but theres still no added argument toward going for two on the later drive. Youre fooling yourself if you think getting the early extra point does anything more to make it a one-score game.Kick the field goal in a low-scoring game because points are at a premium.Ive never been able to understand this one. When scoring is low, some points -- any points -- could be the difference, so take em.Problem: Isnt the flip side of that argument even more compelling? If youre not expecting to move the ball and come away with a drive deep into opposing territory, shouldnt you take advantage of that rare opportunity to score a touchdown? If three points are valuable, seven seems significantly more useful, given that it would take the opposing team a touchdown drive of its own (or three field goals) to match what youve accomplished on one drive.Heres the benefit that comes whenever you miss a fourth-and-short deep in opposing territory: field position. In a low-scoring game, field position is critical. Teams punt in their oppositions side of the field and play it safe on third down to try to ensure a field-position advantage. If you kick a field goal, youre giving the other team the ball back after a missed field goal or an ensuing kickoff. If you go for it inside the 5-yard line and fail, you leave your defense in an advantageous position. That sort of field position advantage will add up, both over that drive and in the one to come.There are more maxims to delve into while talking about football coaches and commentators. I still dont understand why teams on the road have to take the points, or why NFL teams try to ice kickers when the evidence suggests it has no meaningful strategic value (and can often allow a practice kick). But well keep hearing these, because sometimes, superstition and tradition rule the way over reality and logic.Tim Heed Jersey . Anthony Calvillo, through 20 CFL seasons, was frequently invincible and largely stoic in the heat of competition. But underneath the professional exterior he was, and is, compellingly human. Barclay Goodrow Jersey . Isner, ranked No. 14, won his eighth career singles title and took the title in New Zealand for the second time after his victory in 2010. The match was similar to Isners quarterfinal victory over fifth-seeded Philipp Kohlschreiber which went to three sets, all tiebreaks and contained no breaks of serve. http://www.officialsharksnhlshop.com/evander-kane-jersey/ . "Jeff is a hard worker who was an important special-teams contributor for us last season," said Stamps GM John Hufnagel. Marcus Sorensen Jersey . -- Its been a long road back for Sean Bergenheim. Barclay Goodrow Sharks Jersey . Mitch Holmberg added a goal and three assists. Connor Chartier also scored for the Chiefs (3-0-0). Luke Harrison spoiled Garrett Hughsons shutout bid with a power-play goal at 13:17 of the third period. The Spokane goaltender finished with 28 saves, including a Brandon Fushimi penalty shot in the second period that would have tied the game 1-1.November seems like a long time ago, doesnt it?That was when Holly Holm dethroned Ronda Rousey at UFC 193, which, as weve now come to realize, threw the entire bantamweight division into chaos.That chaos continued this past weekend, as Holm suffered her second defeat since the Rousey win -- this one at the hands of the talented (but relatively unknown) Valentina Shevchenko.Was there anything to learn from yet another upset in the womens 135-pound division? Lets take a quick look back at UFC Fight Night in Chicago.Actually, if you think about it, Holm is EXACTLY who we thought she wasYoure bound to hear many claiming the opposite. After watching Holm lose (badly) to an undersized Shevchenko, the mainstream Monday morning quarterbacks likely will chalk her up as a disappointment. Here was this physically imposing former world boxing champion, destined to take the reins of this division. Not. So. Much.That take completely forgets who Holm was one year ago. In July 2015, no one was pegging Holm as the future of the division. She was coming off a second win in the UFC, but the scouting report wasnt all that kind. Holm was raw, still learning, a bit hesitant and a complete question mark on the floor -- and definitely not ready for Rousey.The only thing we were wrong on was, of course, the part about Rousey. As it turned out, Holm was made for Rousey. That hesitancy that prevented her from really jumping off the page in her first UFC fights worked wonders against an uber-aggressive opponent. Basically, if there is one way to not fight Holm, it was how Rousey did it.So, did that one fight change who Holm was? In terms of perception, yeah. In the cage, where it matters? Not at all. This bantamweight division has been hard to handicap lately, but in the case of Holm, our original assessments were probably dead-on. She still looks very uncomfortable on the floor. Her athleticism and pace are phenomenal, but her technical savvy is still developing.To classify Holm as some crazy disappointment now, following the first two-fight skid of her combat sports career,, is to essentially forget (or ignore) everything weve seen from her besides one two-round fight against Rousey back in November.ddddddddddddHolm hasnt really changed. What we said and wrote about her did.And considering that, Holm has reached an interesting spotNot to make this all about Holm, because Shevchenko was brilliant Saturday -- but Holms next move will be the more interesting of the two. Shevchenko is in title contention, but she just lost to the current champion, Amanda Nunes, four months ago. Well see what happens, but as of right now, not many are clamoring for that rematch.What happens to Holm, though? Does she simply fall back in line against a low-ranked opponent? In reality, thats as risky of a move as any. Holms back will be against the wall in her next fight, regardless of whom its against. So, for that reason, might it actually be best to take a fight shes not supposed to win?Stay with me here. What Im suggesting is Holm, because her skills remain unpolished, is not a guaranteed win against anybody right now. She nearly lost to Raquel Pennington in her UFC debut in 2014, a matchup that strongly favored her on paper. Now shes coming off a loss against Shevchenko, who should probably be fighting at 125 pounds.If a win is not guaranteed anyway, why not shoot high? Accept a 140-pound catchweight fight against Cris Cyborg Justino. You want to talk about gaining back all the momentum youve lost in one night? A win against Justino would do it. Even a competitive loss against Justino would do it. Holm can try to bunt her way out of this slump -- or break it open with a grand slam.If Holms team wants nothing to do with Justino right now, thats understandable -- but what a bold move it would be to take that fight. The UFC offered that matchup to her earlier this year, and she passed because she wanted a rematch against Miesha Tate. It would not be surprising in the least if the UFC explored that option again. ' ' '
