OT: game theory Steelers v browns

and they just punted in 4th and 1 around the 50

I'm not complaining. Go Browns!

Though as a Browns fan that has only ever seen failure... I'm still expecting failure 

Down 19. You go for it because you aren’t guaranteed that CLE won’t score again with so much time left. Assume you need 3 TDs+. A FG doesn’t do much. If CLE scores a FG to go up 22 you still need 3 TDs.

Might as well try to get one of them unless you strongly feel you 1) can’t make it or 2) CLE won’t score again. 

EDIT: the punt on 4th and 1 when down 12 was more egregious IMO. 

I would have kicked the field goal on fourth down from the five. I also would have gone for it on fourth and one from midfield. But as good a head coach as Mike Tomlin has been, Steeler fans will tell you he is a disaster at these types of decisions and clock management.

What was really stupid was going for 2 when they were down 35 to 16, it's simple math. Don't go for 2 till the last possible time that you have to do so.

I thought when going for it to make 17 instead of 18 made sense. And then they kicked XP to make it 12 instead of go for 2? And then they go for 2 in exact same scenario the next chance? Don't think they know what they are doing to be honest.

I think the biggest decision that will be criticized is punting on the 4th and 1 if the Steelers lose.

Reminds me EXACTLY when the Lions punted against Dallas at midfield on 4th and 1.

You have all the momentum in the world. That was such a chicken shit decision. Gotta go for it and keep the momentum.

But that’s just a theory! A Game Theory! Oh wait....

They were down 19 late in the 4th, the game was over with the clock still ticking.  They were not getting back into the game.  It was over.

WTF cares why they weren't for it on 4th down, then kicked?  

Scenarios such as this make for interesting discussions. The truth is that these situations are mostly coin-flips. That said, the question for me revolves around the  psychology of how early can you afford to put your team/players in "desperation mode"? Personally, I do not want to give my team/players permission to take very large (unnecessary) risks too early-while the clock says we still have time to recover in the regular flow of play. I believe that too often coaches over-think these situations and end up following a course of decision-making that they, in the end, regret. Too often the lure of taking advantage of a possible momentum switch results in killing the possibilities. I thought Tomlin hit the panic button earlier than necessary and it actually ended up reducing their chances of winning. 

The counter to the above is how Cleveland approached the second half: How to play with a large lead-conservative offense and "prevent" defense??? IMO, the "too early, safe" Cleveland offense-and defense too, actually-was giving the Steelers a wonderful shot at getting back into the game. The game-changing play was made by Mayfield when, according to my interpretation, he said F-you to the strategy and scrambled for a huge, gutsy first down which then led to the TD that put them up 42-23. I went to bed after that-being pretty sure that the fate of the game was settled.

There is a time to gamble and a time to just play hard and smart. I've both won and lost at the buzzer-when neither should have happened...it is most unforgettably joyful-and painful...even 40-50 years later.

Without knowing how much time was left, if you're down 19 points in the 4th quarter, you need at least two touchdowns (and three if you miss even one of the two-point conversions; roughly a 75% chance, so it's likely you'll miss at least one conversion).

So it's better to assume the Steelers needed three touchdowns at the point in the game. Let's say the Steelers had a 60% chance of succeeding on 4th and goal (Roethlisberger completed about 70% of his passes, and let's take that number down by 10% for the short field). If you choose to instead kick the field goal (95% success), you're probably counting on an onside kick (5% success) AND completing a hail mary with a (10% success rate) at least once after scoring on your next possession. Meanwhile, your odds of kicking a 50-yard (65%) or a 60-yard (20%) field goal are much higher than a hail mary and is a much more realistic option after a successful onside kick with limited time remaining. 

In other words, while a field goal keeps your hopes technically alive for longer, you're simply procrastinating the necessary and are now relying on a chain of far more unlikely events to now tie or win the game. 

The real crime in all of these games is punting on 4th-and-shorts when trailing in the 4th quarter; yes, we're looking at you Mike Tomlin and Mike Vrable. 

(https://thesportjournal.org/article/playing-with-the-percentages-when-trailing-by-two-touchdowns/)

anytime you have to explain it this much with so many variables and "what ifs" in play then you're just wasting your time. 

Although I thought they should have kicked the FG, either options was defensible. They got the TD, so it worked out. I don't think the 2-pt conversion mattered (at best they would tie with 2 TDs, 2 2-pt conversions, and a FG. Just to tie. You'd need at least another FG anyway to get a lead. Just kick extra points and commit to needing the 3rd TD.)

The game theory issue I had was not going for it on 4th and ~1 from midfield. There was lots of time left, sure, but when the other team has already put up 35 points on you and you had just gained back all the momentum why would you punt the game away like that? When you're down by 12 points in the 4th quarter you need to score, it's not time to go conservative. 

I don't get the Tomlin love in national media as a coach?  While he might be a good inspirational leader and motivator, he's not a good football coach, especially during games.  To have your team prepared as badly as they were last night is reflective of the coach.  Name a team that has had the amount of talent the Steelers have over the past 10-15 years and done less?