≡ Menu

“He’s the best coach in football right now.”

That was what John Harbaugh said about his little brother after the game. It’s hard to argue: I’ve said a few times that I think Jim Harbaugh is the best coach in the league, too. (Although I gave my mythical COTY vote to Pete Carroll.)

It was a classy thing to say by the winning coach, especially on a day where he outcoached his little brother. Actually, the more accurate way of putting it would be to say that “John Harbaugh made fewer bad decisions than Jim Harbaugh.” Let’s go through the game in chronological order

The First Snap

I’ve watched enough Jets games to know that there’s a certain level of horribleness that comes with having a pre-snap penalty at the start of a quarter or half. Maybe you don’t want to blame Jim Harbaugh for the 49ers lining up in an illegal formation on the first snap of the game, but let’s just say this: that’s not how the New York media would react if Rex Ryan’s team did that. Jim Harbaugh would be the first to tell you that it was inexcusable to have such a penalty on the first snap of the game, and the team didn’t look any more prepared on snap two, when Colin Kaepernick and Frank Gore were on the wrong page of a fake-handoff that instead went to Lennay Kekua.

Justin Tucker vs. Patrick Willis

Justin Tucker vs. Patrick Willis.

The Fake Field Goal

I’m not going to credit John Harbaugh for this one, but I’m not going to say it was a terrible decision, either. It was pretty obvious that John Harbaugh was going to do something on special teams, and the former special teams coach did have a couple of shining moments (most notably, Jacoby Jones’ 108-yard kickoff return for a touchdown). That said, on this particular play, I disagreed with the call based on the length Justin Tucker had to go to get the first down. I like fake field goals as much as the next guy, but a 4th-and-9 run by your placekicker is asking for trouble.

If I have to blame Harbaugh for a bad mistake on the fake field goal, I’m not going to focus on what he did in the Super Bowl. Think back to November 11th: leading 41-17 with 5:44 left in the 3rd quarter against the Raiders, John Harbaugh called for a fake field goal on the Oakland seven-yard line. Sam Koch ran it in for a touchdown, leaving the Ravens to go for their second favorite fake in Super Bowl XLVII.

But the call wasn’t a terrible one, and being aggressive is wise especially when you’re the underdog. I don’t know what the likelihood of success on that play was — can anyone really estimate that? — but according to Brian Burke, the Ravens needed a 62% chance of it to be successful for it to be the right call based on the Win Probability at the time, although that figure drops to 39% if you instead look at expected points added, instead. The reason the breakeven point is so low because a failure would still ensure that the 49ers would be pinned deep in their own territory. That turned out to be important: San Francisco went three-and-out, and Baltimore got the ball back on their 44-yard line. Three plays later, Joe Flacco hit Jacoby Jones for a 56-yard touchdown. In my opinion, the worse call during that stretch was made by Jim: after the fake field goal was stopped, the 49ers ran two plays and gained no yards. Then, on 3rd and 10, the 49ers ran Frank Gore up the middle. That’s an ultra-conservative call that cost his team more in expected points than John’s fake did.

How Not to Understand Two Point Conversions, by Jim Harbaugh

Trailing 28-6 halfway through the third quarter, Colin Kaepernick hit Michael Crabtree for a 31-yard touchdown. When you’re down by 22 points and score a touchdown, you always go for two. There are a few things to discuss here, so let me take them in order.

1) The two-point conversion rate is roughly 50%. In a world where the rate is say, 40%, the idea of it being “too early” to go for two has real meaning. In Brian Burke-speak, you would only want to go for two when the gain in Win Probability is positive, because the Expected Points Added will always be negative (i.e., it will always be 0.8 vs. 0.99 or 1 for the extra point). So you need to wait until late in the game when you are willing to trade expected value for variance, like say, when you’re trailing by 8 and you score a touchdown.

In a world where the conversion rate is 50%, the expected values between going for two and kicking the extra point are equal to each other. Therefore, the idea of it being “too early” to go for two simply has no meaning. Now there are times when it’s wrong to go for two — say, after being up by two points late in the game and you score a touchdown — but that is based on Win Probability, not on a phrase that has no meaning.

2) Let’s assume that the 49ers had a 50% chance of succeeding on the two-point conversion.Trailing by 22 points before scoring a touchdown, and assuming the 49ers scored two more touchdowns (without that assumption, everything else is meaningless), they would have had a 50% chance of tying the game if they wait until the third touchdown to go for two. But had they gone for two on the first touchdown, San Francisco would have had a 62.% chance of tying the game (with the other two touchdowns). That’s because you can tie the game if you hit on the two-point conversion attempt when down 16, or you can hit on the two-point conversion attempt when down by 16 and when down by 8. There is only a 25% chance of that happening, of course, but it’s a whole lot better than the 0% chance you’re left with in the first scenario. As it turned out, this theoretical exercise in arithmetic turned out to be a pretty big deal. Had Jim gone for two immediately, there’s a 25% chance the 49ers would have only needed a field goal to tie on the final drive instead of the touchdown.1

Am I thinking like a math nerd instead of an NFL coach? On Thanksgiving this year, Jason Garrett saw the same thing when his Cowboys trailed 35-13 early in the 4th quarter. After a 10-yard pass to Felix Jones to cut the lead to 16, he went for two, and Tony Romo ran up the middle for the conversion. Trailing 28-6 with over 8 minutes left in the third quarter, Peyton Manning once threw a touchdown to Marvin Harrison and then came back and hit Ken Dilger for a two-point conversion to cut the lead to 14. In 2006, Jeff Fisher’s Titans trailed by that same 28-6 score in the third quarter when they scored a touchdown. Fisher went for two and got it. But maybe that’s not a fair comparison since he had the benefit of a mobile quarterback like Vince Young, who scored on a quarterback draw.

3) Harbaugh’s failure to go for two was a tangible error that we can quantify — he cost the 49ers a 12.5% chance of tying the game via the two-point conversion route (and a 25% chance to rectify the situation following the miss). But when trailing by 15, Harbaugh again sent in David Akers to kick the extra point. This error was not as egregious, but trailing by 15 points, you want to go for two in a world where you can convert 50% of the time. This becomes more serious later in the game, but in any event, you always want to know where you stand. Delaying the decision to go for two is akin to putting your head in the sand. Some people might think that Harbaugh didn’t go for two after the first and second touchdowns because he didn’t want to stop his team’s momentum or sap their emotion after scoring. I have no desire to argue with those people.

4) Eventually, the 49ers did in fact score a third touchdown to narrow the gap to two points. I won’t harp too much on the actual play, but was passing really the best option? On 71 rushing plays on two-point conversions from 2007 to 2011, teams converted 46 times (65%). Considering the fact that San Francisco is arguably the best rushing team in the league, this was an odd call. Why did I use data from just 2007 to 2011? Because that post was from early in the year, not because I’m hiding anything. In fact, two-point conversion attempt runs were successful 8 out of 10 times in 2012,2 with Maurice Jones-Drew and Colt McCoy being the only exceptions. I have to think San Francisco’s odds were better than 50/50 if they ran it on the two point conversion (which means they likely had a better than 25% chance of converting two straight two-point conversions, maximizing Harbaugh’s earlier error).

Jim the Aggressor

Jim Harbaugh can't believe he was so conservative.

Jim Harbaugh can't believe he was so conservative.

In one of my Super Bowl previews, I noted that Jim Harbaugh was the more aggressive brother when it came to situations other than 4th-and-1. Unfortunately, Harbaugh was not aggressive enough in a key situation on Sunday. Trailing 28-20, the 49ers faced 4th-and-7 from the Baltimore 21. They sent on David Akers for the kick, but after the miss, Chykie Brown was penalized for running into the kicker. Aha! New life for the 49ers! Faced with 4th and 2 from the Baltimore 16, obviously Harbaugh the Younger would go for it, I assumed.

But meekly, he did not. If you assume that the 49ers had at least a 50% chance of converting on a two-point conversion, the odds rise a bit when they need two yards but aren’t bunched in on the goal line. Brian Burke has the success rate at 59%, but that’s for an average team.

In any event, forget about the actual success rates for a minute. According to Burke, the break-even success rate to make the decision to go for it correct in terms of Expected Points Added was 47%, but the break-even rate as far as Win Probability Added was 35%. What does that mean in English? That even if going for it in normal situations early in the game wouldn’t be wise, trailing by 8 with only 18 minutes left at your opponent’s 16 is one of those situations where you go for it even if it’s a close call. Now considering most of us would argue that a team like San Francisco should go for it on the first drive of the game facing 4th-and-2 at the 16, it becomes blatantly obvious that you do so when down by 8 with 18 minutes left. According to Burke, this dropped San Francisco’s win probability from 30% (if they went for it) to 26% by kicking. Throw in David Akers’ struggles, and it becomes a slam dunk decision to go for it. Had Akers missed the kick, Harbaugh never would have forgiven himself for this bad call.

Why was this decision by Harbaugh so poor? I opened up my Fourth and Harbaugh post with this line:

In most playoff games, each coach is faced with a critical fourth down decision. Often times the conservative coach delays the decision to go for it in favorable circumstances early in the game only to be forced to do so in less optimal situations in the final minutes.

That turned out to be proficient, not because I am wise, but because Harbaugh was meek. The 49ers chose to kick a field goal on 4th-and-2 from the 16, trailing by 8. With two minutes left in the game, San Francisco faced 4th-and-5 from the 5-yard line, trailing by 5. By delaying the decision to go for it earlier in the second half, Harbaugh was forced to go for it in a much more difficult situation at the end of the game: his team failed, and subsequently lost the Super Bowl.

One final note: this was a clear case of Harbaugh being too conservative. That is fundamentally different than the failure to go for two when down by 22 (before the touchdown), which was just wrong. Going for 2 down by 22 has nothing to do with being aggressive and everything to do with probability. That said, I think this decision to kick the field goal was the bigger mistake as far as hurting his team’s chances to win.

Now, for a brief interlude, let’s look at where John went wrong and Jim went right.

4th and goal from the 1

With 13:30 left in the 4th quarter, the Ravens led by 5 points. They had 2nd-and-goal from the 1-yard line, and ran Ray Rice to the left for no gain. On third down, they rolled Flacco out to the right; he couldn’t find an open receiver, narrowly avoided a sack, and threw out of bounds. On 4th and 1, with 12:57 remaining, Justin Tucker was sent in for a chip shot field goal.

Going for it on 4th-and-goal from the 1 is such a significantly better option that it’s easier to think of the few times when it’s not the right call. Like say, down by 2, with three seconds left. Because in the vast majority of cases, going for it is the right call.

If the Ravens converted, they would be in the enviable position of leading by 12 (and they would likely go for two, possibly making it a 14-point game) in the fourth quarter. If they miss, San Francisco would be backed up on their own 1, and we just saw how conservative the 49ers were when they got the ball at their own 6. What does a field goal get you? An eight-point lead is a lot better than a 5-point lead, but at what cost? San Francisco took over at their own 24 yard line, and Colin Kaepernick scored a touchdown within four plays. In a high-scoring game, touchdowns are much more important than field goals, and forcing your opponent to be conservative because of field position becomes critical. The downside there was small, and if the Ravens lost the game, critics would rightfully wonder whether John Harbaugh cost his team the Super Bowl. And according to Brian Burke, Harbaugh made another error when he elected to kick a field goal on 4th and 2 instead of attempting to end the game with a first down.

The Challenge

The immediate reaction on twitter was that Jim Harbaugh made a poor decision to challenge a spot midway through the fourth quarter. On 2nd and 8, leading by two points at the Baltimore 38-yard line, Joe Flacco hit Anquan Boldin for a 7-yard pass that was ruled a first down. San Francisco had already burned one timeout, and losing another would have been a big blow. But I liked this call by Harbaugh for a few reasons. One, he hadn’t used any challenges yet, and the odds that he would need to use two more challenges between the 8-minute and 2-minute marks of the game are very low, so he doesn’t “lose” anything besides the timeout if he was wrong. Two, this had the chance to make a big impact: yes, Baltimore would likely convert on 3rd-and-1, but possession was huge in this game, and the ability to end a Ravens drive in their own territory with one stop by their defense represents a pretty big reward. Finally, it looked like there was a good chance the call would be reversed. As it turned out, the call was reversed, and Jim’s challenge looked to pay dividends when on 3rd and 1, Flacco dropped back to pass.

Originally, we can assume a run up the middle was called, but as the 49ers inched every free man they could into the box before the snap, Flacco audibled to a pass. The gamble worked, as he hit Anquan Boldin for 15 yards. This was an example of the Jimmy and Joes winning the battle, but Jim Harbaugh played this one as well as he could.

The Final Series

It’s tempting to want to rip Jim Harbaugh and Greg Roman for the final series, which admittedly seemed to make little sense. On 1st-and-goal from the 7, LaMichael James ran up the middle for two yards. On second-and-5, the 49ers called sprint right option — an unusual call for this 49ers team — and Corey Graham easily knocked the ball away from Michael Crabtree. The best play of the drive came on the next snap, when it looked like Colin Kaepernick might run in for a touchdown on a quarterback counter. Alas, with the play clock about to hit zero, Jim Harbaugh called timeout, and the 49ers were never able to use their best play (a flag was thrown, so if not for the timeout, the 49ers would have been charged with a delay of game penalty.) Instead, on the official third down, Kaepernick lined up under center and again threw to Crabtree; this time, Jimmy Smith collided with Crabtree and prevented the reception. Finally, on fourth down, the 49ers called every fan’s least favorite play, a lob to the end zone. Did Jimmy Smith hold Crabtree, preventing him from getting to the ball? Probably. But no flag was thrown, and the ball fell incomplete.

The Safety

It was hard not to smile at the brilliant execution by John Harbaugh’s team on the intentional safety. I was asked on twitter whether I thought an intentional safety made sense with 12 seconds left. My answer was no, because there would theoretically be enough time for the 49ers to get a good enough return to get into field goal range, or throw a Hail Mary where pass interference was called, setting them up to tie the game with a field goal.

This was an unusual call, but it’s happened at least four times before.3 In fact, the 49ers pulled off this move against the Bengals in week 3 of the 2011 season. There, Andy Lee took a snap with 8 seconds left from his own 18, and used six seconds of clock on the safety. But the Ravens were on their own 8, and with 12 seconds remaining, you could envision a scenario where they might only drain three or four seconds off the clock, and San Francisco could have time for a short pass to set up a long field goal or Hail Mary following the free kick (if they chose to fair catch the free kick).

Instead, the 49ers looked woefully unprepared for this possibility, and punter Sam Koch was able to run eight seconds off the clock. For the former special teams coach, this must have been the icing on the cake, as the Ravens used some elbow grease to drain the clock. Harbaugh instructed his lineman to hold, since the penalty for holding in the end zone is only a safety. That would be a variation of an old tactic by Buddy Ryan called the Polish Goalline.


Jim Harbaugh made several strategical errors that hurt his team, but I’m not going to blame the loss on him. The 49ers had some bad penalties and wasted key timeouts, usually the sign of a poorly coached team. But I’m still not going to blame him for the loss. The Ravens did a good job bottling up the 49ers at key moments in the first half, and they were able to successfully convert in the red zone (2 of 4) and on third downs (9 of 16) while the 49ers could not (2 of 6 and 2 of 9, respectively). Even with those disadvantages, and even with losing the turnover battle, the 49ers might have won the game if they hadn’t let Jacoby Jones score a 108-yard touchdown. The Ravens performed better, and the players won the game. With neutral coaching, I think the Ravens win that game more often than not. But it’s fair to wonder whether Jim Harbaugh could have started his dynasty yesterday if he had been a little smarter — and more aggressive — in the second half of the Super Bowl.

  1. I’ll point out that there’s probably some benefit to this bad coaching, as it incentivized the 49ers to go for a touchdown on the final drive instead of playing for overtime. But I feel dirty doing so. []
  2. I am excluding Matt Bosher’s “run” play, which was the result of a bad snap and not an actual (or intentional) two-point conversion attempt. For the same reason, I am excluding Adam Podlesh’s successful run. That was actually a designed fake, but it doesn’t fit the spirit of the question. []
  3. Bill Belichick famously called an intentional safety once, but the circumstances were much different. []
  • “In fact, had he really wanted to push it, Harbaugh could have had twelve or thirteen men on the field, and instructed all of them to hold.”

    Umm, no.

    Rule 5, Section 2, Article 8, Subpoint (a) – “For 12 or more players in the offensive huddle (whistle blown immediately and ball remains dead): Loss of five yards from the succeeding spot.” The play would never be allowed to have been run – in basically every case the whistle would be blown before the snap. You’re confusing the rules for offensive and defensive substitutions.

    • Chase Stuart

      Thanks Bobby, you’re right. I fixed the post.

  • Shattenjager

    Well, after reading this post, I will no longer be upset that the Ravens won. I’m happy to have the coach who made the better strategic decisions win, even if it means I have to listen to Ray Lewis.

  • mrh

    Re the Challenge. Jim wasn’t just risking the timeout, he was risking lost time. By winning the challenge he forced the Ravens to run an additional play for the 1st down which burned up 44 seconds of clock (the play-by-play lists the start of the 3rd down play as 7:14 and the start of the subsequent first down play as 6:30).

    Part of the calculation here has to be: lose the challenge, lose a timeout; win the challenge, there is a chance that the Ravens are stopped and punt but there is also a better chance that they get the 1st down anyhow and the additional play (or plays if they fail on 3rd and go for it on 4th) costs the 49ers time. On this drive, the ideal outcome for the Ravens is that they use up all the time left, not that they score, even a TD. The 2nd best outcome is that they use almost all the time while scoring a TD. Giving the Ravens the chance to run an extra play with a high chance of success is a bad decision IMO.

    • Chase Stuart

      Fair point, mrh. That is certainly part of the risk.

      On the other hand, if you told John Harbaugh you could either have 3rd and 1 with 7:14 left or 1st and 10 with 6:30 left, I’m pretty sure he would have chosen the latter.

  • Richie

    On the fake field goal, how much value is there in faking it in a situation (9 yards to go) that the opponent would NOT expect the fake?

    • Chase Stuart

      Yeah, that is always the key question. Maybe something to look at in the off-season, fake punts/kicks by distance.

  • Richie

    My answer was no, because there would theoretically be enough time for the Ravens to get a good enough return to get into field goal range,

    I hate to nitpick, but when I read this sentence in the “The Safety” section, I got stuck on it, trying to figure out what you meant. I think you meant 49ers there?

    I’ll point out that there’s probably some benefit to this bad coaching, as it incentivized the 49ers to go for a touchdown on the final drive instead of playing for overtime. But I feel dirty doing so.

    I was also considering something similar with the intentional safety. If the Ravens punt, the 49ers trail by 5 with a few seconds to play. So the 49ers would then have to try anything they could to score a TD, and if successful they win the game. But if the Ravens take the safety, the 49ers trail by 3. Now, when SF gets the ball, if something crazy happens and they get possession near FG range, they will attempt to kick the FG and go to overtime. So it seems that taking the safety incentivizes the 49ers to try for OT instead of the win. With so little time left, the chances of the FG is slim, but does exist.

    • Chase Stuart

      You are correct — that was a typo, and I’ve fixed the post.

      And yes, that is probably a part of the calculus as well. Good thinking, Richie.

    • Richie

      I suppose that I should also mention that I was thinking the Ravens should have considered letting the 49ers score when they got down to the 5-yard line.

      • Danish

        Wait. Let them score when up 5?! That seems all kinds of wrong to me. I only think it’s reasonable to let the opponent score when you are up by less than 2, ie when a chipshot FG is a loss.

        • Richie

          I’m not saying my logic was sound. I just felt that San Francisco was sure to score a TD on that possession. Baltimore had barely slowed them down in the 2nd half. So, if I was Baltimore, I’d rather let them score and be down 2 with ~2 minutes left than to stop them once or twice and get ball back with 30 seconds or left.

          • Danish

            Oh ok.

            Remember though, that the niners are going to go for two – so half the time you’ll be driving for a tie.

    • Richie

      Another thought: Jim Nantz mentioned that there is an NFL rule that would allow the 49ers to fair catch the free kick after the safety, and elect to try a fair catch field goal.

      Article 6 When a fair catch is declared for a team, the captain must choose (and his first
      choice is not revocable) either:
      (a) A fair-catch kick (drop kick or place kick without a tee) must be made on or behind
      the mark of the catch, or
      (b) A snap to put the ball in play.

      Why does the NFL keep bizarre old rules like these on the books? When would a team even choose to do it? Why does the drop kick rule even exist any more? A Drop Kick is a kick by a kicker who drops the ball and kicks it as, or immediately after, it
      touches the ground.
      Would this ever be preferential to a field goal? Is this a rule for potential exploitation?

      • Nicholas

        You used to see this from time to time in the CFL in the late 90’s early 00’s. It was usually the case when the opponent punted to you and you were catching it in the end zone while only up by a point or two. You run your punter out there to field the kick and punt it back so that you don’t risk taking the safety.

        At least that’s if my fuzzy memories of TSN commentary from a BC Lion’s game from 10+ years ago is correct. Lol.

  • Eventually, the 49ers did in fact score a third touchdown to narrow the gap to two points. I won’t harp too much on the actual play, but was passing really the best option?

    I think it would be wrong to run 100% of the time there, just as it would be wrong to pass 100% of the time. Either strategy would be too predictable. Suppose that the optimal strategy is to run 72% of the time in that situation. We might criticize the 49ers if they were in fact only 56% likely to run, rather than 72%, but how would we know? I think it’s very hard to justly criticize a team’s run-pass decision on any single two-point conversion.

    • Chase Stuart


      This is, of course, correct. In the post I linked to in that paragraph, I actually say I’m skeptical that running is actually better than passing in that situation, since I think teams play the pass. As more teams run (because the “numbers” say they should run), I think the pass/run success rates will converge.

      So yes, I agree we can’t justly criticize the decision. That was my “harp too much” point. That said, I would have ran the ball.

  • Steve

    Forgetting all the plays that led up to it. Would you say it’s 100% the right move to go for 2 when Jim Harbaugh did? I believe the negative factors that come from missing the conversion on that play outweigh the positive. If Baltimore comes down and scores a TD on the next series the game is essentially over.

    By going for one, you’re essentially guaranteeing yourself at least a chance to win by ensuring you won’t go down by two scores.

    • Chase Stuart

      Sorry, Steve, but if Harbaugh hadn’t gone for 2 when it was 31-29 it would have been the worst of his bad decisions.

  • MM

    Regarding the fake FG, if Dickson is able to block Willis, Tucker has a route untouched into the end zone. Willis, however, simply won the battle. I think this is an example of good process, bad result. Even though 9 yards is a bit much, the fact there was only one defender that could make a play suggests John saw some sort of vulnerability or weakness that belies the 62% estimated success rate.

    • Danish

      If a huge play like that hinges on your TE succesfully blocking perhaps the best LB in the game, the process may not be that good after all.

  • Sunrise089

    Chase, I think you wrote “proficient” when you meant “prescient.”

  • Steve

    Jimmy Smith didn’t “collide” with Crabtree. He obliterated him with a helmet to the head shot that would have knocked Crabtree out of the game 95% of the time. In fact, the 49ers probably violated some new NFL safety protocol about checking players for concussions on hits like that. THAT is smart (and obviously dirty), because who is going to replace Crabtree?