Does Mike McDaniel’s Throw-A-Bomb-On-Third-Down Strategy Make Sense?

I think this strategy is worthy of a deep dive.

On Sunday’s win over the Bills, Dolphins quarterback Tua Tagovailoa threw 2 interceptions which were eerily similar in nature and in length. Both were thrown on third down from the Dolphins’ own 34-yard line and both made it to the Bills 24-yard line in the air. Both were intercepted. The first one was thrown into double coverage, and the second one was thrown into near-double coverage (as the safety got close to the ball by the time it came down). After both plays, fans were left wondering what Tua was thinking. The first one was even more baffling, as he threw it straight into double coverage.

Mike McDaniel provided some context in his postgame presser. He said that he instructed Tua to “let it rip down the field… as an opportunity ball… and kind of act as a punt [worst case scenario].” So, neither of those should be on Tua- although he’s obviously still credited for them and now leads the league in INTs.

McDaniel is essentially saying, “What do you lose by heaving the ball downfield in the general vicinity of your receiver? At worst, the ball gets picked-off, around the same distance as a punt would be. At best, either the receiver catches the ball, or he draws a PI which will be just as beneficial. Why not?”

I certainly hear the argument. The reward potential seems worth the fairly low risk. But how low is the risk in reality versus the potential for a catch?

Both throws were thrown 40 yards in the air. That’s the equivalent of a 40-yard punt. That’s not a great punt. 45-50 yards is more league average.

The first INT was returned for no gain, and the Bills started the drive at the 24-yard line, which is fairly average. Not much harm there.

The second one, however, was returned for 14 yards to the 38-yard line. This is where the risk for an INT to end in disaster is heightened. With the nature of a deep heave downfield, there are only a few players likely to be in the vicinity of the ball, and it’s likely more defenders than receivers. The other offensive personnel are often either at the line of scrimmage or on the other side of the field, not ready to suddenly become defenders and get to the interceptor in time. This gives the interceptor an edge if he’s able to come down with the INT on his feet and/or manages to get away from the receiver nearest him (who is likely on the ground anyway). With a punt, however, whoever is running downfield is running directly at the return-man. That gives the defense a higher chance of being able to tackle him fairly quickly. Just look at how many punts are fair-caught because the kicking team is about to pounce on the return-man! So, in terms of yardage, I don’t buy the argument that it’s equal. The risk is much higher with an INT than it is for a punt.

Then comes the emotional/momentum factor. I don’t think this should be ignored. I’m a believer in momentum. Yes, it can change at any second (as I feared was about to happen throughout the game), but that doesn’t mean it should be entirely discounted. A punt does not change momentum nearly as much as an INT does. Picks stink for a team. And maybe McDaniel already thought of this and warned the team not to get bogged down by it because it was a calculated risk with high likelihood of a turnover, but even still- I think it can shift momentum in a game. Especially if the defender is able to return it for significant yardage (which he did on the second INT), I think that has a high likelihood of bringing the team’s morale down even just a little bit. And I think that is something which needs to be considered.

After all is said and done, I disagree with McDaniel on the strategy. But while I disagree with him, I don’t think he’s crazy. After all, there is certainly a chance that the receiver catches the ball, or the defender gets called for a PI. But I just don’t think the potential reward outweighs the potential risk here all things considered.

What do you think?