A couple thoughts:Something being the wrong move based on overall averages does not make it wrong in every particular case. In this case, the Giants faced a wel above average opposing defense, had not had good success in short yardage, had a below average rushing attack to keep defenses honest, and was most adept at scoring from range. I don't think they clearly had an expectation of converting one of two conversion plays, whereas the expctation of kicking two and potentially scoring on a long play in OT looked as good or better.Not disputing the stats in general, but they need to be applied selectively.Giants kicking the extra point after scoring to make it 35-27. It's not "obvious" in the sense that no one seems to understand this strategy, but in terms of the numbers, going for two there is clearly the right move.
This Slate article explains it in more detail, but what it boils down to is this: Attempting two two-point conversions yields roughly the same number of expected points as kicking two XPs. So there's effectively no downside. Meanwhile, the upside is that if you make the first two-pointer, you can kick after the second TD and avoid the 50/50 proposition that is overtime. Levin calculates that it adds 10 points to your win probability (and he was writing before this year's XP change, so it's probably even higher now).
In the Giants' case, it was ultimately irrelevant, since Carolina's final FG drive would have won the game even if the Giants had been winning by a point. But kicking was still the wrong move.
Of course I would. They had to throw it to avoid punting. Decisions shouldn't be based on anecdotal outcomes. What if Big Ben tore his ACL in the first quarter? Would you argue he should have benched that day because then he wouldn't have been injured?Would you make this argument if Denver scored and got the 2 point conversion with 8 seconds left in the game?I dont understand the problem. Even when pitt got the ball back after the above scenario they STILL had to get a first down to ice the game. Nothing wrong with throwing it. Forcing the ball into a bad situation was the bad decision. Big Ben did the same exact thing against Cincy earlier this year. Almost a carbon copy of how it went down.Pittsburgh with with 2nd down just before the 2 minute warning. Denver decides to call time out.
Sure enough, the Steelers come out of the timeout and THROW the ball. Picked off by Denver, giving them life with 2:01 on the clock.
I dont think you are understanding me.You're the one who said it was OK because they only needed a first to ice it after the Denver possession. You said the outcome justified the action.Of course I would. They had to throw it to avoid punting. Decisions shouldn't be based on anecdotal outcomes. What if Big Ben tore his ACL in the first quarter? Would you argue he should have benched that day because then he wouldn't have been injured?The mistake was throwing a pick into a crowd. Period. 100% on Big Ben. Throwing the ball was the correct decision. Luckily for them Tomlin didn't pucker up and just run the ball on the next possession.Would you make this argument if Denver scored and got the 2 point conversion with 8 seconds left in the game?I dont understand the problem. Even when pitt got the ball back after the above scenario they STILL had to get a first down to ice the game. Nothing wrong with throwing it. Forcing the ball into a bad situation was the bad decision. Big Ben did the same exact thing against Cincy earlier this year. Almost a carbon copy of how it went down.Pittsburgh with with 2nd down just before the 2 minute warning. Denver decides to call time out.
Sure enough, the Steelers come out of the timeout and THROW the ball. Picked off by Denver, giving them life with 2:01 on the clock.
Going out a winnerThe 49er coach, punts at 4th and 4 at the Rams 37 yard line with 1:30 left in his last game as coach. HAHAHA
It was strange how the Chiefs' clock management was so similarly bad to the Eagles' situation in the Super Bowl. In that game, McNabb got a lot of criticism for huddling up when he should have been hurrying, needing two scores, but Smith did exactly the same thing. Not that Smith is a great 2-minute drill QB or anything like that, but I can't even think of a third example. The two prominent examples of an offense badly mis-managing the clock while down two scores in a critical game were both under Andy Reid.
Calling the TO in front of the two-minute-warning was a much worse call than the pass play.Calling a throwing play was not the bad move but once Williams was double covered Ben should've just ran for a few yards and went down instead.Would you make this argument if Denver scored and got the 2 point conversion with 8 seconds left in the game?I dont understand the problem. Even when pitt got the ball back after the above scenario they STILL had to get a first down to ice the game. Nothing wrong with throwing it. Forcing the ball into a bad situation was the bad decision. Big Ben did the same exact thing against Cincy earlier this year. Almost a carbon copy of how it went down.Pittsburgh with with 2nd down just before the 2 minute warning. Denver decides to call time out.
Sure enough, the Steelers come out of the timeout and THROW the ball. Picked off by Denver, giving them life with 2:01 on the clock.
Why's that? It clearly saves more time when you call it in front. In fact it was an error to not call the second TO; they would have had an extra 5 seconds or so.Calling the TO in front of the two-minute-warning was a much worse call than the pass play.Calling a throwing play was not the bad move but once Williams was double covered Ben should've just ran for a few yards and went down instead.Would you make this argument if Denver scored and got the 2 point conversion with 8 seconds left in the game?I dont understand the problem. Even when pitt got the ball back after the above scenario they STILL had to get a first down to ice the game. Nothing wrong with throwing it. Forcing the ball into a bad situation was the bad decision. Big Ben did the same exact thing against Cincy earlier this year. Almost a carbon copy of how it went down.Pittsburgh with with 2nd down just before the 2 minute warning. Denver decides to call time out.
Sure enough, the Steelers come out of the timeout and THROW the ball. Picked off by Denver, giving them life with 2:01 on the clock.
It allows the offense to open up the playbook as they are not penalized with a clock stoppage on an incomplete pass, ie forces the defense to be more susceptible to the run. The extra 5 seconds is meaningless if you can't get the stop.Why's that? It clearly saves more time when you call it in front. In fact it was an error to not call the second TO; they would have had an extra 5 seconds or so.Calling the TO in front of the two-minute-warning was a much worse call than the pass play.Calling a throwing play was not the bad move but once Williams was double covered Ben should've just ran for a few yards and went down instead.Would you make this argument if Denver scored and got the 2 point conversion with 8 seconds left in the game?I dont understand the problem. Even when pitt got the ball back after the above scenario they STILL had to get a first down to ice the game. Nothing wrong with throwing it. Forcing the ball into a bad situation was the bad decision. Big Ben did the same exact thing against Cincy earlier this year. Almost a carbon copy of how it went down.Pittsburgh with with 2nd down just before the 2 minute warning. Denver decides to call time out.
Sure enough, the Steelers come out of the timeout and THROW the ball. Picked off by Denver, giving them life with 2:01 on the clock.
Serious made me absolutely mental. Parkey was terrible all day, but sure, a 45-yard fg is a gimme.Hue Jackson was pretty bad during the last 20 seconds of regulation today.
1st down at Miami 27 with 1 timeout and 20 seconds left to play. Takes a knee and calls a timeout with 4 seconds left. Then his kicker misses his third FG of the day. Browns lose.
I was just going to post this - I couldn't believe they went for two in that spot. If TB converted on their own 2 pt conversion after the Evans TD the game would have gone to OT and people would be making a much bigger deal about it. It's still really, really stupid - just buried a bit since it didn't cost them anything.How about Jeff Fisher? The Rams scored a TD to go ahead by 11 with under 5 minutes to go, and rather than kick the PAT to make it a 12 point lead, they went for 2 (and didn't convert, but that's beside the point).
C. Sims should have gone out of bounds at about the 15 yard line with about 35 seconds left but didn't. TB had 2 timeouts at that point and didn't use either of them... the game ended on 2nd down when time expired and TB still have 1 timeout left.Read on twtr Dirk koetter messed up at the end of the game, not clear on specifics
This one was just inexplicable. I wish the Bucs had converted their 2 so they could have tied with a FG at the end and it would actually be brought up.How about Jeff Fisher? The Rams scored a TD to go ahead by 11 with under 5 minutes to go, and rather than kick the PAT to make it a 12 point lead, they went for 2 (and didn't convert, but that's beside the point).
Basic arithmetic. And IIRC they took a timeout after the TD so they had plenty of time to think about it. Inexplicable really is the right word. I had no rooting interest in the game but I was really hoping the Bucs would've made them pay for it.This one was just inexplicable. I wish the Bucs had converted their 2 so they could have tied with a FG at the end and it would actually be brought up.
No idea how a like 20 year head coach makes that screw up.
Eh, there was only a little over a minute left. Being up 4 there is as good as being up 5, so you go for 2 in the hopes that you get up 6 and maybe SD misses the longer XP if they do score a TD.On the topic of extra points, what does the book say on Indy/San Diego?
Indy scored with 1:28 remaining to go up 4. Rather than kick the extra point to go up 5, they went for two and failed. Is the thought there that if SD scores there is still hope if they then go on to miss their extra point? Seems to me praying for a missed extra point is a bit of a stretch. On the other hand, if Indy does give up a quick score they only need a field goal to win if you're down by 2 vs. only being able to tie if they're down by 3.
I'm sure I'm failing to see the obvious reason for going for two in that situation.
Far be it from me to ever defend Jeff Fischer, but that one was so inexplicable I have to wonder if the K tweaked something and they didn't feel confident. Didn't that happen with a team last year and it turned out the long snapper was injured or something?This one was just inexplicable. I wish the Bucs had converted their 2 so they could have tied with a FG at the end and it would actually be brought up.
No idea how a like 20 year head coach makes that screw up.
That was a 46 yarder too...not exactly a chip shot. Should've picked up a few yards to help the kicker out.Hue Jackson was pretty bad during the last 20 seconds of regulation today.
1st down at Miami 27 with 1 timeout and 20 seconds left to play. Takes a knee and calls a timeout with 4 seconds left. Then his kicker misses his third FG of the day. Browns lose.
This.Eh, there was only a little over a minute left. Being up 4 there is as good as being up 5, so you go for 2 in the hopes that you get up 6 and maybe SD misses the longer XP if they do score a TD.On the topic of extra points, what does the book say on Indy/San Diego?
Indy scored with 1:28 remaining to go up 4. Rather than kick the extra point to go up 5, they went for two and failed. Is the thought there that if SD scores there is still hope if they then go on to miss their extra point? Seems to me praying for a missed extra point is a bit of a stretch. On the other hand, if Indy does give up a quick score they only need a field goal to win if you're down by 2 vs. only being able to tie if they're down by 3.
I'm sure I'm failing to see the obvious reason for going for two in that situation.
Especially when the kicker was on on his couch two days ago, and had had virtually zero practice time with his holder and long-snapper. Kickers are traditionally less accurate when you swap out either the holder or snapper...Parkey had a tough job as it was and relying on him from that distance was beyond dumbThat was a 46 yarder too...not exactly a chip shot. Should've picked up a few yards to help the kicker out.
That one was all on Cousins, I think. He has to know that he looks for the first read and if he's got nothing, throw it out of the end zone.Redskins running a play from about the 5yd line with :06 left on the clock and no timeouts in the first half. Of course time expired and they didn't have a chance for a FG.
Correction: they did have a timeout. Which makes it worse. After a long play to get to the 5, they saved the timeout and lost a lot of time lining up and spiking it.
They had a timeout.That one was all on Cousins, I think. He has to know that he looks for the first read and if he's got nothing, throw it out of the end zone.
And I don't think they did have a timeout, or they could have called it after the sack, right?
Yeah, I went back and looked at the game log after and realized that. Cousins should have thrown it away or even just kneeled.They had a timeout.
Cousins took too long. By the time he was sacked, clock was at zero.
agreed, not a great move.Someone ( Gruden/Cousins) needed to call that timeout when they had the big play to Reed. At least 15 seconds came off the clock. Then they spiked, losing a down. Could have had an extra shot at the end zone AND had time for the FG.
Mostly on Cousins, I agree. He has to know the situation.Yep, that was all on Cousins.
Why would a team punt up 4 on the final play of regulation?Trailing by 4 on the final play of regulation, Mike McCoy decides not to return a punt.
Backed up in own territory, 4th down, more time on the game clock than the playclock, what else you going to do?Why would a team punt up 4 on the final play of regulation?
I think there was too much time (around :07) to risk running around. If you trip and fall (or if the other team catches you), then they get the ball in your territory.Why would a team punt up 4 on the final play of regulation?Trailing by 4 on the final play of regulation, Mike McCoy decides not to return a punt.
I agree with you. In addition to the possible TD on first drive, there is a good combined chance either both teams kick a FG, or neither scores. This gives the receiving team 2 possessions to 1, with the added bonus of now just needing a FG. As it turned out they got a TD anyways on that 2nd possession.So nobody else thinks it is stupid to win the coin toss in overtime and elect to kick?
Even worse considering your team has the worst D in the league.
OuchIf I were a coach, given the NFL's overtime rules, I'd choose to kick every time.
Forget the scoring part of it.I agree with you. In addition to the possible TD on first drive, there is a good combined chance either both teams kick a FG, or neither scores. This gives the receiving team 2 possessions to 1, with the added bonus of now just needing a FG. As it turned out they got a TD anyways on that 2nd possession.
Step into my officeIf I won the toss, I'd elect to kick. No doubt. I'd also do an onside kick. Recovering an onside kick gives you possession and puts the game in sudden-death mode, so a FG wins it without giving the other team the ball.
Failing to recover gives them the ball at about midfield, which will tempt the other coach into playing for the "safe" FG attempt. If you can stop them, it's sudden death, if you hold them to a field goal, you still get a possession.