What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Chicago's decision to kick the field goal (1 Viewer)

Chaz McNulty

Footballguy
Not much has been said about the decision to kick a field goal with 3:36 left in the game and down by 7 points.

4-6-NE14 (3:36) R.Gould 32 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-P.Mannelly, Holder-B.Maynard.

I could understand if you were 4th and long, but the fact that it was very manageable and you were so close to the goal line makes no sense to me. I thought it was a horrible decision. Your giving the ball back to N.E., and they technically only need 1 first down to prevent Chicago's offense from getting back on the field.

 
Lovie Smith coached under Martz for too long. :banned:

Lovie believes in his defense but the Pats offense just made the plays when they had to at the end.

 
I was ok with it. Look at it this way- you need 2 scores to win the game, so at some point you have to drive down and get that field goal- maybe at the end maybe during overttime (and on the road you should go for the win when you can as opposed to risking OT). On the other hand if you go for it on 4th down you either dont make it and are in the same position you describe but still eventually needing 2 scores, or if you do make it you score and give NE the ball back with a ton of time and just needing to march down and score a field goal to win. Now i understand they can just march down and win no matter what you do if you cant stop them, but there is a psychological component to this- any offense is going to play more aggresively and better marching down to win the game than they will sitting on a lead.

For that reason I like the decision making, and it worked out exactly as they would have wanted getting the ball back when NE made an offensive mistake trying to kill the clock. The table was perfectly set for Grossman to march down and win the game, but unfortunately he decided to do it with 1 throw instead of taking what was offered and moving down the field in incriments as the best 2 minute drill QBs do- just get first downs.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was ok with it. Look at it this way- you need 2 scores to win the game, so at some point you have to drive down and get that field goal- maybe at the end maybe during overttime (and on the road you should go for the win when you can as opposed to risking OT). On the other hand if you go for it on 4th down you either dont make it and are in the same position you describe but still eventually needing 2 scores, or if you do make it you score and give NE the ball back with a ton of time and just needing to march down and score a field goal to win. Now i understand they can just march down and win no matter what you do if you cant stop them, but there is a psychological component to this- any offense is going to play more aggresively and better marching down to win the game than they will sitting on a lead. For that reason I like the decision making, and it worked out exactly as they would have wanted getting the ball back when NE made an offensive mistake trying to kill the clock. The table was perfectly set for Grossman to march down and win the game, but unfortunately he decided to do it with 1 throw instead of taking what was offered and moving down the field in incriments as the best 2 minute drill QBs do- just get first downs.
How much time needed to be left before you would have gone for it on 4th & 6 at the 14 yard line?
 
In this case, if I were the coach I probably would have gone for it. If you make it on 4th Down and then get a TD, then you are tied. And the defense would have to hold NE (and possibly get the ball back to try for a last second FG).

If you DON'T make it on 4th Down or if you make the FG, either way you need to stop the Pats and score a TD (albeit if you make the FG the TD would be to win).

And if you don't make it and you stop the Pats quickly (or force a turnover), then you have a short field to go to score. (Pats would have taken over near their 10 yard line).

 
I was ok with it. Look at it this way- you need 2 scores to win the game, so at some point you have to drive down and get that field goal- maybe at the end maybe during overttime (and on the road you should go for the win when you can as opposed to risking OT). On the other hand if you go for it on 4th down you either dont make it and are in the same position you describe but still eventually needing 2 scores, or if you do make it you score and give NE the ball back with a ton of time and just needing to march down and score a field goal to win. Now i understand they can just march down and win no matter what you do if you cant stop them, but there is a psychological component to this- any offense is going to play more aggresively and better marching down to win the game than they will sitting on a lead. For that reason I like the decision making, and it worked out exactly as they would have wanted getting the ball back when NE made an offensive mistake trying to kill the clock. The table was perfectly set for Grossman to march down and win the game, but unfortunately he decided to do it with 1 throw instead of taking what was offered and moving down the field in incriments as the best 2 minute drill QBs do- just get first downs.
Uh, they were down by 7. Not 2 scores.They needed 1 TD. A FG did nothing. They still needed a TD.It was without question, a bad call. You don't get the 1st down, NE gets the ball, you still need a TD. Get the FG, give NE the ball, still need a TD. With 3ish minutes left, there's a chance you don't even get it back. There's simply no way I kick a FG to cut it to 4.
 
I was ok with it. Look at it this way- you need 2 scores to win the game, so at some point you have to drive down and get that field goal- maybe at the end maybe during overttime (and on the road you should go for the win when you can as opposed to risking OT). On the other hand if you go for it on 4th down you either dont make it and are in the same position you describe but still eventually needing 2 scores, or if you do make it you score and give NE the ball back with a ton of time and just needing to march down and score a field goal to win. Now i understand they can just march down and win no matter what you do if you cant stop them, but there is a psychological component to this- any offense is going to play more aggresively and better marching down to win the game than they will sitting on a lead. For that reason I like the decision making, and it worked out exactly as they would have wanted getting the ball back when NE made an offensive mistake trying to kill the clock. The table was perfectly set for Grossman to march down and win the game, but unfortunately he decided to do it with 1 throw instead of taking what was offered and moving down the field in incriments as the best 2 minute drill QBs do- just get first downs.
Uh, they were down by 7. Not 2 scores.They needed 1 TD. A FG did nothing. They still needed a TD.It was without question, a bad call. You don't get the 1st down, NE gets the ball, you still need a TD. Get the FG, give NE the ball, still need a TD. With 3ish minutes left, there's a chance you don't even get it back. There's simply no way I kick a FG to cut it to 4.
Agree. HORRIBLE decision. Also keep in mind that Chicago had only 2 TO's left.I was actually going to start a thread about this myself. I was blown away by that call, and was surprised the announcers didn't talk about it.I mean you have to go for it there. And considering the few times the Bears were in the red zone to begin with, were due to long PI calls (questionable calls, but I digress), you MUST go for it. That was their chance.
 
Head coach Lovie Smith

(On kicking a field goal on fourth down late in the fourth quarter, making it 17-13)

"I thought that was the right thing to do at the time. I felt like we would get the ball back—which we did—and have an opportunity there. To win the football game, we were going to need two scores, that’s why I [went for the field goal]."

 
C'mon. If you want to look for a bad decision how about leaving Grossman in the game after he had proved to be completely ineffective?

The field goal is questionable, but the Bears "D" got a turnover just like they were supposed to do and Rex pissed away yet another opportunity. That is where the problem lies, not in the field goal. He is starting to look far too skittish to me to take the Bears anywhere in the playoffs.

 
As I watched the game, I recall typing the word "stupid" several times onto another message board.

It would have been the right decision if and only if the Bears has reason to believe they could move the ball down the field quickly...but the only offense the Bears had on the day was Berrian drawing horrid PI calls, which probably isnt the most consistent way to get down the field.

Bears deserved to lose, and Lovie should put that one on his shoulders.

 
Personally, I think it was the right call. I guess I'm in the minority with this one. The Bears got the sure points on the board. The defense did exactly what Lovie knew it would do and gave Rex and Co. a chance to win the game with the final drive. I feel the call gave the Bears the best chance to win.

Unfortuantely, Rex tries to throw deep 4 out of every 5 passes he attempts. There is the root of the CHI problems, in my view; its what causes the majority of the TO's. I understand Rex has a strong arm and the Bears need to take their shots deep, but not so often. Sometimes just picking up 4-6 yards in the flats is enough to keep drives moving, especially when the running game is effective as well. But I digress.

I have no problem with that FG.

 
Uh, they were down by 7. Not 2 scores.They needed 1 TD. A FG did nothing. They still needed a TD.
You generally need to end the game with more points than the opposition to win, not an equal number of points. Unless they intended to go for a 2pt conversion, they were eventually going to have to score twice. On the road against a clutch team like the Patriots, it makes a lot of sense to try to have the ball in your hands to win the game at the very end.
 
Uh, they were down by 7. Not 2 scores.They needed 1 TD. A FG did nothing. They still needed a TD.
You generally need to end the game with more points than the opposition to win, not an equal number of points. Unless they intended to go for a 2pt conversion, they were eventually going to have to score twice. On the road against a clutch team like the Patriots, it makes a lot of sense to try to have the ball in your hands to win the game at the very end.
Generally teams down by 7 with a few minutes left in the game are not playing to avoid overtime.I didn't even think of it at the time because I was so into the game as a Pats fan, but looking at it the next morning going for the FG sure seems like a poor idea. The Patriots could've/should've ended the game with the ball in their hands. Either way, you have to put the game on Grossman's back, so why not do it with the better field position? What's the point of coaching to go down by 4?
 
Generally teams down by 7 with a few minutes left in the game are not playing to avoid overtime.
Sure they do. You hear it all the time, play to win on the road, play for the tie at home. And its more than avoiding OT, you also avoid giving Brady the ball at the end of the game needing to march down the field and kick a game winning FG (or TD knowing Brady). Its not like it was 4th and 1, Pats are the best team in the league on 4th down, very strong chance you hand the ball over and then even if you stop the Pats Grossman has to march the length of the field anyway... but just to tie the game. Even if he succeeds Brady probably still wins the game for the Pats.
Either way, you have to put the game on Grossman's back, so why not do it with the better field position? What's the point of coaching to go down by 4?
Were talking about maybe 10 yards here. Bears dont make it and Pats have the ball on the 14, they score or kick FG they have the ball on the 20-30. Either way the Bears will have to drive the length of the field in the likely event they dont convert on 4th. Why not drive the length of the field and win the game instead of tieing?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Generally teams down by 7 with a few minutes left in the game are not playing to avoid overtime.
Sure they do. You hear it all the time, play to win on the road, play for the tie at home. And its more than avoiding OT, you also avoid giving Brady the ball at the end of the game needing to march down the field and kick a game winning FG (or TD knowing Brady). Its not like it was 4th and 1, Pats are the best team in the league on 4th down, very strong chance you hand the ball over and then even if you stop the Pats Grossman has to march the length of the field anyway... but just to tie the game. Even if he succeeds Brady probably still wins the game for the Pats.
Either way, you have to put the game on Grossman's back, so why not do it with the better field position? What's the point of coaching to go down by 4?
Were talking about maybe 10 yards here. Bears dont make it and Pats have the ball on the 14, they score or kick FG they have the ball on the 20-30. Either way the Bears will have to drive the length of the field in the likely event they dont convert on 4th. Why not drive the length of the field and win the game instead of tieing?
Because they couldn't drive the length of the field ALL DAY.They needed a TD, period. Not 10 points, SEVEN, before they could even think about winning the game. You coach to do whatever it is to get your team back in the game FIRST, before you coach to actually win it with a minute left, and by doing something you haven't done all day to boot.

 
idiotic decision. that really ticked me off. they were 14 yards away, and kicking it put them in a position where they had to get the ball back and drive the length of the field & score a touchdown anyway .. with only a couple minutes left when they hadn't done it all game. pissed me off!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Because they couldn't drive the length of the field ALL DAY.They needed a TD, period. Not 10 points, SEVEN, before they could even think about winning the game. You coach to do whatever it is to get your team back in the game FIRST, before you coach to actually win it with a minute left, and by doing something you haven't done all day to boot.
I understand that, but that being the case what makes you think they could pick up that first down, much less punch it in where they were? Worse they could end up eating up much of the clock and not get in on a short field. They had been having good look with long pass interference penalties all day long as well. Maybe there defense makes a big play (which is exactly what happened) and you can pull out an improbable victory. The point is, there is no great solution in this situation, Bears were in a lousy spot. They could expect to keep being in lousy spots, so they tried for the knock out punch on the road. I buy it, some people dont. They deserved to lose that game so they tried to win it instead of going for an equally improbable tie.I dont understand how people who are claiming Grossman hadnt done anything all day to justify giving him the 2 minute drill to win the game are so willing to put the game on his back on 4th and long when they hadnt converted 3rd and longs worth a crap either. Grossman has just as bad a habit of not throwing to the sticks as he does unloading into coverage.
 
Because they couldn't drive the length of the field ALL DAY.They needed a TD, period. Not 10 points, SEVEN, before they could even think about winning the game. You coach to do whatever it is to get your team back in the game FIRST, before you coach to actually win it with a minute left, and by doing something you haven't done all day to boot.
I understand that, but that being the case what makes you think they could pick up that first down, much less punch it in where they were? Worse they could end up eating up much of the clock and not get in on a short field. They had been having good look with long pass interference penalties all day long as well. Maybe there defense makes a big play (which is exactly what happened) and you can pull out an improbable victory. The point is, there is no great solution in this situation, Bears were in a lousy spot. They could expect to keep being in lousy spots, so they tried for the knock out punch on the road. I buy it, some people dont. They deserved to lose that game so they tried to win it instead of going for an equally improbable tie.I dont understand how people who are claiming Grossman hadnt done anything all day to justify giving him the 2 minute drill to win the game are so willing to put the game on his back on 4th and long when they hadnt converted 3rd and longs worth a crap either. Grossman has just as bad a habit of not throwing to the sticks as he does unloading into coverage.
I can't disagree more so I'll just say this. Their chances of converting a 4th and 6 were better than putting together a long drive. What's more ridiculous, is the field goal didn't erase the necessity of that long drive anyway. It did nothing, but give them a VERY unlikely chance to win a game that they couldn't tie to begin with. :loco: And there was no guarantee that they could even get the ball back (and had only 2 TO's). As a matter of fact, they shouldn't have. Hell, if they don't convert, they are pretty much in the same position as taking the FG, in that they have to stop NE anyway, but at least it is DEEP in NE territory. There's really no downside, whereas the downside to kicking it is moving your team back (forcing a long, improbable drive on the road). This, while hoping your D can stop Brady with the clock running out. Way more intangibles for all that to work out right -- than a 6 yard gain.So you're telling me that they should have played to win basically, instead of trying to get back in the game period, with only a few plays? And you're basing that thinking on them doing something they couldn't do all day, on top of assuming they'd be getting the ball back from Brady somehow. The probability of all that taking place over the chance at converting a 6 yard gain isn't even close. They had their chance and they didn't take it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Because they couldn't drive the length of the field ALL DAY.They needed a TD, period. Not 10 points, SEVEN, before they could even think about winning the game. You coach to do whatever it is to get your team back in the game FIRST, before you coach to actually win it with a minute left, and by doing something you haven't done all day to boot.
I understand that, but that being the case what makes you think they could pick up that first down, much less punch it in where they were? Worse they could end up eating up much of the clock and not get in on a short field. They had been having good look with long pass interference penalties all day long as well. Maybe there defense makes a big play (which is exactly what happened) and you can pull out an improbable victory. The point is, there is no great solution in this situation, Bears were in a lousy spot. They could expect to keep being in lousy spots, so they tried for the knock out punch on the road. I buy it, some people dont. They deserved to lose that game so they tried to win it instead of going for an equally improbable tie.I dont understand how people who are claiming Grossman hadnt done anything all day to justify giving him the 2 minute drill to win the game are so willing to put the game on his back on 4th and long when they hadnt converted 3rd and longs worth a crap either. Grossman has just as bad a habit of not throwing to the sticks as he does unloading into coverage.
I can't disagree more so I'll just say this. Their chances of converting a 4th and 6 were better than putting together a long drive. What's more ridiculous, is the field goal didn't erase the necessity of that long drive anyway. It did nothing, but give them a VERY unlikely chance to win a game that they couldn't tie to begin with. :loco: And there was no guarantee that they could even get the ball back (and had only 2 TO's). As a matter of fact, they shouldn't have. Hell, if they don't convert, they are pretty much in the same position as taking the FG, in that they have to stop NE anyway, but at least it is DEEP in NE territory. There's really no downside, whereas the downside to kicking it is moving your team back way back (forcing a long drive) while hoping your D can stop Brady, with the clock running it out. Way more intangibles for all that to work out right -- than a 6 yard gain.So you're telling me that they should have played to win, basically, instead of trying to get back in the game period, with only a few plays? And you're basing that thinking on them doing something they couldn't do all day, as well as assuming they'd be getting the ball back from Tom Brady somehow. I'm serious, I think that's nuts.
:goodposting: you are entirely correctin my opinion, the odds of gaining 6 yards and a first down inside the 20 then scoring were much better than:1) making a field goal and2) stopping NE offense from running the clock out ... then3) driving the length of the field (much longer than 6 yards) AND scoring a touchdown.
 
I can't disagree more so I'll just say this. Their chances of converting a 4th and 6 were better than putting together a long drive.
I disagree.
It did nothing, but give them a VERY unlikely chance to win a game that they couldn't tie to begin with.
They had a very unlikely chance of tieing the game, and even if they did so they would likely have lost it anyway. So basically instead of parleying a 4th and long and then somehow winning the game later- they chose to take the points and do what they would have to do anyway- get in the endzone. Getting in the endzone is the hard part of this equation... if you assume the Grossman isnt stupid enough to throw a long pick his first pass of the 2 minute drill instead of marching down the field against a prevent defense which almost always happens in the NFL. I think you have to assume that, or else you shouldnt have the QB out there to begin with. I think NFL offenses complete 2 minute drills more often statistically than 4th and 6. I like any QBs chances of marching the field with 2 timeouts and the 2 minute warning against a prevent defense and getting a first and goal and the 10 to try breaking into the endzone much better than gambling on 1 play which will at best get you a tie.
And there was no guarantee that they could even get the ball back (and had only 2 TO's).
There was never that guarantee.
So you're telling me that they should have played to win basically, instead of trying to get back in the game period, with only a few plays?
Yes because the odds of winning that game under any circumstances are long, while the odds of going ahead instead of tieing are only marginally longer. If you could play the lotto for .90$ and win 1 million dollars or a 1.00$ and win 10 million, which would you play?
And you're basing that thinking on them doing something they couldn't do all day,
I'm sorry, was there something Grossman was doing to give you confidence he could convert that 4th and 6?? Then shut up about about whether he could march the field either. If you have so little trust in the kid, he shouldnt be out there and the game certainly shouldnt rest on an improbable 4th and 6 with the ball in his hands. You either believe in your guy or you dont.
 
Related circumstance: San Francisco's decision to kick a field goal on fourth-and-inches at the 7 yard line, up 14-13 with 4:00 left. On that drive they'd had 9 straight rushing plays, eight of which gained at least 3 yards. The FG was good, but there was still plenty of time for the Rams to drive down and score a TD against the Niner's weak defense.

 
Related circumstance: San Francisco's decision to kick a field goal on fourth-and-inches at the 7 yard line, up 14-13 with 4:00 left. On that drive they'd had 9 straight rushing plays, eight of which gained at least 3 yards. The FG was good, but there was still plenty of time for the Rams to drive down and score a TD against the Niner's weak defense.
That's also a bad call IMO, but a little different. Playing conservative with the lead is one thing, I think Lovie played conservative while BEHIND which is worse.
 
Because they couldn't drive the length of the field ALL DAY.

They needed a TD, period. Not 10 points, SEVEN, before they could even think about winning the game. You coach to do whatever it is to get your team back in the game FIRST, before you coach to actually win it with a minute left, and by doing something you haven't done all day to boot.
politics. field goal was the safe move plus it kept the door open. If Lovie went for it and failed, how would he explain that to the media? "I don't have faith in our offense so I figured we'd take a shot while we can."

 
Because they couldn't drive the length of the field ALL DAY.

They needed a TD, period. Not 10 points, SEVEN, before they could even think about winning the game. You coach to do whatever it is to get your team back in the game FIRST, before you coach to actually win it with a minute left, and by doing something you haven't done all day to boot.
politics. field goal was the safe move plus it kept the door open. If Lovie went for it and failed, how would he explain that to the media? "I don't have faith in our offense so I figured we'd take a shot while we can."
What do you mean? Same result. He still has to stop NE, only deeper in THEIR territory. No downside really, when compared to the alternative.
 
billyjoe said:
mbuehner said:
I was ok with it. Look at it this way- you need 2 scores to win the game, so at some point you have to drive down and get that field goal- maybe at the end maybe during overttime (and on the road you should go for the win when you can as opposed to risking OT). On the other hand if you go for it on 4th down you either dont make it and are in the same position you describe but still eventually needing 2 scores, or if you do make it you score and give NE the ball back with a ton of time and just needing to march down and score a field goal to win. Now i understand they can just march down and win no matter what you do if you cant stop them, but there is a psychological component to this- any offense is going to play more aggresively and better marching down to win the game than they will sitting on a lead.

For that reason I like the decision making, and it worked out exactly as they would have wanted getting the ball back when NE made an offensive mistake trying to kill the clock. The table was perfectly set for Grossman to march down and win the game, but unfortunately he decided to do it with 1 throw instead of taking what was offered and moving down the field in incriments as the best 2 minute drill QBs do- just get first downs.
Uh, they were down by 7. Not 2 scores.They needed 1 TD. A FG did nothing. They still needed a TD.

It was without question, a bad call. You don't get the 1st down, NE gets the ball, you still need a TD. Get the FG, give NE the ball, still need a TD. With 3ish minutes left, there's a chance you don't even get it back. There's simply no way I kick a FG to cut it to 4.
A ridiculous and very poor decision, especially knowing the offense you have, and the defense you have. What did you gain? A loss by 4 pts instead of 3? :lmao: You are DEEP in enemy territiory late in the game, unquestionably you go for it. If you don't make it, you have NE deep in their own territory with the best defense in the league.

A horrible decision.

 
Because they couldn't drive the length of the field ALL DAY.

They needed a TD, period. Not 10 points, SEVEN, before they could even think about winning the game. You coach to do whatever it is to get your team back in the game FIRST, before you coach to actually win it with a minute left, and by doing something you haven't done all day to boot.
politics. field goal was the safe move plus it kept the door open. If Lovie went for it and failed, how would he explain that to the media? "I don't have faith in our offense so I figured we'd take a shot while we can."
What do you mean? Same result. He still has to stop NE, only deeper in THEIR territory. No downside really, when compared to the alternative.
Its a safer call for the coach. As it turned out, Lovie didn't lose the game, Grossman did. Also, I'm guessing Lovie will get grilled in chicago radio alot less about this decision than if he went for it, failed, and allowed new england to run out the clock. Lovie would be conceding that his offense sucks, and wouldn't have another shot.

 
Wow, I didn't realize what a clown mbuehner was. :thumbup:
Whatever. Its a disagreement, the only difference being i understand your argument completely but apparently you can't grasp mine. People can decide for themselves who the clown is. Handing the ball back to NE with nothing to show for it and a long shot of: stopping the Patriots, marching down the field and scoring (which strangely you consider impossible but at the same time think is reasonable if done with an extra maybe 15 yards of field position), and then preventing NE from scoring again you claim is a no-brainer. While doing the same thing but giving yourself the potential to actually win the game is idiotic. Have to agree to disagree. You may think Lovie was right or wrong, but it is simply silly and childishly short-sighted not to recognize there is a legitimate argument for it.
 
I can't disagree more so I'll just say this. Their chances of converting a 4th and 6 were better than putting together a long drive.
I disagree.
It did nothing, but give them a VERY unlikely chance to win a game that they couldn't tie to begin with.
They had a very unlikely chance of tieing the game, and even if they did so they would likely have lost it anyway. So basically instead of parleying a 4th and long and then somehow winning the game later- they chose to take the points and do what they would have to do anyway- get in the endzone. Getting in the endzone is the hard part of this equation... if you assume the Grossman isnt stupid enough to throw a long pick his first pass of the 2 minute drill instead of marching down the field against a prevent defense which almost always happens in the NFL. I think you have to assume that, or else you shouldnt have the QB out there to begin with. I think NFL offenses complete 2 minute drills more often statistically than 4th and 6. I like any QBs chances of marching the field with 2 timeouts and the 2 minute warning against a prevent defense and getting a first and goal and the 10 to try breaking into the endzone much better than gambling on 1 play which will at best get you a tie.
And there was no guarantee that they could even get the ball back (and had only 2 TO's).
There was never that guarantee.
So you're telling me that they should have played to win basically, instead of trying to get back in the game period, with only a few plays?
Yes because the odds of winning that game under any circumstances are long, while the odds of going ahead instead of tieing are only marginally longer. If you could play the lotto for .90$ and win 1 million dollars or a 1.00$ and win 10 million, which would you play?
And you're basing that thinking on them doing something they couldn't do all day,
I'm sorry, was there something Grossman was doing to give you confidence he could convert that 4th and 6?? Then shut up about about whether he could march the field either. If you have so little trust in the kid, he shouldnt be out there and the game certainly shouldnt rest on an improbable 4th and 6 with the ball in his hands. You either believe in your guy or you dont.
Why do you keep calling 4th and 6 "4th and long"? If the Bears go for it in that situation, WORST case scenario is the Pats get the ball back and the Bears defense has to make a stop. If the Pats attempt the field goal, the BEST case scenario is the Pats get the ball back and the Bears defense has to make a stop. It's really that simple. I don't understand how anyone can defend that call given the circumstances. Borderline ridiculous call but I have Gould so I'm happy......
 
Its a safer call for the coach. As it turned out, Lovie didn't lose the game, Grossman did. Also, I'm guessing Lovie will get grilled in chicago radio alot less about this decision than if he went for it, failed, and allowed new england to run out the clock. Lovie would be conceding that his offense sucks, and wouldn't have another shot.
If New England was going to be able run out the clock, kicking the field goal is 100% the wrong decision. I think you're right that coaches often make the conservative, incorrect move, simply to deflect criticism. (See the Rams going for it on fourth and one last week).
 
Wow, I didn't realize what a clown blind homer mbuehner was. :thumbup:
Fixed.It was a terrible call that made absolutely no sense at all.

Take the blinders off mb, it's ok.....
I've ripped the Bears as early and often as anybody, Lovie Smith included. The only bone of contention here is that you guys wont give a coach credit for having a longer strategic view of the game than you. Like I said, i'm perfectly willing to concede it might have been the wrong decision (although I disagree)- but claiming its a ridiculous, untenable decision is flat out bush league and reveals a fundamental lack of football knowledge. Sorry. :X
 
Because they couldn't drive the length of the field ALL DAY.

They needed a TD, period. Not 10 points, SEVEN, before they could even think about winning the game. You coach to do whatever it is to get your team back in the game FIRST, before you coach to actually win it with a minute left, and by doing something you haven't done all day to boot.
politics. field goal was the safe move plus it kept the door open. If Lovie went for it and failed, how would he explain that to the media? "I don't have faith in our offense so I figured we'd take a shot while we can."
What do you mean? Same result. He still has to stop NE, only deeper in THEIR territory. No downside really, when compared to the alternative.
Its a safer call for the coach. As it turned out, Lovie didn't lose the game, Grossman did. Also, I'm guessing Lovie will get grilled in chicago radio alot less about this decision than if he went for it, failed, and allowed new england to run out the clock. Lovie would be conceding that his offense sucks, and wouldn't have another shot.
Now that's the stuff of legends. A coaching philosophy of Champions, I tell ya.
 
Wow, I didn't realize what a clown mbuehner was. :thumbup:
Whatever. Its a disagreement, the only difference being i understand your argument completely but apparently you can't grasp mine. People can decide for themselves who the clown is. Handing the ball back to NE with nothing to show for it and a long shot of: stopping the Patriots, marching down the field and scoring (which strangely you consider impossible but at the same time think is reasonable if done with an extra maybe 15 yards of field position), and then preventing NE from scoring again you claim is a no-brainer. While doing the same thing but giving yourself the potential to actually win the game is idiotic. Have to agree to disagree. You may think Lovie was right or wrong, but it is simply silly and childishly short-sighted not to recognize there is a legitimate argument for it.
Dude the Bears were down by 7 and had the ball at the Pats 14 yard line with 3 minutes to play. This is a golden opportunity for them to tie the game up. In this situation, you are not playing for 2 scores. You are playing to send the game into overtime and hope for the best. If the Bears D can't stop the Pats, they lose regardless of the decision that they make. If you assume that the Bears D can stop the Pats and get the ball back, then there is no defending that call. If you assume that the Bears D cannot stop the Pats and get the ball back, then it really doesn't matter what decision you make because you will lose the game regardless.
 
Wow, I didn't realize what a clown blind homer mbuehner was. :thumbup:
Fixed.It was a terrible call that made absolutely no sense at all.

Take the blinders off mb, it's ok.....
I've ripped the Bears as early and often as anybody, Lovie Smith included. The only bone of contention here is that you guys wont give a coach credit for having a longer strategic view of the game than you. Like I said, i'm perfectly willing to concede it might have been the wrong decision (although I disagree)- but claiming its a ridiculous, untenable decision is flat out bush league and reveals a fundamental lack of football knowledge. Sorry. :X
:lmao:
 
Why do you keep calling 4th and 6 "4th and long"?
Because 4th and 6 is forth and long.
If the Bears go for it in that situation, WORST case scenario is the Pats get the ball back and the Bears defense has to make a stop.
Nooo, worst case Bears have to stop the Patriots twice more in the game and score twice more in order to win.
If the Pats attempt the field goal, the BEST case scenario is the Pats get the ball back and the Bears defense has to make a stop.
And then score again to win the game.

People seem to keep forgetting that. You play to win on the road, you play for overtime at home.

The point is, I dont see the sense of letting a tie hinge on a 4th and 6. Rather than creating a chance to win the game with a long drive that you almost certainly are going to have to make either way.

 
If the Bears D can't stop the Pats, they lose regardless of the decision that they make. If you assume that the Bears D can stop the Pats and get the ball back, then there is no defending that call.
There's a big difference between stopping the Patriots in kill the clock sitting on a lead mode, and stopping the Patriots in score is tied- march down and win the game mode. The Patriots are brilliant at staying aggressive throughout a game, but even they run more often than usual to burn the clock when ahead. The point is to keep the momentum on your side by tempting the Patriots to play conservative- kill the clock on offense, play prevent on defense. Like i said, the beauty of this decision was it gives the Bears the ball to end the game, which is what you want against Brady and the Pats. AND IT WORKED. The fact that Grossman threw a pick notwithstanding. He could have thrown that pick on 4th and 6, or thrown it running the 2 minute drill after missing the 4th and 6 and getting the ball back, or thrown it in overtime. If you dont have faith in your QB, the whole argument is moot.
 
I thought it was a good decision. By making a FG the Bears are down by 4 and will kickoff so the Pats will have it about the 25-30 yard line. Bears need a stop and a TD to win. By going for it, if they don't make it, the Pats have the ball at the 14 and Bears need a stop and a TD to tie. Figuring they wouldn't be able to make a 4th & 6 (anyone have stats on that success rate?), Lovie traded 20 yards of field for a chance to win instead of a chance to tie.

I don't think the Bears had a good chance of scoring a late TD but I think it would be a better chance than converting a 4th & 6.

 
Because they couldn't drive the length of the field ALL DAY.

They needed a TD, period. Not 10 points, SEVEN, before they could even think about winning the game. You coach to do whatever it is to get your team back in the game FIRST, before you coach to actually win it with a minute left, and by doing something you haven't done all day to boot.
politics. field goal was the safe move plus it kept the door open. If Lovie went for it and failed, how would he explain that to the media? "I don't have faith in our offense so I figured we'd take a shot while we can."
What do you mean? Same result. He still has to stop NE, only deeper in THEIR territory. No downside really, when compared to the alternative.
Its a safer call for the coach. As it turned out, Lovie didn't lose the game, Grossman did. Also, I'm guessing Lovie will get grilled in chicago radio alot less about this decision than if he went for it, failed, and allowed new england to run out the clock. Lovie would be conceding that his offense sucks, and wouldn't have another shot.
Now that's the stuff of legends. A coaching philosophy of Champions, I tell ya.
No guts. No glory. No criticism.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
King Yao (a professional sports bettor whom you can trust to do all the calculations correctly given the assumptions he makes -- although of course the assumptions can be challenged) thinks it was the right decision:

Should the Bears have tried for a TD?

In the Chicago-New England game, the Bears were down 17-10 with 3:36 left to play. It was 4th and 6 at the NE 14. They opted to go for a FG. While watching the game, I wondered if trying for a TD was best. I decided to calculate the odds and see if a FG was in fact better than trying for a TD. The main problem is that there are a lot of assumptions that needs to be made in order to come up with a good comparison between the odds of winning the game if the Bears went for a FG or a TD. Those assumptions include:

- If they go for a TD, what are the odds they make it? If they don’t make it, what are the odds they get the ball back? If they do make it, what are the odds the Patriots score and win it in regulation?

- If they go for a FG, what are the odds they get the ball back? And then, what are the odds they score a TD to win the game?

With so many assumptions, a slight difference in one variable can change the relative probabilities. What I did come up with is that the point where it is a toss-up between going for a FG or a TD is when the probability of making a TD is 40% to 50%. That’s still a pretty wide range, but it’s a range I’m comfortable with after playing around with all the numbers. That shows how a small change in one assumption may change the bottom line.

Since it is 4th and 6 at the 14, it seems that getting a TD from that point (whether it be a TD on the 4th down or a first down and a TD on subsequent downs) is probably less than 40%. So therefore, it does seem going for a FG in that spot was the correct decision. If it was 4th and goal at the 1, then going for the TD would be the correct decision since getting a TD should be greater than 50% from that spot on the field.

This shows how tough the decisions can be for NFL coaches at times. Lovie Smith, the head coach of the Bears, didn’t spend the half hour I just did in making up assumptions and doing calculations. He had less than 20 seconds to make a decision. It looks to me like he came up with the correct one though, even though they did lose.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Related circumstance: San Francisco's decision to kick a field goal on fourth-and-inches at the 7 yard line, up 14-13 with 4:00 left. On that drive they'd had 9 straight rushing plays, eight of which gained at least 3 yards. The FG was good, but there was still plenty of time for the Rams to drive down and score a TD against the Niner's weak defense.
Now that's a bad decision. Who fears the Rams D on 4th and inches?I guess, on the other hand, who thinks Linehan's offense is going to get a TD when it gets to the redzone . . .
 
King Yao (a professional sports bettor whom you can trust to do all the calculations correctly given the assumptions he makes -- although of course the assumptions can be challenged) thinks it was the right decision:

Should the Bears have tried for a TD?

In the Chicago-New England game, the Bears were down 17-10 with 3:36 left to play. It was 4th and 6 at the NE 14. They opted to go for a FG. While watching the game, I wondered if trying for a TD was best. I decided to calculate the odds and see if a FG was in fact better than trying for a TD. The main problem is that there are a lot of assumptions that needs to be made in order to come up with a good comparison between the odds of winning the game if the Bears went for a FG or a TD. Those assumptions include:

- If they go for a TD, what are the odds they make it? If they don’t make it, what are the odds they get the ball back? If they do make it, what are the odds the Patriots score and win it in regulation?

- If they go for a FG, what are the odds they get the ball back? And then, what are the odds they score a TD to win the game?

With so many assumptions, a slight difference in one variable can change the relative probabilities. What I did come up with is that the point where it is a toss-up between going for a FG or a TD is when the probability of making a TD is 40% to 50%. That’s still a pretty wide range, but it’s a range I’m comfortable with after playing around with all the numbers. That shows how a small change in one assumption may change the bottom line.

Since it is 4th and 6 at the 14, it seems that getting a TD from that point (whether it be a TD on the 4th down or a first down and a TD on subsequent downs) is probably less than 40%. So therefore, it does seem going for a FG in that spot was the correct decision. If it was 4th and goal at the 1, then going for the TD would be the correct decision since getting a TD should be greater than 50% from that spot on the field.

This shows how tough the decisions can be for NFL coaches at times. Lovie Smith, the head coach of the Bears, didn’t spend the half hour I just did in making up assumptions and doing calculations. He had less than 20 seconds to make a decision. It looks to me like he came up with the correct one though, even though they did lose.
Seems rather incomplete. If CHI goes for it and gets stopped, they turn the ball over on downs, but put the Pats in very bad field position, and assuming the Bears can stop the Pats (which theyd have to do either way) theyd have a much better chance of scoring a TD with the better field position theyd get after a punt. By kicking the FG, the Bears basically chose to go for a win by having to drive the length of the field, rather than to go for the tie by having to drive half of it.

I understand the idea of going for the win on the road, but with NE's kicking woes (Gost has been off this year, despite the earlier 52 yarder), Id sure like Chicago better in an overtime situation there.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top