Letting The Other Team Score To Get The Ball Back And Score (1 Viewer)

[Joe Bryant]

Spinoff of Angrypatriot's thread on the idea of Green Bay allowing the Bears to score last night so they could get the ball back and tie the game.

Let's use this scenario:

1 time out left.

1:50 on the clock.

Score is tied.

Both offenses and defenses are average in every respect.

Offense has the ball 1st and goal on the 9.

Offense will score a TD if you let them. (ie, will not take a knee at the goal line)

If you're the Defense, what do you do here?

J

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

From the early results, it's obvious Mike McCarthy posts here.

 

[Insein]

If you look at it mathematically, the odds of blocking a 19 yd FG vs the odds of going down the field and scoring a TD in about 1:30 with 1TO, I don't think theres any question the right choice here.

 

[Koya]

You play to win the game - right?

What are the odds of winning in each situation? Basically you have these two options:

(1) Odds of blocking a field goal or having a chip shot missed, which would result in a tied game, no time on the clock. (What are the odds here? Has to be less than 3%, closer to 1%? Especially for a chip shot, where the kicker doesnt need to kick low for distance. I'd wager less than 1% of those kicks are blocked / missed)

(2) Odds of scoring a TD in a must score a TD situation (my guess is way better than 3%, especially for a team like GB - maybe 10%?)

Not only are your odds far greater in #2 (would love to have someone crunch the numbers as opposed to guesstimates), you also hold control over the situation, as opposed to hoping for a 1/100 (or worse) chance.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

(2) Odds of scoring a TD in a must score a TD situation (my guess is way better than 3%, especially for a team like GB - maybe 10%?)

Probably double or more on an average KR. GB didn't look too good on KRs last night though, but on average they should be around the 25 or so I'm guessing.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I wrote this in the other thread:

One way I always like to look at it, is from the perspective of the other team.

If you're a Jets fan facing the Patriots and Brady has the ball on the Jets 40 and is facing 4th and 2, what do you hope he does?

You hope he punts. You do not want him going for it there.

If I were a Bears fan, the last thing in the world I would have wanted the Packers to do last night would be to let Forte score.

I think that says a lot.

J

 

[Pipes]

With an average offense it's debatable. With GB's passing attack and Gould, who's made 179 PAT's in a row, I let him score.

 

[CrossEyed]

Depends completely on who my QB is.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Depends completely on who my QB is.

Unless your QB is some guy you just pulled out of the stands, you have a better than 1% chance of scoring a TD I think.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Depends completely on who my QB is.

Assume they're an average NFL starting QB.Assume the kicker for the other team is average.J

 

[Koya]

With an average offense it's debatable. With GB's passing attack and Gould, who's made 179 PAT's in a row, I let him score.

I honestly don't see much of a debate. Again, I'd like to see real statistical reference, but if indeed you are talking about a 5-10x better chance to win by letting them score, there's no debate - only a right call and a wrong call. Last night the Pack choose wrong.

 

[Novice2]

Absolute best chance to win is let them score a TD and have a minute left to match than to hold them try to block a FG or hope other teams players aren't smart enough to call a tmeout with 4 seconds left instead of 8 so that you have the remote chance to return the kickoff for a TD.

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

What's lost in all of this is that not only did the Packers screw up by not letting the Bears score and getting the ball back with 1:50, but the Bears continued trying to pound it in, risking a turnover and/or injury, when they could've simply taken a knee three times and ended up with roughly the same distance (and time left on the clock) for the FG anyway.

In other words, if I'm the Bears, and the Packers try to let me score, should I take them up on it? I say no.

 

[urbanhack]

I let them run the first play and try to stuff them or hope for a penalty or fumble, etc. If there is a small gain and nothing significant happens, I let them score on the very next play. that would leave just over one minute with a TO remaining.

 

[Tau837]

With an average offense it's debatable.

I disagree. Even an average offense and kicker will score a TD or FG 98-99% of the time if you just play it out trying to stop them.Wouldn't an average offense have a chance better than 1-2% of scoring a TD after receiving a kickoff with 1:30 to 1:40 left and 1 timeout? I'm not saying it would be likely they would win, but I believe they would have a better chance. I don't think it's really debatable.And, yes, obviously with Green Bay's offense, it is even more of a nobrainer.Aside from all that, if you are Lovie Smith, wouldn't you tell your players not to score if Green Bay tried to allow it? And why not take a knee on those plays rather than risking a fumble?

 

[Tau837]

What's lost in all of this is that not only did the Packers screw up by not letting the Bears score and getting the ball back with 1:50, but the Bears continued trying to pound it in, risking a turnover and/or injury, when they could've simply taken a knee three times and ended up with roughly the same distance (and time left on the clock) for the FG anyway.In other words, if I'm the Bears, and the Packers try to let me score, should I take them up on it? I say no.

 

[urbanhack]

What's lost in all of this is that not only did the Packers screw up by not letting the Bears score and getting the ball back with 1:50, but the Bears continued trying to pound it in, risking a turnover and/or injury, when they could've simply taken a knee three times and ended up with roughly the same distance (and time left on the clock) for the FG anyway.In other words, if I'm the Bears, and the Packers try to let me score, should I take them up on it? I say no.

I think you have to. Too many possible risks leaving it up to FG. 99% of all head coaches are going to take the 7points and leave it to their defense to win the game. IMO.

 

[Billy Costigan Jr]

Depends.

If it's Garrett Hartley kicking the FG then sure let him miss it.

Otherwise the only real answer is to give your QB a chance to drive down the field for a TD.

 

[basher]

in the game last night, once the bears got the ball inside the 10 (after the PI call) you let them score as it is the only chance you have at putting the game into OT.

 

[CrossEyed]

Depends completely on who my QB is.

Assume they're an average NFL starting QB.Assume the kicker for the other team is average.J

Well, even with everything being "average", I still think my odds of scoring a tying TD with almost 2 minutes left are better than my odds of blocking a chipshot FG.I'd let them score.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

you let them score.....you get even a half way decent return and you are in pretty good shape......let alone a decent return past the 40 or something.....

no brainer........

 

[jurb26]

What's lost in all of this is that not only did the Packers screw up by not letting the Bears score and getting the ball back with 1:50, but the Bears continued trying to pound it in, risking a turnover and/or injury, when they could've simply taken a knee three times and ended up with roughly the same distance (and time left on the clock) for the FG anyway.In other words, if I'm the Bears, and the Packers try to let me score, should I take them up on it? I say no.

I think you have to. Too many possible risks leaving it up to FG. 99% of all head coaches are going to take the 7points and leave it to their defense to win the game. IMO.

If they are going to let me score I take as much time doing it as I possibly can. In the end though, yes you take the 7 points. If the other team wants to stand around and let 10 or 15 more seconds tick off the clock like morons then I'd be more than happy to take them up on that offer on my way to a 7 point lead.I love how people just assume that letting them score is a singular idea. GB could have tried to "let them score" and just looked like fools if Chi would have realized it and milked the clock even more. And before you say that the players aren't smart enough to do that, recall Westbrook a few years ago.

 

[RUSF18]

It bothered me that the Bears even took a timeout when the play clock got down to 1 second (and 5 seconds on the game clock). Take the delay and back yourself all the way up to the 6 yard line. If the squib kick took a weird bounce and went out of bounds, that extra second is very much in play.

 

[RUSF18]

What's lost in all of this is that not only did the Packers screw up by not letting the Bears score and getting the ball back with 1:50, but the Bears continued trying to pound it in, risking a turnover and/or injury, when they could've simply taken a knee three times and ended up with roughly the same distance (and time left on the clock) for the FG anyway.

In other words, if I'm the Bears, and the Packers try to let me score, should I take them up on it? I say no.

I think you have to. Too many possible risks leaving it up to FG. 99% of all head coaches are going to take the 7points and leave it to their defense to win the game. IMO.

If they are going to let me score I take as much time doing it as I possibly can. In the end though, yes you take the 7 points. If the other team wants to stand around and let 10 or 15 more seconds tick off the clock like morons then I'd be more than happy to take them up on that offer on my way to a 7 point lead.I love how people just assume that letting them score is a singular idea. GB could have tried to "let them score" and just looked like fools if Chi would have realized it and milked the clock even more. And before you say that the players aren't smart enough to do that, recall Westbrook a few years ago.

1. Why would they have looked like fools?2. How could CHI have milked the clock "even more" than they already were?

 

[jurb26]

What's lost in all of this is that not only did the Packers screw up by not letting the Bears score and getting the ball back with 1:50, but the Bears continued trying to pound it in, risking a turnover and/or injury, when they could've simply taken a knee three times and ended up with roughly the same distance (and time left on the clock) for the FG anyway.

In other words, if I'm the Bears, and the Packers try to let me score, should I take them up on it? I say no.

I think you have to. Too many possible risks leaving it up to FG. 99% of all head coaches are going to take the 7points and leave it to their defense to win the game. IMO.

If they are going to let me score I take as much time doing it as I possibly can. In the end though, yes you take the 7 points. If the other team wants to stand around and let 10 or 15 more seconds tick off the clock like morons then I'd be more than happy to take them up on that offer on my way to a 7 point lead.I love how people just assume that letting them score is a singular idea. GB could have tried to "let them score" and just looked like fools if Chi would have realized it and milked the clock even more. And before you say that the players aren't smart enough to do that, recall Westbrook a few years ago.

1. Why would they have looked like fools?2. How could CHI have milked the clock "even more" than they already were?

1. You don't think a whole bunch of players standing around just watching a guy run off time and score 6 points on you makes them look like fools? I do.2. Even more than what the defense had expected. If the defense used this strategy obviously they were expecting to get the ball back with 1:40 or whatever back. If the offense was wise they wouldn't get any of that time and just give up more points. Or at the very least get significantly less time than they had expected and be forced to use their TO.

 

[Hooper31]

This game from back in 2004 came to mind when watching the game last night.

Seattle scored late on a run by Shaun Alexander. Dallas got the ball back and quickly scored two touchdowns to win the game. The first Dallas TD was a controversial catch in the back of the end zone by Keyshawn Johnson. Dallas got the ball back on an on-sides kick and won the game after a Julius Jones TD run. One of the worst moments in Seahawks history.

If Alexander just fallen down before the goal line Seattle could have milked the clock and just won the game.

 

[SSOG]

I don't care if you're the 2000 Baltimore Ravens or the 2002 Tampa Bay Bucs and the game is being played in a blizzard and your FG block team features Julius Peppers (8 career blocked kicks) and an in-his-prime Langston Walker (5 blocked kicks in the 2004 and 2005 seasons). If the other team isn't going to take a knee, then letting them score is always the correct play.

 

[CalBear]

Absolute best chance to win is let them score a TD and have a minute left to match than to hold them try to block a FG or hope other teams players aren't smart enough to call a tmeout with 4 seconds left instead of 8 so that you have the remote chance to return the kickoff for a TD.

Gee, I wonder if that ever happened before... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aCDfJH6eRY

 

[Stinkin Ref]

I don't care if you're the 2000 Baltimore Ravens or the 2002 Tampa Bay Bucs and the game is being played in a blizzard and your FG block team features Julius Peppers (8 career blocked kicks) and an in-his-prime Langston Walker (5 blocked kicks in the 2004 and 2005 seasons). If the other team isn't going to take a knee, then letting them score is always the correct play.

I get your point, but the blizzard conditions might change that as a 70 yard drive in a little over a minute might be a little more difficult. Maybe still let them score, but if its a blizzard I could see the snap, hold, and kick being a little more difficult.

 

[LittlePhatty]

If I were a Bears fan, the last thing in the world I would have wanted the Packers to do last night would be to let Forte score.

Agreed.I think I would even go so far as having Cutler take a knee a couple of times and run the clock down as much as possible, then go for the FG. I wouldn't even try to run it in. I think you have to assume the kick will be good and weigh your options based on that.

 

[redBourne]

Kickers are anything but a sure thing these days. Even chip shots are missed. Asked Hartley.

What you didn't add to your question was the score of the tied game. At the end of 4 quarters if my offense has only put up 14 pts, I'm blocking the FG (trying to). If it's 24+ I might start to consider letting the team score and fighting back.

as the question stands, i'm going for the block/strip/sack and tackle for loss.

 

[Insein]

All you need to know is Ray Lewis said on Mike and Mike that Green Bay made the wrong call. Hard Core, Macho Defensive Guy, Ray Lewis said let them score. You do whatever gives you the best chance to win.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

I wrote this in the other thread:

One way I always like to look at it, is from the perspective of the other team.

If you're a Jets fan facing the Patriots and Brady has the ball on the Jets 40 and is facing 4th and 2, what do you hope he does?

You hope he punts. You do not want him going for it there.

If I were a Bears fan, the last thing in the world I would have wanted the Packers to do last night would be to let Forte score.

I think that says a lot.

J

This doesn't make any sense? Why not?

 

[CalBear]

I wrote this in the other thread:

One way I always like to look at it, is from the perspective of the other team.

If you're a Jets fan facing the Patriots and Brady has the ball on the Jets 40 and is facing 4th and 2, what do you hope he does?

You hope he punts. You do not want him going for it there.

If I were a Bears fan, the last thing in the world I would have wanted the Packers to do last night would be to let Forte score.

I think that says a lot.

J

This doesn't make any sense? Why not?

Because a rational Bears fan would rather be up 20-17 with 4 seconds left than 24-17 with 1:00 left.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Depends completely on who my QB is.

Assume they're an average NFL starting QB.Assume the kicker for the other team is average.J

Well, even with everything being "average", I still think my odds of scoring a tying TD with almost 2 minutes left are better than my odds of blocking a chipshot FG.I'd let them score.

They could have garrett hartley today, and my qb is senecca wallace and I am still doing that. The FG at that pt is a veritable certainty, with maybe a 1-2% chance of missing. A lot of the blocks come on longer kicks where the kicker has to drive the ball. On one that short it's a lay up. JUts pop it over the line. I have actually wondered sometimes why the kicking team in such a scenario wouldn't set up a kick say 10-11 yards back instead of the usual 7, as the only really chance for failure from there is a DT pushing up and putting up a big mitt. Backing it up would kill thee angle of the d. Unless there is a rule that says it must be 7 yards, it sems weird that is the only spot they ever kick from.

 

[Raider Nation]

Not sure how this is even in question. A buddy of mine who grew up in Italy and knows almost nothing about American football (but is trying to learn) called me during that sequence and asked why the white team would not let the other guys "have their points" so there is time left to do something.

If HE realizes this, how does a coach in the National Football League not realize this? It's plain stupidity.

 

[renesauz]

What's lost in all of this is that not only did the Packers screw up by not letting the Bears score and getting the ball back with 1:50, but the Bears continued trying to pound it in, risking a turnover and/or injury, when they could've simply taken a knee three times and ended up with roughly the same distance (and time left on the clock) for the FG anyway.In other words, if I'm the Bears, and the Packers try to let me score, should I take them up on it? I say no.

I think you have to. Too many possible risks leaving it up to FG. 99% of all head coaches are going to take the 7points and leave it to their defense to win the game. IMO.

If they are going to let me score I take as much time doing it as I possibly can. In the end though, yes you take the 7 points. If the other team wants to stand around and let 10 or 15 more seconds tick off the clock like morons then I'd be more than happy to take them up on that offer on my way to a 7 point lead.I love how people just assume that letting them score is a singular idea. GB could have tried to "let them score" and just looked like fools if Chi would have realized it and milked the clock even more. And before you say that the players aren't smart enough to do that, recall Westbrook a few years ago.

The Westbrook scenario was different...PHILLY WAS ALREADY IN THE LEAD. That's a very significant distinction since the Eagles didn't even need to score.

 

[ScottNorwood]

YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME!

 

[jurb26]

What's lost in all of this is that not only did the Packers screw up by not letting the Bears score and getting the ball back with 1:50, but the Bears continued trying to pound it in, risking a turnover and/or injury, when they could've simply taken a knee three times and ended up with roughly the same distance (and time left on the clock) for the FG anyway.In other words, if I'm the Bears, and the Packers try to let me score, should I take them up on it? I say no.

I think you have to. Too many possible risks leaving it up to FG. 99% of all head coaches are going to take the 7points and leave it to their defense to win the game. IMO.

If they are going to let me score I take as much time doing it as I possibly can. In the end though, yes you take the 7 points. If the other team wants to stand around and let 10 or 15 more seconds tick off the clock like morons then I'd be more than happy to take them up on that offer on my way to a 7 point lead.I love how people just assume that letting them score is a singular idea. GB could have tried to "let them score" and just looked like fools if Chi would have realized it and milked the clock even more. And before you say that the players aren't smart enough to do that, recall Westbrook a few years ago.

The Westbrook scenario was different...PHILLY WAS ALREADY IN THE LEAD. That's a very significant distinction since the Eagles didn't even need to score.

The point wasn't about them being the same exact situations. It was about players understanding the scenarios at play.

 

[renesauz]

What's lost in all of this is that not only did the Packers screw up by not letting the Bears score and getting the ball back with 1:50, but the Bears continued trying to pound it in, risking a turnover and/or injury, when they could've simply taken a knee three times and ended up with roughly the same distance (and time left on the clock) for the FG anyway.In other words, if I'm the Bears, and the Packers try to let me score, should I take them up on it? I say no.

I think you have to. Too many possible risks leaving it up to FG. 99% of all head coaches are going to take the 7points and leave it to their defense to win the game. IMO.

If they are going to let me score I take as much time doing it as I possibly can. In the end though, yes you take the 7 points. If the other team wants to stand around and let 10 or 15 more seconds tick off the clock like morons then I'd be more than happy to take them up on that offer on my way to a 7 point lead.I love how people just assume that letting them score is a singular idea. GB could have tried to "let them score" and just looked like fools if Chi would have realized it and milked the clock even more. And before you say that the players aren't smart enough to do that, recall Westbrook a few years ago.

The Westbrook scenario was different...PHILLY WAS ALREADY IN THE LEAD. That's a very significant distinction since the Eagles didn't even need to score.

The point wasn't about them being the same exact situations. It was about players understanding the scenarios at play.

It's the same from a defensive POV, but from the offenses POV...it's a radically different scenario. With a one point lead, the offense is thinking of (or should be thinking of) nothing BUT the clock, while with a game tied or 1 down, the offense has to score. With a 1 point lead, you could argue that it would almost be better to let the other team take over on downs at their own 3 yard line then to kick a FG and then have to kick off with 20 or 30 seconds left.People keep bringing up Westbrooks move, but it simply isn't appropriate.That said, it is the same from the defensive POV. 3 points or 7 is far less important that making sure your offense gets another shot. You let them score. Heck...unless they're willing to kneel down...you simply help pull the runner into the end zone.

 

[David Yudkin]

I realize the premise was that the offense had no reservations about scoring, but I think in practical reality that the offense would be in no hurry to score. If they had it first and goal inside the 10 yard line, I doubt they would be passing as an incompletion would work against them. So I'm guessing that they would usually only run the ball and that they could very well get to the one yard line and stop. In a tie game, I don't see them wanting to score with time on the clock.

 

[FUBAR]

Depends completely on who my QB is.

Assume they're an average NFL starting QB.Assume the kicker for the other team is average.J

Well, even with everything being "average", I still think my odds of scoring a tying TD with almost 2 minutes left are better than my odds of blocking a chipshot FG.I'd let them score.

They could have garrett hartley today, and my qb is senecca wallace and I am still doing that. The FG at that pt is a veritable certainty, with maybe a 1-2% chance of missing. A lot of the blocks come on longer kicks where the kicker has to drive the ball. On one that short it's a lay up. JUts pop it over the line. I have actually wondered sometimes why the kicking team in such a scenario wouldn't set up a kick say 10-11 yards back instead of the usual 7, as the only really chance for failure from there is a DT pushing up and putting up a big mitt. Backing it up would kill thee angle of the d. Unless there is a rule that says it must be 7 yards, it sems weird that is the only spot they ever kick from.

My guess on the 7 yard thing is even if not a rule, do you really want to have to think too much when it comes to snapping the ball? Repetition is the best thing for those types of actions. Either way, although my gut reaction is "no way, you can't let a team score!", it takes about 3 seconds to read the situation to realize that yes, you do exactly that even if your QB is the worst QB in the league, you could put David Carr or Ryan Leaf in there today and I go for it.

 

[SSOG]

Kickers are anything but a sure thing these days. Even chip shots are missed. Asked Hartley. What you didn't add to your question was the score of the tied game. At the end of 4 quarters if my offense has only put up 14 pts, I'm blocking the FG (trying to). If it's 24+ I might start to consider letting the team score and fighting back. as the question stands, i'm going for the block/strip/sack and tackle for loss.

A field goal from the 9 yard line is essentially a PAT. NFL kickers make 98-99% of their PATs. Garrett Hartley has booted 97.8% of his PATs. For his career, he's 50-of-52 from under 30 yards (including PATs). I doubt you'll find a modern NFL kicker who makes below 95% on kicks under 30 yards.Even if the other team has the worst kicker in the entire NFL, I'd say they've got at least a 96% chance of making the kick, so the question then becomes whether you think your offense has a greater than 4% chance of scoring... and I'd say that even if you matched Carolina's offense against Pittsburgh's defense, the offense would still have a greater than 4% chance of scoring.Even if you have the best defense in the league, and your opponent has the worst offense, and you have the second worst offense, and your opponent has the second best defense, and your opponent has the worst kicker in the entire NFL... even then, I still think you let them score.

 

[jurb26]

It's the same from a defensive POV, but from the offenses POV...it's a radically different scenario. With a one point lead, the offense is thinking of (or should be thinking of) nothing BUT the clock, while with a game tied or 1 down, the offense has to score. With a 1 point lead, you could argue that it would almost be better to let the other team take over on downs at their own 3 yard line then to kick a FG and then have to kick off with 20 or 30 seconds left.People keep bringing up Westbrooks move, but it simply isn't appropriate.That said, it is the same from the defensive POV. 3 points or 7 is far less important that making sure your offense gets another shot. You let them score. Heck...unless they're willing to kneel down...you simply help pull the runner into the end zone.

You still don't get it.

 

[jurb26]

A field goal from the 9 yard line is essentially a PAT. NFL kickers make 98-99% of their PATs. Garrett Hartley has booted 97.8% of his PATs. For his career, he's 50-of-52 from under 30 yards (including PATs). I doubt you'll find a modern NFL kicker who makes below 95% on kicks under 30 yards.Even if the other team has the worst kicker in the entire NFL, I'd say they've got at least a 96% chance of making the kick, so the question then becomes whether you think your offense has a greater than 4% chance of scoring... and I'd say that even if you matched Carolina's offense against Pittsburgh's defense, the offense would still have a greater than 4% chance of scoring.Even if you have the best defense in the league, and your opponent has the worst offense, and you have the second worst offense, and your opponent has the second best defense, and your opponent has the worst kicker in the entire NFL... even then, I still think you let them score.

This is faulty. You are assuming that the D is trying just as hard to block an extra point as they are to block a game winning K. Not true.

 

[Godsbrother]

With an average offense it's debatable. With GB's passing attack and Gould, who's made 179 PAT's in a row, I let him score.

And there was less than 1:50, it would have more like 1:10 if I recall. All the more reason to let them score.

 

[FUBAR]

I realize the premise was that the offense had no reservations about scoring, but I think in practical reality that the offense would be in no hurry to score. If they had it first and goal inside the 10 yard line, I doubt they would be passing as an incompletion would work against them. So I'm guessing that they would usually only run the ball and that they could very well get to the one yard line and stop. In a tie game, I don't see them wanting to score with time on the clock.

certainly the pragmatic answer. just curious, let's say Joe's scenario is in play:

Let's use this scenario:1 time out left.1:50 on the clock.Score is tied.Both offenses and defenses are average in every respect.Offense has the ball 1st and goal on the 9.

what exactly is preventing the offense from taking a knee twice and then slowly walking into the endzone as the time runs out if you're going to let them? Obviously you tackle him before he gets in, but if they have their time out and time remains, they still kick the FG. You're going to lose the chess game here unless you just try to stop them, your chance might be 1-3% but it's zero if both teams are playing the same game.

 

[SSOG]

They could have garrett hartley today, and my qb is senecca wallace and I am still doing that. The FG at that pt is a veritable certainty, with maybe a 1-2% chance of missing. A lot of the blocks come on longer kicks where the kicker has to drive the ball. On one that short it's a lay up. JUts pop it over the line. I have actually wondered sometimes why the kicking team in such a scenario wouldn't set up a kick say 10-11 yards back instead of the usual 7, as the only really chance for failure from there is a DT pushing up and putting up a big mitt. Backing it up would kill thee angle of the d. Unless there is a rule that says it must be 7 yards, it sems weird that is the only spot they ever kick from.

Long snappers are highly trained machines. They drill and drill and drill until they can snap consistently and identically every time. The best long-snappers in the league claim that not only can they get the ball to the right spot at an incredibly fast speed, they can also deliver it with the laces facing a certain way every time (typically NFL kickers want the ball delivered with the laces down and to the right so that when the holder sets it up it will be on the opposite side from their foot). I'd imagine an NFL long-snapper could easily deliver the ball 11 yards back, but I doubt he could do it with the same precision. You'd probably get a lot more balls skipped in the grass, or delivered laces-up, or with any number of other minor problems that disrupt the holder and kicker's rhythm.

I realize the premise was that the offense had no reservations about scoring, but I think in practical reality that the offense would be in no hurry to score. If they had it first and goal inside the 10 yard line, I doubt they would be passing as an incompletion would work against them. So I'm guessing that they would usually only run the ball and that they could very well get to the one yard line and stop. In a tie game, I don't see them wanting to score with time on the clock.

If I'm a defensive player and my coach calls for me to let the other team score, I'm not going to passively stand around and wait for them to run into the end zone- I'm going to grab them and PULL THEM INTO THE END ZONE. After Forte got past the defensive line, have a big DT push him in the back. Have a linebacker wrap him up and drag him forward. Leave nothing to chance.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I realize the premise was that the offense had no reservations about scoring, but I think in practical reality that the offense would be in no hurry to score. If they had it first and goal inside the 10 yard line, I doubt they would be passing as an incompletion would work against them. So I'm guessing that they would usually only run the ball and that they could very well get to the one yard line and stop. In a tie game, I don't see them wanting to score with time on the clock.

certainly the pragmatic answer. just curious, let's say Joe's scenario is in play:

Let's use this scenario:1 time out left.1:50 on the clock.Score is tied.Both offenses and defenses are average in every respect.Offense has the ball 1st and goal on the 9.

what exactly is preventing the offense from taking a knee twice and then slowly walking into the endzone as the time runs out if you're going to let them? Obviously you tackle him before he gets in, but if they have their time out and time remains, they still kick the FG. You're going to lose the chess game here unless you just try to stop them, your chance might be 1-3% but it's zero if both teams are playing the same game.

Yes, you have to assume the offense wants to score. As certainly seemed to be the case with Chicago last night.J

 

[Insein]

I realize the premise was that the offense had no reservations about scoring, but I think in practical reality that the offense would be in no hurry to score. If they had it first and goal inside the 10 yard line, I doubt they would be passing as an incompletion would work against them. So I'm guessing that they would usually only run the ball and that they could very well get to the one yard line and stop. In a tie game, I don't see them wanting to score with time on the clock.

In a tie game, why risk the mistake? Botched kick, fumbled snap, etc? You go for the win if your the offense. If the defense lets you score a TD, you have to trust your own defense to stop the opposing offense from scoring.