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

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

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.

It's weird that some people grasp the concept of letting Chicago score so you have time to try to answer, but at the same time think that the Bears should try to score if GB lets them. It's the same analysis.

 

[renesauz]

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.

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.

Yes...I do get it...and Insein amplifies my point. In a tie game or losing by 1 or 2..the offense has a different mindset then they do up 1 or 2. They may go ultra-conservative, but they aren't about to turn away a free TD. Forte showed he was more interested in protecting the ball then trying to power through traffic, but he still ran the ball. Had the hole been there, he would have (rightfully) punched it in. My bigger point is that the mindset of both sides has to be taken into acount....and the offensive mindset is absolutely and dramaticly different in a tie game then it is with a 1 or 2 point lead.

 

[WiDDoW_MaKeR]

Never let the other team score. Try to strip the ball... force a turnover... and when it comes down to it... hope that you can block the kick, bad snap, or he misses the kick... or possibly even a penalty on the kicking team forcing them to move further back... ect...

Especially if you have only scored 2 touchdowns the entire game... and the opposing kicker has already missed a FG and almost shanked an Extra Point in the game.

 

[Tau837]

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.

It's weird that some people grasp the concept of letting Chicago score so you have time to try to answer, but at the same time think that the Bears should try to score if GB lets them. It's the same analysis.

Right, and last night we saw both coaches do the wrong thing. McCarthy should have let them score on the first down carry from the 10. Lovie should have had Cutler kneeling with the ball once they got to the 10 to avoid the risk of a fumble.It blows me away how many professional head coaches exhibit one or more of these qualities:ill preparedlacking in understanding of strategy and game situationslacking in guts (to make atypical decisions)These men have played and coached at different levels in hundreds of games, and should have witnessed/experienced a large number of end game scenarios. Yet they continue to botch their decisionmaking in these situations week after week.

 

[Harrassment Panda]

Let them score.

Saints were in a similiar situation against the 49ers on MNF in week 2. I am convinced the D backed off and let the Niners score so that the offense would have enough time to get down the field and kick the game winner.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I just got finished writing about this very topic for Hot Reads (should be out tomorrow).

The odds are 6% that he misses the kick.

The odds of scoring at TD with 1:40 on the clock is 10%.

You let them score.

 

[SSOG]

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.

And you're assuming that the O is trying just as hard to make an extra point as they are to make a game-winning K. Unless you can provide some sort of data backing up your claim that Extra Points are more likely to be blocked if they will either tie the score or get the lead late in the game, the null hypothesis should be, as usual, that there's no effect.Since I'm certainly not aware of any recent spate of teams blocking game-winning or game-tying extra points (which are incredibly common occurrences), again, I'm going to default to "game situation has no impact on the chances of making the kick".

 

[Pipes]

I just got finished writing about this very topic for Hot Reads (should be out tomorrow).

The odds are 6% that he misses the kick.

The odds of scoring at TD with 1:40 on the clock is 10%.

You let them score.

6% seems way too high for what amounts to an extra point.

 

[Insein]

I just got finished writing about this very topic for Hot Reads (should be out tomorrow).The odds are 6% that he misses the kick.The odds of scoring at TD with 1:40 on the clock is 10%.You let them score.

Good work by you. Math wins.

 

[CalBear]

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.

It's weird that some people grasp the concept of letting Chicago score so you have time to try to answer, but at the same time think that the Bears should try to score if GB lets them. It's the same analysis.

Microeconomists describe this phenomenon; people value things they have more than things they don't have. For example, by classical economics, if you're not willing to buy a scalped ticket to a game for $200, you should be willing to sell a ticket you hold for the same amount. You are apparently valuing the ticket at less than $200. But in reality, people are more likely to go to the game with the ticket they wouldn't pay $200 for, even if they could get $200 for selling it.Here, the thing the Bears can have is points. People are looking at it from the Bears perspective and are valuing having 7 points more than having 3. The thing the Packers can have is time; looking at it from the Packers perspective, they are valuing having > 1:00 more than trailing by 3 points instead of 7.So, it's understandable, even though it's wrong.

 

[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.

And you're assuming that the O is trying just as hard to make an extra point as they are to make a game-winning K. Unless you can provide some sort of data backing up your claim that Extra Points are more likely to be blocked if they will either tie the score or get the lead late in the game, the null hypothesis should be, as usual, that there's no effect.Since I'm certainly not aware of any recent spate of teams blocking game-winning or game-tying extra points (which are incredibly common occurrences), again, I'm going to default to "game situation has no impact on the chances of making the kick".

I'm not claiming to have a statistical measure to use here. You were. You were claiming 4% chance of missing the kick. I don't think there is any exact way that removes subjectivity to come up with the % of success vs. failure.

 

[LittlePhatty]

Right, and last night we saw both coaches do the wrong thing. McCarthy should have let them score on the first down carry from the 10. Lovie should have had Cutler kneeling with the ball once they got to the 10 to avoid the risk of a fumble.

I think so too. I was surprised that Forte made 3 attempts.

 

[David Yudkin]

I just got finished writing about this very topic for Hot Reads (should be out tomorrow).The odds are 6% that he misses the kick.The odds of scoring at TD with 1:40 on the clock is 10%.You let them score.

I think the percentages have to weighed based on the parties involved.If it's Peyton Manning getting the ball, it's more than 10%. If it's the Browns getting the ball, it would be less. If the team having to play defense were the Lions, that could make the success rate higher.If it's an established kicker, the chances of missing the kick would be lower (although I guess the chance of a bad snap would likely be the same).

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I just got finished writing about this very topic for Hot Reads (should be out tomorrow).The odds are 6% that he misses the kick.The odds of scoring at TD with 1:40 on the clock is 10%.You let them score.

I think the percentages have to weighed based on the parties involved.If it's Peyton Manning getting the ball, it's more than 10%. If it's the Browns getting the ball, it would be less. If the team having to play defense were the Lions, that could make the success rate higher.If it's an established kicker, the chances of missing the kick would be lower (although I guess the chance of a bad snap would likely be the same).

Agreed.By the way, the math was done at AdvancedNFLStats (who also did the math for 4th and 2 from last year).

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I just got finished writing about this very topic for Hot Reads (should be out tomorrow).

The odds are 6% that he misses the kick.

The odds of scoring at TD with 1:40 on the clock is 10%.

You let them score.

6% seems way too high for what amounts to an extra point.

"Miss" includes a block or a bad snap. It's one out of 16. Doesn't seem too far off.

 

[puckalicious]

IMO, this specific scenario for GB was a no win situation. They would have had barely over 1 minute left and only 1 timeout. CHI was punching them in the mouth all night and the fans were loud enough to cause multiple false starts (man did Tauscher suck). As stated before, Forte could just take a knee anyway if it was obvious that GB was going to let him walk in.

For me to be 100% on the side of 'let them score' I need to see 2 minutes on the clock.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

IMO, this specific scenario for GB was a no win situation. They would have had barely over 1 minute left and only 1 timeout. CHI was punching them in the mouth all night and the fans were loud enough to cause multiple false starts (man did Tauscher suck). As stated before, Forte could just take a knee anyway if it was obvious that GB was going to let him walk in.For me to be 100% on the side of 'let them score' I need to see 2 minutes on the clock.

There was 1:44 on the clock when Chicago snapped the ball on 1st and goal.

 

[puckalicious]

I just got finished writing about this very topic for Hot Reads (should be out tomorrow).

The odds are 6% that he misses the kick.

The odds of scoring at TD with 1:40 on the clock is 10%.

You let them score.

6% seems way too high for what amounts to an extra point.

"Miss" includes a block or a bad snap. It's one out of 16. Doesn't seem too far off.

How many extra point kicks are missed on average in a full NFL season? I really don't know but it can't be more than a handful out of probably hundreds of attempts, so the 6% miss probability seems high to me. I realize your stats are based on real NFL data so I guess I'm wrong, just doesn't feel right.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I just got finished writing about this very topic for Hot Reads (should be out tomorrow).

The odds are 6% that he misses the kick.

The odds of scoring at TD with 1:40 on the clock is 10%.

You let them score.

6% seems way too high for what amounts to an extra point.

"Miss" includes a block or a bad snap. It's one out of 16. Doesn't seem too far off.

How many extra point kicks are missed on average in a full NFL season? I really don't know but it can't be more than a handful out of probably hundreds of attempts, so the 6% miss probability seems high to me. I realize your stats are based on real NFL data so I guess I'm wrong, just doesn't feel right.

Inside the 10, it's mostly about holds and snaps:http://www.advancednflstats.com/2008/11/just-for-kicks.html

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I just got finished writing about this very topic for Hot Reads (should be out tomorrow).

The odds are 6% that he misses the kick.

The odds of scoring at TD with 1:40 on the clock is 10%.

You let them score.

6% seems way too high for what amounts to an extra point.

"Miss" includes a block or a bad snap. It's one out of 16. Doesn't seem too far off.

How many extra point kicks are missed on average in a full NFL season? I really don't know but it can't be more than a handful out of probably hundreds of attempts, so the 6% miss probability seems high to me. I realize your stats are based on real NFL data so I guess I'm wrong, just doesn't feel right.

Inside the 10, it's mostly about holds and snaps:http://www.advancednflstats.com/2008/11/just-for-kicks.html

What is the difference in the blue line and the black line on that graph?

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Inside the 10, it's mostly about holds and snaps:

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2008/11/just-for-kicks.html

What is the difference in the blue line and the black line on that graph?

Commentary (the line is not data, just an area where the author is making a comment)

 

[Stinkin Ref]

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.

at that point, I don't think it about trust......it's about not even putting them (your defense) in that position if you don't have too......there is no reason to give GB the ball back with time on the clock...........if I have a 94% (which I think is low) chance of winning the game by taking a knee and kicking a FG...Ima gonna do it.......

 

[Dr. Octopus]

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.

Well then last year. MJD did the same thing in a tie game against the Jets - stopped and fell at the 1 so they could milk the clock and kick the FG.

 

[SSOG]

I'm not claiming to have a statistical measure to use here. You were. You were claiming 4% chance of missing the kick. I don't think there is any exact way that removes subjectivity to come up with the % of success vs. failure.

The 4% wasn't meant to be an actual estimate, it was meant to be a very, very generous "best case scenario". NFL kickers make between 98% and 99% of extra points, so I was being extremely generous and allowing that maybe there'd be as high as a 4% chance for the kicker to miss. Which I figure is doubly generous, because that percentage also assumes that Chicago fails to score a TD while you're trying to prevent them. If Chicago has a 20% chance of scoring a TD (that's a number I pulled out of thin air to demonstrate the math, but I think it definitely underestimates the chances of getting a TD on 1st-and-goal from the 9), and they have a 4% chance of missing a FG attempt, then the odds that you walk away from the possession better by trying to stop them than you would have if you let them score are reduced to 3.2%.No matter how generous I get with my assumptions, I always come up with a 95+% chance that Chicago walks away from the possession with points if you tell your defense to try to stop them. Again, these aren't super-scientific figures meant to model exact NFL probabilities to the hundredth of a percent; rather, they're broad estimations based on what I figure to be a "best case scenario" for Green Bay.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

if the general football population thinks the way this poll is turning out....McCarthy has some explaining to do especially after saying "we never considered it....it was discussed but we never considered it"......how can it not at least be considered......strongly......we all did as soon as it happened.......

theres nothing wrong with admitting later that they maybe should have considered it more.....being stubborn in this situation will not help...........

I hope it gets brought up again in another presser with him and he gives us something besides...."there's nothing we can do about that now, we might have done some things different, but we are focused on DET".....he should at least admit he might have learned something, because the worse part of all this is if he didn't......then those in GB should really start to worry..........

 

[jurb26]

I'm not claiming to have a statistical measure to use here. You were. You were claiming 4% chance of missing the kick. I don't think there is any exact way that removes subjectivity to come up with the % of success vs. failure.

The 4% wasn't meant to be an actual estimate, it was meant to be a very, very generous "best case scenario". NFL kickers make between 98% and 99% of extra points, so I was being extremely generous and allowing that maybe there'd be as high as a 4% chance for the kicker to miss. Which I figure is doubly generous, because that percentage also assumes that Chicago fails to score a TD while you're trying to prevent them. If Chicago has a 20% chance of scoring a TD (that's a number I pulled out of thin air to demonstrate the math, but I think it definitely underestimates the chances of getting a TD on 1st-and-goal from the 9), and they have a 4% chance of missing a FG attempt, then the odds that you walk away from the possession better by trying to stop them than you would have if you let them score are reduced to 3.2%.No matter how generous I get with my assumptions, I always come up with a 95+% chance that Chicago walks away from the possession with points if you tell your defense to try to stop them. Again, these aren't super-scientific figures meant to model exact NFL probabilities to the hundredth of a percent; rather, they're broad estimations based on what I figure to be a "best case scenario" for Green Bay.

So this begs the question, how do you explain Jeff's 6% then? That number seems to be based off of actual statistics.I have no idea how the 10% was derived though. Jeff?

 

[JKL]

I'm not claiming to have a statistical measure to use here. You were. You were claiming 4% chance of missing the kick. I don't think there is any exact way that removes subjectivity to come up with the % of success vs. failure.

The 4% wasn't meant to be an actual estimate, it was meant to be a very, very generous "best case scenario". NFL kickers make between 98% and 99% of extra points, so I was being extremely generous and allowing that maybe there'd be as high as a 4% chance for the kicker to miss. Which I figure is doubly generous, because that percentage also assumes that Chicago fails to score a TD while you're trying to prevent them. If Chicago has a 20% chance of scoring a TD (that's a number I pulled out of thin air to demonstrate the math, but I think it definitely underestimates the chances of getting a TD on 1st-and-goal from the 9), and they have a 4% chance of missing a FG attempt, then the odds that you walk away from the possession better by trying to stop them than you would have if you let them score are reduced to 3.2%.No matter how generous I get with my assumptions, I always come up with a 95+% chance that Chicago walks away from the possession with points if you tell your defense to try to stop them. Again, these aren't super-scientific figures meant to model exact NFL probabilities to the hundredth of a percent; rather, they're broad estimations based on what I figure to be a "best case scenario" for Green Bay.

So this begs the question, how do you explain Jeff's 6% then? That number seems to be based off of actual statistics.I have no idea how the 10% was derived though. Jeff?

It probably comes from a 27-yard field goal and an assumption of a kick from the 9, based on several years worth of data. Last year, the kickers made 97% of kicks from 20-29 yards out, with that percentage obviously higher near 20 yards (basically an extra point) and lower near 29.Jeff, you may want to check that 10% number. I thought he was saying 10% chance of winning, which would mean 20%chance of scoring a td with 1 timeout and about 1:40 left. Remember, a td sends the game to OT. Same with a field goal miss though. Green Bay would have to have not only the miss, but then win the game in OT, since it was tied. So if you accept 6%, you half it to get the likelihood of winning.

 

[Lehigh98]

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.

Then carry the RB into the end zone, no problem with forward progress here.

 

[cvnpoka]

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.

lol at appealing to ray lewis' logical and analytical authority.

 

[SSOG]

I'm not claiming to have a statistical measure to use here. You were. You were claiming 4% chance of missing the kick. I don't think there is any exact way that removes subjectivity to come up with the % of success vs. failure.

The 4% wasn't meant to be an actual estimate, it was meant to be a very, very generous "best case scenario". NFL kickers make between 98% and 99% of extra points, so I was being extremely generous and allowing that maybe there'd be as high as a 4% chance for the kicker to miss. Which I figure is doubly generous, because that percentage also assumes that Chicago fails to score a TD while you're trying to prevent them. If Chicago has a 20% chance of scoring a TD (that's a number I pulled out of thin air to demonstrate the math, but I think it definitely underestimates the chances of getting a TD on 1st-and-goal from the 9), and they have a 4% chance of missing a FG attempt, then the odds that you walk away from the possession better by trying to stop them than you would have if you let them score are reduced to 3.2%.No matter how generous I get with my assumptions, I always come up with a 95+% chance that Chicago walks away from the possession with points if you tell your defense to try to stop them. Again, these aren't super-scientific figures meant to model exact NFL probabilities to the hundredth of a percent; rather, they're broad estimations based on what I figure to be a "best case scenario" for Green Bay.

So this begs the question, how do you explain Jeff's 6% then? That number seems to be based off of actual statistics.I have no idea how the 10% was derived though. Jeff?

First off, it doesn't beg the question, it raises the question. Second off, I don't really know, and I won't until Jeff puts Hot Reads up and I can read how he got that 6% figure. From the sound of it, he simply used a team's conversion rate from the 9 yard line, which would mean he operated under the assumption that Chicago just kicked it on 1st down without making any effort to first advance the ball. At first glance, I don't think that's a good assumption to make. Even if Chicago simply pounded Forte into the line 3 times or just ran 3 QB sneaks, it could knock a couple of yards off of the chippy and get the ball centered for the attempt.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I'm not claiming to have a statistical measure to use here. You were. You were claiming 4% chance of missing the kick. I don't think there is any exact way that removes subjectivity to come up with the % of success vs. failure.

The 4% wasn't meant to be an actual estimate, it was meant to be a very, very generous "best case scenario". NFL kickers make between 98% and 99% of extra points, so I was being extremely generous and allowing that maybe there'd be as high as a 4% chance for the kicker to miss. Which I figure is doubly generous, because that percentage also assumes that Chicago fails to score a TD while you're trying to prevent them. If Chicago has a 20% chance of scoring a TD (that's a number I pulled out of thin air to demonstrate the math, but I think it definitely underestimates the chances of getting a TD on 1st-and-goal from the 9), and they have a 4% chance of missing a FG attempt, then the odds that you walk away from the possession better by trying to stop them than you would have if you let them score are reduced to 3.2%.No matter how generous I get with my assumptions, I always come up with a 95+% chance that Chicago walks away from the possession with points if you tell your defense to try to stop them. Again, these aren't super-scientific figures meant to model exact NFL probabilities to the hundredth of a percent; rather, they're broad estimations based on what I figure to be a "best case scenario" for Green Bay.

So this begs the question, how do you explain Jeff's 6% then? That number seems to be based off of actual statistics.I have no idea how the 10% was derived though. Jeff?

First off, it doesn't beg the question, it raises the question. Second off, I don't really know, and I won't until Jeff puts Hot Reads up and I can read how he got that 6% figure. From the sound of it, he simply used a team's conversion rate from the 9 yard line, which would mean he operated under the assumption that Chicago just kicked it on 1st down without making any effort to first advance the ball. At first glance, I don't think that's a good assumption to make. Even if Chicago simply pounded Forte into the line 3 times or just ran 3 QB sneaks, it could knock a couple of yards off of the chippy and get the ball centered for the attempt.

While I could have done all of the work - why do it when you know someone else who already does this all the time?http://www.advancednflstats.com/2010/09/sh...i-score-td.html

To clarify - 6% chance the kick is unsuccessful (miss, block, bad snap).

Chance that you march down the field with 1:40 left and get a TD - 10%.

So you have a better chance to get to a tie and go to OT if you let them score (10% > 6%).

Hot Reads tomorrow will also go over my personal opinion as to when you should let the other team score. I'm interested in hearing feedback on that one.

 

[jurb26]

I'm not claiming to have a statistical measure to use here. You were. You were claiming 4% chance of missing the kick. I don't think there is any exact way that removes subjectivity to come up with the % of success vs. failure.

The 4% wasn't meant to be an actual estimate, it was meant to be a very, very generous "best case scenario". NFL kickers make between 98% and 99% of extra points, so I was being extremely generous and allowing that maybe there'd be as high as a 4% chance for the kicker to miss. Which I figure is doubly generous, because that percentage also assumes that Chicago fails to score a TD while you're trying to prevent them. If Chicago has a 20% chance of scoring a TD (that's a number I pulled out of thin air to demonstrate the math, but I think it definitely underestimates the chances of getting a TD on 1st-and-goal from the 9), and they have a 4% chance of missing a FG attempt, then the odds that you walk away from the possession better by trying to stop them than you would have if you let them score are reduced to 3.2%.No matter how generous I get with my assumptions, I always come up with a 95+% chance that Chicago walks away from the possession with points if you tell your defense to try to stop them. Again, these aren't super-scientific figures meant to model exact NFL probabilities to the hundredth of a percent; rather, they're broad estimations based on what I figure to be a "best case scenario" for Green Bay.

So this begs the question, how do you explain Jeff's 6% then? That number seems to be based off of actual statistics.I have no idea how the 10% was derived though. Jeff?

First off, it doesn't beg the question, it raises the question. Second off, I don't really know, and I won't until Jeff puts Hot Reads up and I can read how he got that 6% figure. From the sound of it, he simply used a team's conversion rate from the 9 yard line, which would mean he operated under the assumption that Chicago just kicked it on 1st down without making any effort to first advance the ball. At first glance, I don't think that's a good assumption to make. Even if Chicago simply pounded Forte into the line 3 times or just ran 3 QB sneaks, it could knock a couple of yards off of the chippy and get the ball centered for the attempt.

While I could have done all of the work - why do it when you know someone else who already does this all the time?http://www.advancednflstats.com/2010/09/sh...i-score-td.html

To clarify - 6% chance the kick is unsuccessful (miss, block, bad snap).

Chance that you march down the field with 1:40 left and get a TD - 10%.

So you have a better chance to get to a tie and go to OT if you let them score (10% > 6%).

Hot Reads tomorrow will also go over my personal opinion as to when you should let the other team score. I'm interested in hearing feedback on that one.

I posted this in the Forte thread but I guess I'll post it here as well. This article seems to leave quite a bit out when coming up with these numbers. For example I'm not seeing anywhere in there how TOs impact the success rate. I mean does a team with 0 TOs have the same likelihood of a team with 3? I know it can't, but then again the article doesn't seem to touch on it either way. Also, what impact does the tone of the game play as well as the D they are facing have? GB only amassed 17 points in the 1st 58+ minutes. How does that compare to a team that scored say 24 points over that same time frame? What about the D they are facing? That must also play into things.

 

[David Yudkin]

I also would think that to eliminate the bad snap element that the team with the ball might kick on 3rd down.

 

[DoubleG]

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

As a Bear's fan, I have to say this is 100% dead on. I kept hoping everytime they would hand the ball to Forte he would just fall down - I have no idea why they were trying to punch it in.

 

[SSOG]

While I could have done all of the work - why do it when you know someone else who already does this all the time?

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2010/09/sh...i-score-td.html

To clarify - 6% chance the kick is unsuccessful (miss, block, bad snap).

Chance that you march down the field with 1:40 left and get a TD - 10%.

So you have a better chance to get to a tie and go to OT if you let them score (10% > 6%).

Hot Reads tomorrow will also go over my personal opinion as to when you should let the other team score. I'm interested in hearing feedback on that one.

Thanks for the link. As I suspected, the article operated under the assumption that the Bears didn't gain another yard. Also, as Yudkin pointed out, it ignored the "kick on 3rd down in case there's a bad snap" element.

 

[Go Blue]

I just got finished writing about this very topic for Hot Reads (should be out tomorrow).The odds are 6% that he misses the kick.The odds of scoring at TD with 1:40 on the clock is 10%.You let them score.

I'm not sure if the 10% represents the TD and extra point or just the TD. If it's just the TD, then the difference if going to be less than 4%, since obviously there is roughly a 6% chance they could miss the extra point themselves. Either way, there is no way I could let them score. Sure, the numbers may say it gives you a better chance to win, but it's not the football mentality. At least not mine. When your on the field, you give NOTHING. All your thinking about is taking the ball away. Controlled aggression on every play. You have to have confidence in your defense to do it's job, in any situation. They know the game is on the line. It's do or die. You force a turnover or you probably lost. For a coach to let a team score, he might as well just tell his defense, that they suck and should look for a new line of work.

 

[DoubleG]

I just got finished writing about this very topic for Hot Reads (should be out tomorrow).

The odds are 6% that he misses the kick.

The odds of scoring at TD with 1:40 on the clock is 10%.

You let them score.

I'm not sure if the 10% represents the TD and extra point or just the TD. If it's just the TD, then the difference if going to be less than 4%, since obviously there is roughly a 6% chance they could miss the extra point themselves. Either way, there is no way I could let them score. Sure, the numbers may say it gives you a better chance to win, but it's not the football mentality. At least not mine. When your on the field, you give NOTHING. All your thinking about is taking the ball away. Controlled aggression on every play. You have to have confidence in your defense to do it's job, in any situation. They know the game is on the line. It's do or die. You force a turnover or you probably lost. For a coach to let a team score, he might as well just tell his defense, that they suck and should look for a new line of work.

So, in effect on PAT's 98% of the time his defense sucks and should look for a new line of work????

 

[Spin]

Last night when watching this all I could think about was this play for some reason,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FOTeWUjHIo...feature=related

That being said, I still think the right call (from GB perspective) is to drag Forte into the end zone and then let Rodgers try to drive down and tie it.

And even if they score, Crosby could go all John Carney on the PAT

 

[Stinkin Ref]

how many of you in here that say GB played it the right way would bet your house and your cars that Rodgers couldn't get a TD with 70 yards to go, 1:30 on the clock, and a TO....?.....

thats what I thought.......