More likely to win (1 Viewer)

[Chase Stuart]

Down by 3, opponent has 1st and 10 on their own 24, 4 mins to go

or

Down by 6, opponent has 1st and 10 on their own 15, 4 mins to go

 

[solorca]

I would say the second. In that case, they are more likely to go for a touchdown, resulting in a victory...in addition to the longer drive taking more time. In the other, you have coaches playing it safe with field goals

 

[Raiderfan32904]

I'm sure the correct answer will be the down by six team. But I'll gladly take the team by three scenario. Not every QB is a Joe Montana type to pull victory from the jaws of defeat. If I have a mere mortal QB or even an above average QB, I like my chances to at least tie the game and send it to OT. That also requires some faith in your defense. It really just points out this is a team game.

The Buffalo win yesterday was a good example of a team that benefitted by Jackson not scoring in the last 2 minutes. Belicheck was arguing vehemently with the refs that it was a TD. Imagine a coach begging to have points put on the board! That was something you don't see everyday. That's one of the rare examples of a team down six that benefits more than the typical team down 3.

 

[Irrelevant]

I'm sure you've got actual stats to work out some theoretical probabilities for these. Just looking at it off the top of my head:

Down by 3, opponent has 1st and 10 on their own 24, 4 mins to go

Realistic win scenarios include:
[*]a stop and then a TD, or

[*]a stop and then a FG and then a win in OT, or

[*]hold them to a FG and then score a TD and PAT

Down by 6, opponent has 1st and 10 on their own 15, 4 mins to go

Realistic win scenarios include:
[*]a stop and then a TD and PAT

I'm simplifying by assuming the nine yard difference in your opponent's field position in the two scenarios is negligable. That's probably a poor assumption (statistically) but I'm going with it. The time left is the same either way. I'm going with option A, even though I'm guessing the numbers would indicate option B (otherwise it's not that interesting of a question, and I'm guessing the crux of the question is that nine-yard difference in starting field position).

 

[Chase Stuart]

This comes from the Falcons-Bucs game. Atlanta was down by 6 with 4 mins to go, at the Tampa 15-yard line. It was 4th and goal. Atlanta kicked the FG, and never got the ball back.

Obviously it would have been fantastic if the Falcons had gone for it and converted the TD. But would Atlanta have been better off even if they missed the conversion?

Going for it on 4th and 15 seems like the smarter play, especially when you consider that an unsuccessful attempt might be better than a successful field goal.

 

[Irrelevant]

This comes from the Falcons-Bucs game. Atlanta was down by 6 with 4 mins to go, at the Tampa 15-yard line. It was 4th and goal. Atlanta kicked the FG, and never got the ball back.Obviously it would have been fantastic if the Falcons had gone for it and converted the TD. But would Atlanta have been better off even if they missed the conversion?Going for it on 4th and 15 seems like the smarter play, especially when you consider that an unsuccessful attempt might be better than a successful field goal.

Obviously if you factor in the probability that they score the TD there on 4th down, then maybe going for it leads to the higher win probability. But if you concede that you're not going to score the TD there (as the question is framed in the OP), then I think you have to kick the FG. Either way Atlanta needs to make a defensive stop. But by kicking the FG, you give yourself more of the field to make that stop (i.e. if you're only down by 3, you can let Tampa Bay kick a FG and still be within one score, whereas if you're down by 6 you need to make a stop before they get into FG range). And then when you make the stop, when you're down by 3 you have additional win possibilities (i.e. you don't need a TD, you could send the game to OT with a FG). Unless you think those nine yards of field position make a big difference, I think the being down by 3 is clearly the better option.Of course, this is a very different question than, "Should they go for the TD on 4th and 15?"

 

[Raiderfan32904]

In that Bucs game, Tampa's D-Line was dominating the worn down Falcons O-line. Mike Smith made the correct call to kick the FG. The Falcon's D couldn't get the ball back and even the announcing crew assumed it was going to take some passing plays to wrap up the win. They didn't seem convinced Freeman could do it. But that long run for first down was huge, and got them to the two minute warning. Then Blount sealed it with that beautiful spinning power run to the sticks. Freeman was very poised to draw the Falcons offside, and you could see the Falcon's D coordinator scream as the flag was thrown. Reading lips, he said "Oh my F'n God!". Better coached team won. Falcons were gassed, had nothing left. I still don't blame Mike Smith for kicking the FG, because it's not a given they'd have made that 4th and one on the 15.

 

[Irrelevant]

Down by 3, opponent has 1st and 10 on their own 24, 4 mins to go

or

Down by 6, opponent has 1st and 10 on their own 15, 4 mins to go

Where did the bolded come from? Is that average starting field position this year or something? It looks from the play-by-play that the ensuing kickoff was a touchback.