Because the game would have played out exactly the same, of course.This should fill up with Harbug (both) and Kubiak posts on Sunday.
Oh btw, Harbug (BALT) lost the game for them last week going for it on 4th down a full 5 minutes before the half. Should have kicked the FG like Arians did. Take the points, Loser 17-19.
4-1-GB1 (5:22) B.Pierce left guard to GB 1 for no gain (M.Daniels; M.Hyde).
Mike Smith will join in with his patented 2nd and 8 at the 50, trot out the FB and tell the defense 'we are going to run the football'. End result is always 3rd and 8 or worse.
Rephrasing. Yeah, they might have won the game if the kicked the FG.Because the game would have played out exactly the same, of course.This should fill up with Harbug (both) and Kubiak posts on Sunday.
Oh btw, Harbug (BALT) lost the game for them last week going for it on 4th down a full 5 minutes before the half. Should have kicked the FG like Arians did. Take the points, Loser 17-19.
4-1-GB1 (5:22) B.Pierce left guard to GB 1 for no gain (M.Daniels; M.Hyde).
Mike Smith will join in with his patented 2nd and 8 at the 50, trot out the FB and tell the defense 'we are going to run the football'. End result is always 3rd and 8 or worse.
didn't they score anyway?Shawn said:Bevel not letting lynch run it in from the six inch line after he worked so hard to get that close.
I don't think you understand. Everyone can do the math, but there is more going on than how many points they need to score. It's not as simple as that.Warrior said:I don't think you understand football at all. Or math.Tonight, Bruce Arians, head coach of the Arizona Cardinals chose to kick a field goal from the 4 yard line while down 18 points in the 4th quarter. I thought NFL coaches were supposed to understand the game? I mean, how do people who are so incompetent get these jobs that pay millions of dollars per year? I really feel like acts like this should be a fireable offense, similar to how John Fox cost the Broncos any chance in the playoffs last year (2012), yet he still has a job too.
I made a post similar to this in the Seahawks-Cardinals game thread tonight, but thought it could make a good thread.
18 pts - 3 (FG) = 15. 15 - 8 (TD, conversion) = 7. 7-7 (TD, xtra) = 0
0 = tie game, which is what you're hoping for when down 18 in the 4th quarter. Absolutely NOTHING wrong with Arians' decision here.
/thread
Possibly, but I am just a believer in not chasing the points until you absolutely have to get them. I see both sides of the argument on this one.A failed 2pt conversion with 5 minutes left gives Arizona information. It informs them that they still need 2 TDs to win this thing and they can play accordingly. A failed 2pt conversion after a last second Hail Mary just ends the game. Strategy should be about maximizing your chances of actually winning the game...not keeping "hope" alive for as long as possible.The FG attempt was fine. Going for 2 down 12 was more questionable, since they could have kicked the XP on 4th down near the end to get within 8, and then could have at least given themselves a chance with the onside kick, a possible recovery, Hail Mary and then go for 2.
Chasing points, to me, implies reducing your expected return in exchange for a higher variance. That doesn't make sense in the context of two point conversions generally, but it also doesn't make sense here when the Cardinals will absolutely need a 2-point conversion at some point, and if they don't, they missing the 2-point conversion here won't hurt them.Possibly, but I am just a believer in not chasing the points until you absolutely have to get them. I see both sides of the argument on this one.A failed 2pt conversion with 5 minutes left gives Arizona information. It informs them that they still need 2 TDs to win this thing and they can play accordingly. A failed 2pt conversion after a last second Hail Mary just ends the game. Strategy should be about maximizing your chances of actually winning the game...not keeping "hope" alive for as long as possible.The FG attempt was fine. Going for 2 down 12 was more questionable, since they could have kicked the XP on 4th down near the end to get within 8, and then could have at least given themselves a chance with the onside kick, a possible recovery, Hail Mary and then go for 2.
No, it is not. The fact that there are actually people in this thread defending Bruce Arian's decision is proof that this thread needs to exist. His decision was 100% wrong and there should be zero debate about that.Sinn Fein said:This thread is stupid.
:noted:
This is his point.No, it is not. The fact that there are actually people in this thread defending Bruce Arian's decision is proof that this thread needs to exist. His decision was 100% wrong and there should be zero debate about that.Sinn Fein said:This thread is stupid.
:noted:
Right, because the fact that you can score a TD from anywhere on the field means that it's equally likely from your own 30 as from your opponent's 4.Why does everyone think you have to be close to the endzone to score a touchdown?
I've seen plenty of 70 yard+ TDs in my lifetime, but have never once seen a 70+ yard FG.
When you're in FG range, you take the FG. You're always in TD range.
Great article:Our own Chase Stuart weighs in:
http://www.footballperspective.com/arians-attempts-to-make-history-kicks-chip-shot-field-goal-down-18/
One other thing: I've seen a lot of bad coaching. I think this just puts a bad message to the team, it's basically capitulation, shows lack of faith in them, tells them there's a time to hang up their hat. In his first year as head coach he should be doing the very opposite, getting behind his players and telling then 'never say die.'... Kicking a field goal down by 18 this late in the game is a poor decision unless it’s fourth and impossible. Since 1940, do you know how many teams have kicked a field goal, when trailing by 18 or more points in the second half, and went on to win the game? THREE. The “They Are Who We Thought They Were” game, when Chicago kicked a 23-yard field goal down 20-0 midway through the third quarter. After that field goal, Mike Brown, Charles Tillman, and Devin Hester scored touchdowns for the Bears, which doesn’t seem like the best model to follow in the future since none of those players played offense.
In 1998, the Rams kicked a field goal in Buffalo to make it 28-13 in the third quarter, ultimately winning 34-33 on a touchdown run in the final seconds. And in 1996, in Bill Parcells’ return to the Meadowlands to face the Giants, Adam Vinatieri kicked a third-quarter field goal down 22-0, and then Terry Glenn, Dave Meggett (on a punt return), and Ben Coates scored fourth quarter touchdowns.
You know what hasn’t happened? A team kicking a field goal, down by 18 or more points in the fourth quarter, and going on to win the game. Including the two teams this year, 117 teams since 1940 have kicked a fourth quarter field goal when trailing by more than 17 points, and none of them have ever won. I know, trailing by 18, it’s so comforting to kick a field goal and think “hey look, all we need to do is stop them, score a touchdown, stop them again, score a touchdown, convert a two-point conversion, and then win in overtime.” But that’s never, ever happened before.
According to Brian Burke, the Cardinals had a 3% chance of winning the game if they kicked the field goal, a 1% chance of winning if they failed on 4th down, and a 10% chance if they converted and scored a touchdown. Those numbers seem reasonable to me, but maybe you want to use different numbers. It doesn’t really matter. When you’re that big of an underdog, you need to play aggressively. You’re almost certainly going to lose, and you’re only chance of not losing is having some high-leverage plays go your way. For the avoidance of doubt, a 22-yard field goal is not considered a high-leveraged play.
...
That's really all there is to it in the Cardinals example also. The over-reliance on numbers to prove some other point misses the point. The Cards weren't going to get to the 4 yard line (or closer) 2 more times in the game.This one isn't all that much different from Atlanta's choice to kick early two weeks ago. The issue of the game being over with a stuff is irrelevant: The game is over with a failed conversion either way. Tennessee's only chance of winning in regulation is by scoring two touchdowns, and if it wants to tie, it has to decide whether this drive will be more likely to produce a touchdown than the next one. Given how the Titans had struggled to move the ball on offense, it's pretty clear they needed to try to score a touchdown eight yards out of the end zone.
No, it's not "equally as likely", but it IS infinitely more likely that you will score a TD from your own 30 than kick a FG from there.Right, because the fact that you can score a TD from anywhere on the field means that it's equally likely from your own 30 as from your opponent's 4.Why does everyone think you have to be close to the endzone to score a touchdown?
I've seen plenty of 70 yard+ TDs in my lifetime, but have never once seen a 70+ yard FG.
When you're in FG range, you take the FG. You're always in TD range.
If Im going to be given that "out of the blue" fourth down stat... then tell me the results of all 4th down of teams that have overcome 3 score deficits in the 4th quarter.Great article:Our own Chase Stuart weighs in:
http://www.footballperspective.com/arians-attempts-to-make-history-kicks-chip-shot-field-goal-down-18/
One other thing: I've seen a lot of bad coaching. I think this just puts a bad message to the team, it's basically capitulation, shows lack of faith in them, tells them there's a time to hang up their hat. In his first year as head coach he should be doing the very opposite, getting behind his players and telling then 'never say die.'... Kicking a field goal down by 18 this late in the game is a poor decision unless it’s fourth and impossible. Since 1940, do you know how many teams have kicked a field goal, when trailing by 18 or more points in the second half, and went on to win the game? THREE. The “They Are Who We Thought They Were” game, when Chicago kicked a 23-yard field goal down 20-0 midway through the third quarter. After that field goal, Mike Brown, Charles Tillman, and Devin Hester scored touchdowns for the Bears, which doesn’t seem like the best model to follow in the future since none of those players played offense.
In 1998, the Rams kicked a field goal in Buffalo to make it 28-13 in the third quarter, ultimately winning 34-33 on a touchdown run in the final seconds. And in 1996, in Bill Parcells’ return to the Meadowlands to face the Giants, Adam Vinatieri kicked a third-quarter field goal down 22-0, and then Terry Glenn, Dave Meggett (on a punt return), and Ben Coates scored fourth quarter touchdowns.
You know what hasn’t happened? A team kicking a field goal, down by 18 or more points in the fourth quarter, and going on to win the game. Including the two teams this year, 117 teams since 1940 have kicked a fourth quarter field goal when trailing by more than 17 points, and none of them have ever won. I know, trailing by 18, it’s so comforting to kick a field goal and think “hey look, all we need to do is stop them, score a touchdown, stop them again, score a touchdown, convert a two-point conversion, and then win in overtime.” But that’s never, ever happened before.
According to Brian Burke, the Cardinals had a 3% chance of winning the game if they kicked the field goal, a 1% chance of winning if they failed on 4th down, and a 10% chance if they converted and scored a touchdown. Those numbers seem reasonable to me, but maybe you want to use different numbers. It doesn’t really matter. When you’re that big of an underdog, you need to play aggressively. You’re almost certainly going to lose, and you’re only chance of not losing is having some high-leverage plays go your way. For the avoidance of doubt, a 22-yard field goal is not considered a high-leveraged play.
...
The bolded part was also my initial post.If Im going to be given that "out of the blue" fourth down stat... then tell me the results of all 4th down of teams that have overcome 3 score deficits in the 4th quarter.Great article:Our own Chase Stuart weighs in:
http://www.footballperspective.com/arians-attempts-to-make-history-kicks-chip-shot-field-goal-down-18/
One other thing: I've seen a lot of bad coaching. I think this just puts a bad message to the team, it's basically capitulation, shows lack of faith in them, tells them there's a time to hang up their hat. In his first year as head coach he should be doing the very opposite, getting behind his players and telling then 'never say die.'... Kicking a field goal down by 18 this late in the game is a poor decision unless it’s fourth and impossible. Since 1940, do you know how many teams have kicked a field goal, when trailing by 18 or more points in the second half, and went on to win the game? THREE. The “They Are Who We Thought They Were” game, when Chicago kicked a 23-yard field goal down 20-0 midway through the third quarter. After that field goal, Mike Brown, Charles Tillman, and Devin Hester scored touchdowns for the Bears, which doesn’t seem like the best model to follow in the future since none of those players played offense.
In 1998, the Rams kicked a field goal in Buffalo to make it 28-13 in the third quarter, ultimately winning 34-33 on a touchdown run in the final seconds. And in 1996, in Bill Parcells’ return to the Meadowlands to face the Giants, Adam Vinatieri kicked a third-quarter field goal down 22-0, and then Terry Glenn, Dave Meggett (on a punt return), and Ben Coates scored fourth quarter touchdowns.
You know what hasn’t happened? A team kicking a field goal, down by 18 or more points in the fourth quarter, and going on to win the game. Including the two teams this year, 117 teams since 1940 have kicked a fourth quarter field goal when trailing by more than 17 points, and none of them have ever won. I know, trailing by 18, it’s so comforting to kick a field goal and think “hey look, all we need to do is stop them, score a touchdown, stop them again, score a touchdown, convert a two-point conversion, and then win in overtime.” But that’s never, ever happened before.
According to Brian Burke, the Cardinals had a 3% chance of winning the game if they kicked the field goal, a 1% chance of winning if they failed on 4th down, and a 10% chance if they converted and scored a touchdown. Those numbers seem reasonable to me, but maybe you want to use different numbers. It doesn’t really matter. When you’re that big of an underdog, you need to play aggressively. You’re almost certainly going to lose, and you’re only chance of not losing is having some high-leverage plays go your way. For the avoidance of doubt, a 22-yard field goal is not considered a high-leveraged play.
...
Also, how many of those completely avoid 4th downs on subsequent scoring drives (whether by Offense or by Def/STs).
*Seriously, the Cardinals were averaging only 3.3 yards for every play on offense (and still just 3.9 on a pass) ... let alone on a shortened GL field setting with the 'Hawks stacked..
That's why he got the Bird... Agreed that was bone head call of the week.Shawn said:Bevel not letting lynch run it in from the six inch line after he worked so hard to get that close.
The correct adjective is "cowardly".Down by 18... you have two get 2 TDs and 1 FG.
You also need a 2pt conversion to tie.
Why is the FG so "obviously stupid"? Maybe "questionable" would be a better adjective.
Arians was essentially forfeiting by going for the FG. This isn't about what the score differential was at that moment, it's about understanding that Seattle would likely score again thereby rendering Arians "safe" choice a losing play.duaneok66 said:so the premise of this whole thread is calling the coach stupid for giving up 3%???RUSF18 said:Seattle had a 94% win probability when Arizona lined up for the field goal. After the conversion, they had a 97% WP.
http://live.advancednflstats.com/
the lack of offensive production makes it even more important to go for it here. much better chance of luckboxing the 4 yards and a td when close to end zone than luckboxing a long drive.Long Ball Larry said:Burke's calculator suggests EP of 2.94 from going for it and 2.36 from kicking FG, so it seems like going for it would be the right call.
OTOH, according to the drive chart (I didn't watch the game), it seems like AZ couldn't even move the ball a yard with any regularity, so probability of them converting a 4th and 4 is probably (much) lower than teams historically.
I bet on the Seahawks this past week.................I giggled just a little each time. I felt like Arians also bet on Seattle and just wanted to make sure.More on Arians from Warren Sharp....
"The stupidity of NFL coaches. Entering the game with the Seahawks, the Cardinals had to know that Seattle was tremendous on 1st down run defense. But on 8 of the Cardinals first downs in the first 3 quarters, the Cardinals called runs. In those 8 plays, they gained a TOTAL of 5 yards! Setting up Carson Palmer, a QB who can only succeed if managed correctly, with 3rd and an average of 9.5 yards to go. That's not a formula for success, and there's no reason why Arians should have run into a brick wall repeatedly."
Reminds me of the Rams vs the 49ers a couple weeks ago when they kept running Richardson up the middle 12 times for 16 yds.
53 yarder... whats the weather like? Kicker situation? Not as dumb as you think.4th and 4 from the PHI36, Garrett just chose to punt.
If he isn't comfortable with the FG he should have went for it. Punting was terrible.53 yarder... whats the weather like? Kicker situation? Not as dumb as you think.4th and 4 from the PHI36, Garrett just chose to punt.
36 yard line vs. inside the 10 (hopefully)If he isn't comfortable with the FG he should have went for it. Punting was terrible.53 yarder... whats the weather like? Kicker situation? Not as dumb as you think.4th and 4 from the PHI36, Garrett just chose to punt.
Re-read what you just wrote until you understand why you are wrong. There are at minimum two logical errors in your thought process.36 yard line vs. inside the 10 (hopefully)If he isn't comfortable with the FG he should have went for it. Punting was terrible.53 yarder... whats the weather like? Kicker situation? Not as dumb as you think.4th and 4 from the PHI36, Garrett just chose to punt.
You don't know much about football, huh?
They only had 9 or 10 attempts for some points.Chargers on the Jaguars 1 was a pathetic sequence of events
Yeah, do you want to give them the ball at the 43 (missed FG), give them the ball at the 36-33 yard line (failed 4th down), possibly gain enough to get the first down or punt and pin them deeper than the 36 yard line. What are the odds of each happening? In a defensive game with possible weather issues (I'm not sure since I'm not watching that game), pinning the team deep is not that bad of a decision.Re-read what you just wrote until you understand why you are wrong. There are at minimum two logical errors in your thought process.36 yard line vs. inside the 10 (hopefully)If he isn't comfortable with the FG he should have went for it. Punting was terrible.53 yarder... whats the weather like? Kicker situation? Not as dumb as you think.4th and 4 from the PHI36, Garrett just chose to punt.
You don't know much about football, huh?
Little more to it than that. Here's an analysis:36 yard line vs. inside the 10 (hopefully)If he isn't comfortable with the FG he should have went for it. Punting was terrible.53 yarder... whats the weather like? Kicker situation? Not as dumb as you think.4th and 4 from the PHI36, Garrett just chose to punt.
You don't know much about football, huh?
weather says it is 60 degrees, sunny, and 12 mph winds could you please explain what is so bad about the weather? You are also forgetting that a successful conversion will most likely lead to points, punts are likely to end up in a touchback, in this case they ended up at the 15 for a net punt of 21 yards. That little bit of field position is not worth giving up the opportunity to score points.Yeah, do you want to give them the ball at the 43 (missed FG), give them the ball at the 36-33 yard line (failed 4th down), possibly gain enough to get the first down or punt and pin them deeper than the 36 yard line. What are the odds of each happening? In a defensive game with possible weather issues (I'm not sure since I'm not watching that game), pinning the team deep is not that bad of a decision.Re-read what you just wrote until you understand why you are wrong. There are at minimum two logical errors in your thought process.36 yard line vs. inside the 10 (hopefully)If he isn't comfortable with the FG he should have went for it. Punting was terrible.53 yarder... whats the weather like? Kicker situation? Not as dumb as you think.4th and 4 from the PHI36, Garrett just chose to punt.
You don't know much about football, huh?
Failed logic is on your side.
Missing the weather variable as well as the FG kicker variable. What is the leg strength of Bailey? His long is 53 and he is, currently, 7-12 from 50+ (with 53 being his longest made). Any kind of wind add distance. Seems Garrett made the right call.Little more to it than that. Here's an analysis:36 yard line vs. inside the 10 (hopefully)If he isn't comfortable with the FG he should have went for it. Punting was terrible.53 yarder... whats the weather like? Kicker situation? Not as dumb as you think.4th and 4 from the PHI36, Garrett just chose to punt.
You don't know much about football, huh?
http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/09/4th-down-study-part-4.html
It would strongly suggest that they should go for it. Now it is just using NFL averages, so you could argue that something about the Cowboys matchup against the Eagles makes it the right choice now, but it's much more complicated that your response.
My main argument is they should have went for it, i never said they should have kicked the FG, you seem to be focused on the FG argument. And now you are just making up extreme weather when it doesn't exist.Missing the weather variable as well as the FG kicker variable. What is the leg strength of Bailey? His long is 53 and he is, currently, 7-12 from 50+ (with 53 being his longest made). Any kind of wind add distance. Seems Garrett made the right call.Little more to it than that. Here's an analysis:36 yard line vs. inside the 10 (hopefully)If he isn't comfortable with the FG he should have went for it. Punting was terrible.53 yarder... whats the weather like? Kicker situation? Not as dumb as you think.4th and 4 from the PHI36, Garrett just chose to punt.
You don't know much about football, huh?
http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/09/4th-down-study-part-4.html
It would strongly suggest that they should go for it. Now it is just using NFL averages, so you could argue that something about the Cowboys matchup against the Eagles makes it the right choice now, but it's much more complicated that your response.
Part two of that study that led to those graphs goes through the average FG make % by field position. It assumes around a 56-58% make percentage from the 36. Which is around what Bailey's stats show. It doesn't go into wind as it's averaging all the wind conditions across all kicks since 1969. And the question here is really should they go for it or should they punt.Missing the weather variable as well as the FG kicker variable. What is the leg strength of Bailey? His long is 53 and he is, currently, 7-12 from 50+ (with 53 being his longest made). Any kind of wind add distance. Seems Garrett made the right call.Little more to it than that. Here's an analysis:36 yard line vs. inside the 10 (hopefully)If he isn't comfortable with the FG he should have went for it. Punting was terrible.53 yarder... whats the weather like? Kicker situation? Not as dumb as you think.4th and 4 from the PHI36, Garrett just chose to punt.
You don't know much about football, huh?
http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/09/4th-down-study-part-4.html
It would strongly suggest that they should go for it. Now it is just using NFL averages, so you could argue that something about the Cowboys matchup against the Eagles makes it the right choice now, but it's much more complicated that your response.
Any kind of wind adds distance? Even when the wind is at your back?Missing the weather variable as well as the FG kicker variable. What is the leg strength of Bailey? His long is 53 and he is, currently, 7-12 from 50+ (with 53 being his longest made). Any kind of wind add distance. Seems Garrett made the right call.Little more to it than that. Here's an analysis:36 yard line vs. inside the 10 (hopefully)If he isn't comfortable with the FG he should have went for it. Punting was terrible.53 yarder... whats the weather like? Kicker situation? Not as dumb as you think.4th and 4 from the PHI36, Garrett just chose to punt.
You don't know much about football, huh?
http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/09/4th-down-study-part-4.html
It would strongly suggest that they should go for it. Now it is just using NFL averages, so you could argue that something about the Cowboys matchup against the Eagles makes it the right choice now, but it's much more complicated that your response.
You know what was meant.Any kind of wind adds distance? Even when the wind is at your back?Missing the weather variable as well as the FG kicker variable. What is the leg strength of Bailey? His long is 53 and he is, currently, 7-12 from 50+ (with 53 being his longest made). Any kind of wind add distance. Seems Garrett made the right call.Little more to it than that. Here's an analysis:36 yard line vs. inside the 10 (hopefully)If he isn't comfortable with the FG he should have went for it. Punting was terrible.53 yarder... whats the weather like? Kicker situation? Not as dumb as you think.4th and 4 from the PHI36, Garrett just chose to punt.
You don't know much about football, huh?
http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/09/4th-down-study-part-4.html
It would strongly suggest that they should go for it. Now it is just using NFL averages, so you could argue that something about the Cowboys matchup against the Eagles makes it the right choice now, but it's much more complicated that your response.
Bucs just kicked a FG down 14 with 5 min left to play. Schiano proving he doesn't belong in the NFL once again.
That was one of the funniest things I've seen in the NFL in years. I was 100% sure it was either a fake or an attempt to draw an offsides. Because what head coach would be stupid enough to kick a FG with 5:00 left when it'll still leave you down two scores?Bucs just kicked a FG down 14 with 5 min left to play. Schiano proving he doesn't belong in the NFL once again.
Instead of going for it on 4th and goal from the 23. Turned out to be a reasonable call.That was one of the funniest things I've seen in the NFL in years. I was 100% sure it was either a fake or an attempt to draw an offsides. Because what head coach would be stupid enough to kick a FG with 5:00 left when it'll still leave you down two scores?Bucs just kicked a FG down 14 with 5 min left to play. Schiano proving he doesn't belong in the NFL once again.
Apparently, we now have our answer.
Agreed. Ridley comes off his best game of the season and doesn't see the ball until 5 minutes left in Q2 and on what his 2nd touch he takes it in for a TD from like 10-15 yards out against a team defending very well against the run? Give the guy the ball.I hate to do this--because I have mad respect for BB from New England--but basically not using your teams best runner for the first 1.5 quarters of a game against the Jets is just outright stupid. He's an amazing coach--but sometimes it feels like he just does stuff because he can--not because it's in the best interest of the team.
sorry, that was one of the worst moves all seasonInstead of going for it on 4th and goal from the 23. Turned out to be a reasonable call.That was one of the funniest things I've seen in the NFL in years. I was 100% sure it was either a fake or an attempt to draw an offsides. Because what head coach would be stupid enough to kick a FG with 5:00 left when it'll still leave you down two scores?Bucs just kicked a FG down 14 with 5 min left to play. Schiano proving he doesn't belong in the NFL once again.
Apparently, we now have our answer.