Second Guessing The Man.... (1 Viewer)

[Stinkin Ref]

Not sure what the general feelings are amongst football fans.....but wouldn't most coaches be taking a lot more heat for not attempting a FG and then trying to get the onside kick.....

at least then you are trying to give your team a chance to win the game.....

if you don't convert on 4th down.....game over...

think it would have only been like a 36 yarder with about a minute left....

any thoughts...?

 

[soxjj]

I think they should have kicked the field goal there...

 

[TommyGilmore]

My philosophy has always been: get the points as quick as you can.

Kicking the field goal ASAP would have given you a minute to work with (assuming that you recover the onside kick). But if you go for the TD, you're giving yourself less time to work with after you recover the onside kick.

1 minute + 7 point defecit >>>>>>>>> 30 seconds + 3 point defecit.

 

[Ed Wood]

I'm not sure "the man" is "the man" anymore. I know it's early, but this team doesn't look real good. Maybe BB's act has worn a little thin with the players, maybe the coaching personnel changes have caught up to this team, maybe the player personnel changes have.

IMO it doesn't look like the Pats can play with the elite teams in the AFC right now (and I don't even count Denver among the elite until/unless Plummer gets his act somewhat together [showed some flashes last night]).

 

[rascal]

BB is Shanny's #####.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

I just think had this even been someone like Parcells's it would have gotten more attention......who knows what a coach on a hot seat would have had to go through....

I think only one reporter asked a question about it in the press conference and it was swept under the rug like no big deal...

I just think he decision was an easy one........ and the only right way to really give your team a chance to win.....

he blew it and nobody cares.........

 

[dawgtrails]

I'm not sure "the man" is "the man" anymore. I know it's early, but this team doesn't look real good. Maybe BB's act has worn a little thin with the players, maybe the coaching personnel changes have caught up to this team, maybe the player personnel changes have. IMO it doesn't look like the Pats can play with the elite teams in the AFC right now (and I don't even count Denver among the elite until/unless Plummer gets his act somewhat together [showed some flashes last night]).

Sounds to me like you are grabbing this stuff out of your #%$. And this is coming from a person who can't stand the Patriots.Teams lose games. Denver seems to have the Pats number.The team is in first place still.

 

[PatsWillWin]

I just think had this even been someone like Parcells's it would have gotten more attention......who knows what a coach on a hot seat would have had to go through....I think only one reporter asked a question about it in the press conference and it was swept under the rug like no big deal...I just think he decision was an easy one........ and the only right way to really give your team a chance to win.....he blew it and nobody cares.........

They were on the 36 yard-line. They have a rookie kicker. Vinatieri had 3 blocked field goals in 10 years with the Patriots - his replacement has 2 in as many GAMES. The field was torn to ####, and if you saw the first missed FG you would see that Gostkowski didn't get his plant foot down and kicked a low line drive kicked that was just begging to be blocked.So, why did Belichick not kick there? I think he had more confidence on Tom Brady getting the first down than he did in Gostkowski getting the kick. If Brady had completed for 10 yards on that last play and moved to the 26, I think they would've kicked. But 36, under those circumstances, with that kicker - Belichick would be getting burned today if he had put the kid back out there in that situation and he missed it, which he probably would have.

 

[crowe1130]

I just think had this even been someone like Parcells's it would have gotten more attention......who knows what a coach on a hot seat would have had to go through....I think only one reporter asked a question about it in the press conference and it was swept under the rug like no big deal...I just think he decision was an easy one........ and the only right way to really give your team a chance to win.....he blew it and nobody cares.........

They were on the 36 yard-line. They have a rookie kicker. Vinatieri had 3 blocked field goals in 10 years with the Patriots - his replacement has 2 in as many GAMES. The field was torn to ####, and if you saw the first missed FG you would see that Gostkowski didn't get his plant foot down and kicked a low line drive kicked that was just begging to be blocked.So, why did Belichick not kick there? I think he had more confidence on Tom Brady getting the first down than he did in Gostkowski getting the kick. If Brady had completed for 10 yards on that last play and moved to the 26, I think they would've kicked. But 36, under those circumstances, with that kicker - Belichick would be getting burned today if he had put the kid back out there in that situation and he missed it, which he probably would have.

I thought they were closer to the 20 at that point?

 

[Stinkin Ref]

I just think had this even been someone like Parcells's it would have gotten more attention......who knows what a coach on a hot seat would have had to go through....I think only one reporter asked a question about it in the press conference and it was swept under the rug like no big deal...I just think he decision was an easy one........ and the only right way to really give your team a chance to win.....he blew it and nobody cares.........

They were on the 36 yard-line. They have a rookie kicker. Vinatieri had 3 blocked field goals in 10 years with the Patriots - his replacement has 2 in as many GAMES. The field was torn to ####, and if you saw the first missed FG you would see that Gostkowski didn't get his plant foot down and kicked a low line drive kicked that was just begging to be blocked.So, why did Belichick not kick there? I think he had more confidence on Tom Brady getting the first down than he did in Gostkowski getting the kick. If Brady had completed for 10 yards on that last play and moved to the 26, I think they would've kicked. But 36, under those circumstances, with that kicker - Belichick would be getting burned today if he had put the kid back out there in that situation and he missed it, which he probably would have.

guess we will just have to disagree here then.....no matter what happens if they try a FG attempt BB can fall back on "I did what I thought would give us the best chance to win the game"......that should be the bottom line every time.....now he can't use that.........he didn't give his team the best chance to win the game...HE ROLLLED THE DICE AND LOST.......even if it would have worked out, it still would have been a bad decision.....he gambled instead of doing the right thing...I'd be interested to see what the Homer papers and talk shows are saying........sidenote....the field did look like crap....if I am Pats player and that is what I have to play on....i would be pissed......they mentioned something about SOCCCER being played on that field and that is why it is jacked up[....wow....you can't tell me there isn't a stadium in that area that can hold about 100 people for a soccer game so they can stay off that field....

 

[PatsWillWin]

I just think had this even been someone like Parcells's it would have gotten more attention......who knows what a coach on a hot seat would have had to go through....I think only one reporter asked a question about it in the press conference and it was swept under the rug like no big deal...I just think he decision was an easy one........ and the only right way to really give your team a chance to win.....he blew it and nobody cares.........

They were on the 36 yard-line. They have a rookie kicker. Vinatieri had 3 blocked field goals in 10 years with the Patriots - his replacement has 2 in as many GAMES. The field was torn to ####, and if you saw the first missed FG you would see that Gostkowski didn't get his plant foot down and kicked a low line drive kicked that was just begging to be blocked.So, why did Belichick not kick there? I think he had more confidence on Tom Brady getting the first down than he did in Gostkowski getting the kick. If Brady had completed for 10 yards on that last play and moved to the 26, I think they would've kicked. But 36, under those circumstances, with that kicker - Belichick would be getting burned today if he had put the kid back out there in that situation and he missed it, which he probably would have.

I thought they were closer to the 20 at that point?

You're right, they were. Would've been about 39 yarder.Okay so what that changes:1) I still think what I said was the reasoning behind it.2) I agree with the decision much less.

 

[PatsWillWin]

I just think had this even been someone like Parcells's it would have gotten more attention......who knows what a coach on a hot seat would have had to go through....I think only one reporter asked a question about it in the press conference and it was swept under the rug like no big deal...I just think he decision was an easy one........ and the only right way to really give your team a chance to win.....he blew it and nobody cares.........

They were on the 36 yard-line. They have a rookie kicker. Vinatieri had 3 blocked field goals in 10 years with the Patriots - his replacement has 2 in as many GAMES. The field was torn to ####, and if you saw the first missed FG you would see that Gostkowski didn't get his plant foot down and kicked a low line drive kicked that was just begging to be blocked.So, why did Belichick not kick there? I think he had more confidence on Tom Brady getting the first down than he did in Gostkowski getting the kick. If Brady had completed for 10 yards on that last play and moved to the 26, I think they would've kicked. But 36, under those circumstances, with that kicker - Belichick would be getting burned today if he had put the kid back out there in that situation and he missed it, which he probably would have.

guess we will just have to disagree here then.....no matter what happens if they try a FG attempt BB can fall back on "I did what I thought would give us the best chance to win the game"......that should be the bottom line every time.....now he can't use that.........he didn't give his team the best chance to win the game...HE ROLLLED THE DICE AND LOST.......even if it would have worked out, it still would have been a bad decision.....he gambled instead of doing the right thing...I'd be interested to see what the Homer papers and talk shows are saying........sidenote....the field did look like crap....if I am Pats player and that is what I have to play on....i would be pissed......they mentioned something about SOCCCER being played on that field and that is why it is jacked up[....wow....you can't tell me there isn't a stadium in that area that can hold about 100 people for a soccer game so they can stay off that field....

Check the later posts, it appears I was wrong about the distance.BUT, as far as you posting this under the belief that they were on the 36 yard line, how does Belichick sending out a rookie kicker who has already had a crappy field goal blocked for a 50+ yarder with 2 minutes left on a crappy field give his team the best chance to win?Maybe we're just arguing to argue now, but I think the philosophy here is way off. IF it was a 50+ yard FG in this situation, you put the ball in the hands of your quarterback to give your team the best chance to win.

 

[mulliganm]

Remember that the last two FG attempts by Gostkowski had ben blocked.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

I just think had this even been someone like Parcells's it would have gotten more attention......who knows what a coach on a hot seat would have had to go through....I think only one reporter asked a question about it in the press conference and it was swept under the rug like no big deal...I just think he decision was an easy one........ and the only right way to really give your team a chance to win.....he blew it and nobody cares.........

They were on the 36 yard-line. They have a rookie kicker. Vinatieri had 3 blocked field goals in 10 years with the Patriots - his replacement has 2 in as many GAMES. The field was torn to ####, and if you saw the first missed FG you would see that Gostkowski didn't get his plant foot down and kicked a low line drive kicked that was just begging to be blocked.So, why did Belichick not kick there? I think he had more confidence on Tom Brady getting the first down than he did in Gostkowski getting the kick. If Brady had completed for 10 yards on that last play and moved to the 26, I think they would've kicked. But 36, under those circumstances, with that kicker - Belichick would be getting burned today if he had put the kid back out there in that situation and he missed it, which he probably would have.

guess we will just have to disagree here then.....no matter what happens if they try a FG attempt BB can fall back on "I did what I thought would give us the best chance to win the game"......that should be the bottom line every time.....now he can't use that.........he didn't give his team the best chance to win the game...HE ROLLLED THE DICE AND LOST.......even if it would have worked out, it still would have been a bad decision.....he gambled instead of doing the right thing...I'd be interested to see what the Homer papers and talk shows are saying........sidenote....the field did look like crap....if I am Pats player and that is what I have to play on....i would be pissed......they mentioned something about SOCCCER being played on that field and that is why it is jacked up[....wow....you can't tell me there isn't a stadium in that area that can hold about 100 people for a soccer game so they can stay off that field....

Check the later posts, it appears I was wrong about the distance.BUT, as far as you posting this under the belief that they were on the 36 yard line, how does Belichick sending out a rookie kicker who has already had a crappy field goal blocked for a 50+ yarder with 2 minutes left on a crappy field give his team the best chance to win?Maybe we're just arguing to argue now, but I think the philosophy here is way off. IF it was a 50+ yard FG in this situation, you put the ball in the hands of your quarterback to give your team the best chance to win.

if you read my initial post in this thread....I indicated it was "only like a 36 yarder"...I was off by 3 yards apparently.....he should have kicked the FG

 

[Sigfawn]

I just think had this even been someone like Parcells's it would have gotten more attention......who knows what a coach on a hot seat would have had to go through....I think only one reporter asked a question about it in the press conference and it was swept under the rug like no big deal...I just think he decision was an easy one........ and the only right way to really give your team a chance to win.....he blew it and nobody cares.........

They were on the 36 yard-line. They have a rookie kicker. Vinatieri had 3 blocked field goals in 10 years with the Patriots - his replacement has 2 in as many GAMES. The field was torn to ####, and if you saw the first missed FG you would see that Gostkowski didn't get his plant foot down and kicked a low line drive kicked that was just begging to be blocked.So, why did Belichick not kick there? I think he had more confidence on Tom Brady getting the first down than he did in Gostkowski getting the kick. If Brady had completed for 10 yards on that last play and moved to the 26, I think they would've kicked. But 36, under those circumstances, with that kicker - Belichick would be getting burned today if he had put the kid back out there in that situation and he missed it, which he probably would have.

I thought they were closer to the 20 at that point?

You're right, they were. Would've been about 39 yarder.Okay so what that changes:1) I still think what I said was the reasoning behind it.2) I agree with the decision much less.

What changes was, they NEEDED a FG. Now, or later. It was 4th down. 40% of the time the game ends on that pass. I like putting the FG up, and trying the onside kick. Give yourself 30 seconds to work the sidelines and throw it in the endzone. Even if he catches the ball for the first down, the game is pretty much over anyway. They probably down it with 20 seconds left, and can't score, onside kick, kick fg in that time anyway. The whole thing was poorly run. At the pace they were going, they would have scored the TD with no time left. Again, the idea is to win, not get the TD first.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

Remember that the last two FG attempts by Gostkowski had ben blocked.

so he doesn't get to attempt a FG the rest of the year because his last two were blocked...??

 

[vinwinephans]

I think he played it ok. You in the red zone - you need 10 points. You need a TD and a FG. 4 and 1 on the 20 is looking a lot better for 7 points than 1st and 10 from their own 45 after an on-side kick.

IMO, he had a much higher chance at pulling off the comeback by getting the 7 pts first and then only having to march 30 yards after a successful on-side kick to kick a FG. They were already in the red zone. If you are in the zone, you go for it if you need more than 2 FGs, at least, that's how I would have played it.

In the end, it's all a matter of preference. Too many things were not working for NE last night for it all work out anyway.

 

[PatsWillWin]

I just think had this even been someone like Parcells's it would have gotten more attention......who knows what a coach on a hot seat would have had to go through....I think only one reporter asked a question about it in the press conference and it was swept under the rug like no big deal...I just think he decision was an easy one........ and the only right way to really give your team a chance to win.....he blew it and nobody cares.........

They were on the 36 yard-line. They have a rookie kicker. Vinatieri had 3 blocked field goals in 10 years with the Patriots - his replacement has 2 in as many GAMES. The field was torn to ####, and if you saw the first missed FG you would see that Gostkowski didn't get his plant foot down and kicked a low line drive kicked that was just begging to be blocked.So, why did Belichick not kick there? I think he had more confidence on Tom Brady getting the first down than he did in Gostkowski getting the kick. If Brady had completed for 10 yards on that last play and moved to the 26, I think they would've kicked. But 36, under those circumstances, with that kicker - Belichick would be getting burned today if he had put the kid back out there in that situation and he missed it, which he probably would have.

I thought they were closer to the 20 at that point?

You're right, they were. Would've been about 39 yarder.Okay so what that changes:1) I still think what I said was the reasoning behind it.2) I agree with the decision much less.

What changes was, they NEEDED a FG. Now, or later. It was 4th down. 40% of the time the game ends on that pass. I like putting the FG up, and trying the onside kick. Give yourself 30 seconds to work the sidelines and throw it in the endzone. Even if he catches the ball for the first down, the game is pretty much over anyway. They probably down it with 20 seconds left, and can't score, onside kick, kick fg in that time anyway. The whole thing was poorly run. At the pace they were going, they would have scored the TD with no time left. Again, the idea is to win, not get the TD first.

It doesn't matter that they needed FG if they don't think the kicker can make the field goal.

 

[packersfan]

Remember that the last two FG attempts by Gostkowski had ben blocked.

so he doesn't get to attempt a FG the rest of the year because his last two were blocked...??

No but I think he had more confidence in Brady being able to pick up one yard than Gostkowski making a 39-yard FG. Just didn't work out.

 

[Sopranos]

The FG was the ONLY play that should have been run. There is no 2nd guessing,it was a bad guess.. Going for it was to high chance..It was a dumb call.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

they were at the 20....would have been 37.....

off by a yard

 

[PatsWillWin]

The FG was the ONLY play that should have been run. There is no 2nd guessing,it was a bad guess.. Going for it was to high chance..It was a dumb call.

So which is it?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I think the TV annoucers were wrong, and going for the TD was the better move.

They needed a touchdown and a field goal. They were down around the 20 yard line. That's better field position than they'd have had after an onside kick. So their best chance for a touchdown was on the current drive.

Sure, if they miss the game is over. But attempting a field goal for that reason is not playing to win -- it's playing to delay a sure loss for another few seconds. Coaches seem to do this a lot, but temporarily keeping hope alive is not the same as maximizing the chance of winning.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

I just think had this even been someone like Parcells's it would have gotten more attention......who knows what a coach on a hot seat would have had to go through....I think only one reporter asked a question about it in the press conference and it was swept under the rug like no big deal...I just think he decision was an easy one........ and the only right way to really give your team a chance to win.....he blew it and nobody cares.........

They were on the 36 yard-line. They have a rookie kicker. Vinatieri had 3 blocked field goals in 10 years with the Patriots - his replacement has 2 in as many GAMES. The field was torn to ####, and if you saw the first missed FG you would see that Gostkowski didn't get his plant foot down and kicked a low line drive kicked that was just begging to be blocked.So, why did Belichick not kick there? I think he had more confidence on Tom Brady getting the first down than he did in Gostkowski getting the kick. If Brady had completed for 10 yards on that last play and moved to the 26, I think they would've kicked. But 36, under those circumstances, with that kicker - Belichick would be getting burned today if he had put the kid back out there in that situation and he missed it, which he probably would have.

I thought they were closer to the 20 at that point?

You're right, they were. Would've been about 39 yarder.Okay so what that changes:1) I still think what I said was the reasoning behind it.2) I agree with the decision much less.

What changes was, they NEEDED a FG. Now, or later. It was 4th down. 40% of the time the game ends on that pass. I like putting the FG up, and trying the onside kick. Give yourself 30 seconds to work the sidelines and throw it in the endzone. Even if he catches the ball for the first down, the game is pretty much over anyway. They probably down it with 20 seconds left, and can't score, onside kick, kick fg in that time anyway. The whole thing was poorly run. At the pace they were going, they would have scored the TD with no time left. Again, the idea is to win, not get the TD first.

It doesn't matter that they needed FG if they don't think the kicker can make the field goal.

so they should have just took a knee and given up since by your way of thinking they would have had to have had two TD's.......

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Remember that the last two FG attempts by Gostkowski had ben blocked.

so he doesn't get to attempt a FG the rest of the year because his last two were blocked...??

No but I think he had more confidence in Brady being able to pick up one yard than Gostkowski making a 39-yard FG. Just didn't work out.

More specifically, I think he had more confidence in Brady being able to score quickly from the 20 and Gotkowski being able to score quickly from the 35 than vice versa.

 

[menobrown]

This is just like the SB when Madden said the Seahawks were the victims of bad calls and everyone in the nation ran with it. So now he says the Pats should have kicked the FG and everyone wants to say the Pats messed up.

I think the Pats did the right thing. The FG attempt would not only have been long but if the Pats did get the ball back it's a lot harder trying to throw a 40 yard TD than one from around the 20.

 

[mulliganm]

Remember that the last two FG attempts by Gostkowski had ben blocked.

so he doesn't get to attempt a FG the rest of the year because his last two were blocked...??

No but I think he had more confidence in Brady being able to pick up one yard than Gostkowski making a 39-yard FG. Just didn't work out.

More specifically, I think he had more confidence in Brady being able to score quickly from the 20 and Gotkowski being able to score quickly from the 35 than vice versa.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

I think the TV annoucers were wrong, and going for the TD was the better move.They needed a touchdown and a field goal. They were down around the 20 yard line. That's better field position than they'd have had after an onside kick. So their best chance for a touchdown was on the current drive.Sure, if they miss the game is over. But attempting a field goal for that reason is not playing to win -- it's playing to delay a sure loss for another few seconds. Coaches seem to do this a lot, but temporarily keeping hope alive is not the same as maximizing the chance of winning.

disagree....you need two scores......you had a chance to get one of them and you took a gamble and screwed up your first chance..........you can't get the second one until you get the first......4th down is 4th down......I don't care if you're QB is Tom Brady, Joe Montana, John Elway, whoever......

 

[Limp Ditka]

I can see both ways of thinking

Its easier to get a last second FG than it is a last second TD. There's about 30 less yards to cover, thus less time needed in an ideal situation. So getting the TD first is ideal.

But I think you have to get the points when the opportunity presents itself.

Another reason I think you kick is the game is probably a lost cause anyway at this point.

You have an unproven kicker and an opportunity to expose him to a pressure situation. Is it down 2 with :05 left? No, but it is a pressure situation because if he misses, game over.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

you can't get the second one until you get the first......

But it doesn't matter what order they come in. You have to make both.Assume you are going to recover the onside kick.An 80% chance of making the first score and a 10% chance of making the second is worse than a 25% chance of making the first and a 33% chance of making the second.The idea isn't to maximize the chance of making the first score in order to keep hope alive for the second. The idea is to maximize the chance of making both scores. If that means going for the lower-percentage score first, so be it.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

lol at those that use the "lack of confidence in the kicker" as justification for not attempting a 37 yard FG....

this would be then be the same kicker that you would then be sending out their as time is about to expire (if things went right) to probably try to win it for you from 50 +....

"hey we didn't think you could do it for us earlier bud.....but hey go out there and get it for us now....you da man"

 

[Stinkin Ref]

you can't get the second one until you get the first......

But it doesn't matter what order they come in. You have to make both.Assume you are going to recover the onside kick.An 80% chance of making the first score and a 10% chance of making the second is worse than a 25% chance of making the first and a 33% chance of making the second.The idea isn't to maximize the chance of making the first score in order to keep hope alive for the second. The idea is to maximize the chance of making both scores. If that means going for the lower-percentage score first, so be it.

huh.....going for it on 4th down does not maximize your chances for getting either score.....it actually reduces them....edit to add....not sure where you came up with your percentages....are those official NFL stats...

 

[Workhorse]

I question the play call as much as anything. Throwing a short pass on 4th and 1 in the middle of the field doesn't have as much of a liklihood of succeeding as say, a QB sneak.

I would have kicked the FG too, by the way. But if you're going to go for it, call a play that has the best shot of succeeding.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

edit to add....not sure where you came up with your percentages....

I made them up. Plug in whatever numbers you think are realistic.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

edit to add....not sure where you came up with your percentages....

I made them up. Plug in whatever numbers you think are realistic.

that was thrown in tongue and cheek since I know there are no realistic numbers for your scenario....however you were using them to try to justify your opinioneither way....going for it on 4th down reduces your chances for getting either score.....it doesn't maximize it.....

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

huh.....going for it on 4th down does not maximize your chances for getting either score.....it actually reduces them....

It quite obviously increases your chances of getting the second score given that you got the first, since it reduces your need from a touchdown down to a field goal.The question is whether the increased chances of getting the second score is worth the decreased chances of getting the first. To figure that out, you need to estimate the chance of (a) scoring a quick TD after going for it on fourth from the 20, (b) kicking a field goal from the 20 (i.e., a 37 yarder), (c ) scoring a quick TD after recovering an onside kick, and (d) scoring a quick FG after recovering an onside kick.If a * d > b * c, they should have gone for it. If b * c > a * d, they should have kicked.

 

[Aabye]

you can't get the second one until you get the first......

But it doesn't matter what order they come in. You have to make both.Assume you are going to recover the onside kick.An 80% chance of making the first score and a 10% chance of making the second is worse than a 25% chance of making the first and a 33% chance of making the second.The idea isn't to maximize the chance of making the first score in order to keep hope alive for the second. The idea is to maximize the chance of making both scores. If that means going for the lower-percentage score first, so be it.

There are two possibilities that matter:1) kick the 35 yard FG at about the 1:04 mark, recover the onside kick at about the 40, drive 60 yards w/ 1 TO in 1 minute for a TD.2) Pick up the 1st down, burn the TO. Score a TD within the next 15 seconds. Recover the onside kick at about the 40. Now you drive 30 yards w/ no TO in 30 seconds, then kick a 45 yarder, or drive 40 yards in 30 seconds and kick a 35 yarder.I can't run the odds on those, but I'd guess that the first is more probable than the second, so I'd kick the FG at 1:04.

 

[TommyGilmore]

you can't get the second one until you get the first......

But it doesn't matter what order they come in. You have to make both.Assume you are going to recover the onside kick.An 80% chance of making the first score and a 10% chance of making the second is worse than a 25% chance of making the first and a 33% chance of making the second.The idea isn't to maximize the chance of making the first score in order to keep hope alive for the second. The idea is to maximize the chance of making both scores. If that means going for the lower-percentage score first, so be it.

I see your point, but I don't think your scenario accounts for the clock factor. That 33% number gets smaller and smaller with each extra play they run to get the TD.

 

[David Yudkin]

Let's make this easier. Even if Vinatieri was still the kicker, the Pats would have still gone for the first down and then TD. You can recover an onside kick and complete one pass to the sideline to get a long range field goal attempt. You can't recover an onside kick and have a realistic shot at the end zone with hardly any time left and no timeouts (assuming they burned their last one).

And for the record, IMO the Pats were dead in the water no mater what, as they certainly did not seem like they could do what they wanted to do most of the game. Denver was disrupting the offense the entire game and there was not enough time for New England to keep getting 7 yard dumpoffs over the middle.

I agree with Bruschi on this one. The Broncos beat the Pats this game and that's how it goes.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

you can't get the second one until you get the first......

But it doesn't matter what order they come in. You have to make both.Assume you are going to recover the onside kick.An 80% chance of making the first score and a 10% chance of making the second is worse than a 25% chance of making the first and a 33% chance of making the second.The idea isn't to maximize the chance of making the first score in order to keep hope alive for the second. The idea is to maximize the chance of making both scores. If that means going for the lower-percentage score first, so be it.

There are two possibilities that matter:1) kick the 35 yard FG at about the 1:04 mark, recover the onside kick at about the 40, drive 60 yards w/ 1 TO in 1 minute for a TD.2) Pick up the 1st down, burn the TO. Score a TD within the next 15 seconds. Recover the onside kick at about the 40. Now you drive 30 yards w/ no TO in 30 seconds, then kick a 45 yarder, or drive 40 yards in 30 seconds and kick a 35 yarder.I can't run the odds on those, but I'd guess that the first is more probable than the second, so I'd kick the FG at 1:04.

This is the correct analysis. I can't perfectly estimate the odds either, but I'd guess that the second is more probable than the first.Either way, my point in this thread is to refute the argument that they should have kicked the field goal just because if they don't convert on fourth down, it's over, whereas if they kick the field goal they still have hope (for at least one more play). That's playing not to lose. Playing to win means taking into account the post-onside-kick probabilities as well, as Abaye has done.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

huh.....going for it on 4th down does not maximize your chances for getting either score.....it actually reduces them....

It quite obviously increases your chances of getting the second score given that you got the first, since it reduces your need from a touchdown down to a field goal.The question is whether the increased chances of getting the second score is worth the decreased chances of getting the first. To figure that out, you need to estimate the chance of (a) scoring a quick TD after going for it on fourth from the 20, (b) kicking a field goal from the 20 (i.e., a 37 yarder), (c ) scoring a quick TD after recovering an onside kick, and (d) scoring a quick FG after recovering an onside kick.

If a * d > b * c, they should have gone for it. If b * c > a * d, they should have kicked.

no it doesn't....your are decreasing your odds of getting either score by throwing in this variable.....

your 4th down play must be successful in order for you to continue on to try and get either of the next two scores.....

if you try the FG.....you do not have this variable.....you eliminate one more unsure step

sure the FG might not work but at least you were able to attempt it....

your way thows in a variable that may not let you even get to where you want to be.........

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

huh.....going for it on 4th down does not maximize your chances for getting either score.....it actually reduces them....

It quite obviously increases your chances of getting the second score given that you got the first, since it reduces your need from a touchdown down to a field goal.

no it doesn't....

Yes it does.Getting one score is worth the same amount as getting zero scores -- i.e., it is worth nothing. You have to get both.

So the relevant question concerning the second score is, what is the likelihood of getting the second score given that you got the first.

It is obvious that the probability of getting a field goal is greater than the probability of getting a touchdown. So the probability of getting the second score after making a touchdown is greater than the probability of getting the second score after making a field goal.

your 4th down play must be successful in order for you to continue on to try and get either of the next two scores.....

if you try the FG.....you do not have this variable.....you eliminate one more unsure step

sure the FG might not work but at least you were able to attempt it....

your way thows in a variable that may not let you even get to where you want to be.........

This is not correct. You have to make the first score and make the second. The chance of making both is the product of making each. You don't get bonus points for doing the higher percentage one before doing the lower percentage one. Order doesn't matter.Trying to maximize the chance of making the first score (to keep hope alive) rather than trying to maximize the chance of making both scores is faulty thinking.

 

[Z-Dog]

Let's make this easier. Even if Vinatieri was still the kicker, the Pats would have still gone for the first down and then TD. You can recover an onside kick and complete one pass to the sideline to get a long range field goal attempt. You can't recover an onside kick and have a realistic shot at the end zone with hardly any time left and no timeouts (assuming they burned their last one).And for the record, IMO the Pats were dead in the water no mater what, as they certainly did not seem like they could do what they wanted to do most of the game. Denver was disrupting the offense the entire game and there was not enough time for New England to keep getting 7 yard dumpoffs over the middle.I agree with Bruschi on this one. The Broncos beat the Pats this game and that's how it goes.

There was over a minute left on the clock on 4th down. Had they gone FG, onside kick they would have had over 40 seconds to run the offense from about their own 40 or 45. Not ideal, but enough time that it wouldnt' just be desperation heaves to the endzone.Like you said, NE got beat that game. Still, I think that BB should have done what he could to extend the game and give his team another shot. As another poster said, 40% of the time the game ends on that 4th down play. I think that Gostkowski had a better than 40% shot of making that FG.

 

[AB in DC]

Its easier to get a last second FG than it is a last second TD. There's about 30 less yards to cover, thus less time needed in an ideal situation. So getting the TD first is ideal.

I disagree. You can score a TD from the opp's 40, but you can't score a FG from there in normal conditions. If you take the time to get that first TD, you're not going to have time to get into FG range.At least with the FG first, you have some time to get in range for a few shots in the end zone.

 

[Aabye]

you can't get the second one until you get the first......

But it doesn't matter what order they come in. You have to make both.Assume you are going to recover the onside kick.An 80% chance of making the first score and a 10% chance of making the second is worse than a 25% chance of making the first and a 33% chance of making the second.The idea isn't to maximize the chance of making the first score in order to keep hope alive for the second. The idea is to maximize the chance of making both scores. If that means going for the lower-percentage score first, so be it.

There are two possibilities that matter:1) kick the 35 yard FG at about the 1:04 mark, recover the onside kick at about the 40, drive 60 yards w/ 1 TO in 1 minute for a TD.2) Pick up the 1st down, burn the TO. Score a TD within the next 15 seconds. Recover the onside kick at about the 40. Now you drive 30 yards w/ no TO in 30 seconds, then kick a 45 yarder, or drive 40 yards in 30 seconds and kick a 35 yarder.I can't run the odds on those, but I'd guess that the first is more probable than the second, so I'd kick the FG at 1:04.

This is the correct analysis. I can't perfectly estimate the odds either, but I'd guess that the second is more probable than the first.Either way, my point in this thread is to refute the argument that they should have kicked the field goal just because if they don't convert on fourth down, it's over, whereas if they kick the field goal they still have hope (for at least one more play). That's playing not to lose. Playing to win means taking into account the post-onside-kick probabilities as well, as Abaye has done.

Agree on the general point.As far as which is more probable, I'd guess that the ability to work the deep middle of the field 2-3 times in the 1st scenario makes a TD almost as likely as a long FG (c. 45-50 yards) on a bad field in 30-35 seconds in the second scenario. And, of course, the 35 yard field goal in scenario 1 is considerably easier than scoring a TD in scenario 2.One other point: I'd prefer, as a head coach, to put the ball in Brady's hands w/ the game on the line.But it is a judgment call. There's not really a clear-cut way to handle the situation.

 

[CalBear]

The question is whether the increased chances of getting the second score is worth the decreased chances of getting the first. To figure that out, you need to estimate the chance of (a) scoring a quick TD after going for it on fourth from the 20, (b) kicking a field goal from the 20 (i.e., a 37 yarder), (c ) scoring a quick TD after recovering an onside kick, and (d) scoring a quick FG after recovering an onside kick.If a * d > b * c, they should have gone for it. If b * c > a * d, they should have kicked.

You're leaving out the time value. It's easier to go 60 yards in 60 seconds than to go 20 yards for the TD, and then go 40 yards and set up the field goal in the same time frame.Edit to add: You're also leaving out the fact that it's fourth down, which reduces your chances for successfully going 20 yards for a TD (since if you don't get at least one yard on one play, you fail).

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

I didn't get through all the posts, but it seems like most people have the right conception. They made the wrong call, period. There is no arguement.

Heck, a lot of people would kick the FG there regardless of down, to save time. You need 10... You can only get 3 from inside the 35, or so. You can get a TD, theoretically, from anywhere.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Let me try it this way.

As someone already said, if the Patriots have Vinatieri (and he's healthy of course), would they have tried the kick?

I say absolutely. You can debate me on this point if you want, but I think most will agree, and it is on this premise that I'm continuing this post.

So they don't have Vinatieri and they didn't try the kick. What does that tells you? It tells you that all of your theoretical debate about whether it's better go for FG first or TD first is irrelevant since Belichick's reasoning for not kicking the ball has not to do with a strategical philosophy of any kind but a clear and definitive lack of faith in his rookie kicker. This lack of faith has been well earned so far this season, and Belichick clearly just didn't think the guy could make the kick.

If you don't think your kicker can make the kick, then going for the FG first makes no sense.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

huh.....going for it on 4th down does not maximize your chances for getting either score.....it actually reduces them....

It quite obviously increases your chances of getting the second score given that you got the first, since it reduces your need from a touchdown down to a field goal.

no it doesn't....

Yes it does.Getting one score is worth the same amount as getting zero scores -- i.e., it is worth nothing. You have to get both.

So the relevant question concerning the second score is, what is the likelihood of getting the second score given that you got the first.

It is obvious that the probability of getting a field goal is greater than the probability of getting a touchdown. So the probability of getting the second score after making a touchdown is greater than the probability of getting the second score after making a field goal.

your 4th down play must be successful in order for you to continue on to try and get either of the next two scores.....

if you try the FG.....you do not have this variable.....you eliminate one more unsure step

sure the FG might not work but at least you were able to attempt it....

your way thows in a variable that may not let you even get to where you want to be.........

This is not correct. You have to make the first score and make the second. The chance of making both is the product of making each. You don't get bonus points for doing the higher percentage one before doing the lower percentage one. Order doesn't matter.Trying to maximize the chance of making the first score (to keep hope alive) rather than trying to maximize the chance of making both scores is faulty thinking.

some (including MT) are trying to make "keeping hope alive" sound like a fairy tale or something.....when in reality, that is exactly what you need to do in that situation......BB's decision and your attempts to justify it increase the odds of not keeping hope alive.....MT.....no matter what spin you try to put on it.....what ended up happening is precisely the reason you kick the FG....

give your team a chance to win the game........going for it on 4th down reduced those chances.....it just did...it happened.....you can't say it increased their chances because it didn't....it didn't....and there is no way of proving it....kicking the FG there would have given them a chance....

I hate the Broncos....i would have loved to have seen this work out.....I have seen it work for BB before....when he toook the intentional safety.......but this one he missed on.....as much credit as he got for his decision when it worked......he should get the blame when it doesn't......I don't see him getting what others would have in this situation....

attempt the FG and live with what happens after that.......

 

[CalBear]

If you don't think your kicker can make the kick, then going for the FG first makes no sense.

That makes no sense. You need the FG anyway. Whatever your level of confidence in your FG kicker, you're going to kick a FG. Whether it's now or later doesn't really matter.