So, should have Dallas gone for the 4th and foot? (1 Viewer)

[Liquid Tension]

OK, folks please remove your emotion and any actual outcome and think this through before jumping to a conclusion.

I was watching the game needing only one point to win the final part of a teaser (this after Seattle correctly getting their TD over turned, then not kicking the (for me) winning extra point and then failing on the 2 point conversion) and if I was Parcell's I would have gone for the 4th and a foot. Here is my logic.

Going for the FG to get the win:

1) You have to successfully make the FG (although this is a 90% chance because not centered)

2) You then have to stop Seattle from being able to move down field and only get into FG range being able to use 4 downs (which makes it a lot easier) and kicking off with about 1:15 left. I know that many teams have been able to get into FG range with less than 30 seconds and no timeouts, plus they have to kick deep. Finally, I believe Seattle had one timeout left (can someone confirm this?)

Time and time again when a team has that much time and only needs a FG, you have at the least a 35% chance of getting into FG range (remember you have 4 down to work with). With a Timeout answer % is probably at least 50%.

Point is that making that FG is definitely NOT game over

Going for 4th down to get the win.

1) If you make the first down and not score the TD, you will have the final play of the game and then kicking the FG would win the game.

2) If you score the TD you then give the ball back to Seattle with the MUCH harder task of scoring a TD to either win or tie (after Dallas would go for 2).

3) And this is the big one that most people are not thinking about - you could get stuffed going for the 4th down play and still have a decent chance at winning the game. A) Dallas had all 3 of their timeouts and all they would need to do is stop Seattle from getting a first down and Dallas would get the ball back with anywhere from 50 seconds to 1:30 or so and probably have the ball at worst at the 50 yard line and possibly almost in FG range after the punt. B) Dallas could also have forced a Turnover or safety as well as a possibility and that would have won the game as well.

An interesting debate could go on if you are whether you want to let the clock run down to the 1:15 left before hiking the 4th down play, or you could hike the play with 1:45 left just in case you don't make it. This one is debatable.

That being said, Parcells had a ton of time to think this over as the review went on for awhile and I think made a mistake and put the odds AGAINST him by going for the FG. Yeah, I know it is hard to not take the lead there, but I think there is a reasonable chance they don't win the game if they make that FG and that seems to be forgotten.

I think if you run the percentages on driving down to kick a FG after getting kicked off to with a minute left and losing by 1 - 3 points, the team receiving scores at a much higher percentage than anyone is thinking about. Also, the weakness of Dallas is their secondary so moving the ball on that unit is not far fetched.

Bottom line is that I think it is debatable at worst and possibly the correct move

If anyone has those numbers it would be interesting as you could run every permutation and get what was the better % move.

 

[Smack Tripper]

90 percent Daddy, more like 99.

Seattle is out of time outs.

You have a minute to play, with a lead.

The time to get aggressive is on the play before the 2 minute warning. THATS where the element of suprise was to take a shot at the end zone. Play action there because the whole world knows you're running to get it down to the 2, and then take your shot.

You kick the FG daddy. Hope your D stops them with a minute to go and no Time Outs, its not even debatable.

If Romo can get a snap down, they're playing next week, bottom line.

 

[Tag]

90 percent Daddy, more like 99. Seattle is out of time outs.You have a minute to play, with a lead. The time to get aggressive is on the play before the 2 minute warning. THATS where the element of suprise was to take a shot at the end zone. Play action there because the whole world knows you're running to get it down to the 2, and then take your shot. You kick the FG daddy. Hope your D stops them with a minute to go and no Time Outs, its not even debatable. If Romo can get a snap down, they're playing next week, bottom line.

I doubt that. I have ALLOT of confidence in dallas giving up a late FG to seattle to lose the game on a last second 50 yarder from josh brown. As soon as Dallas lined up for the FG i knew they had lost, i just figured they would atleast make the FG tho.

 

[Dreamer]

But going for the kick is a sure thing.

 

[PatsWillWin]

there's no way you go for it on 4th down when you're behind in that situation.

 

[cowboyz]

90 percent Daddy, more like 99. Seattle is out of time outs.You have a minute to play, with a lead. The time to get aggressive is on the play before the 2 minute warning. THATS where the element of suprise was to take a shot at the end zone. Play action there because the whole world knows you're running to get it down to the 2, and then take your shot.

although i thought i was this play that they should've done it4th quarter3-1-SEA10 (10:59) M.Barber left guard to SEA 11 for -1 yards (L.Hill, B.Fisher). 4-2-SEA11 (10:19) M.Gramatica 29 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-L.Ladouceur, Holder-T.Romo.

 

[H.K.]

The did go for it.

FG "snap bobble fake"...brilliant, gutsy call.....damn near worked, too.

Anyone ever see "North Dallas Forty"? Kind of interesting to see Dallas lose by a point the same way.

Sometimes life does imitate art.

 

[H.K.]

there's no way you go for it on 4th down when you're behind in that situation.

Could you imagine the second guessing if Dallas went for it and got stuffed? No other option than kick the field goal. Don't forget that Dallas called plays specifically to burn Seattle's TO's, as well. It was the right strategy to play for the lead with as little time left as possible and your opponent having no time outs. Football 101, no questions asked. Execution was poor, not the strategy.

 

[rzrback77]

there's no way you go for it on 4th down when you're behind in that situation.

Could you imagine the second guessing if Dallas went for it and got stuffed? No other option than kick the field goal. Don't forget that Dallas called plays specifically to burn Seattle's TO's, as well. It was the right strategy to play for the lead with as little time left as possible and your opponent having no time outs. Football 101, no questions asked. Execution was poor, not the strategy.

VERY There was absolutely no other choice.

 

[JayMan]

1) You have to successfully make the FG (although this is a 90% chance because not centered)

2) You then have to stop Seattle from being able to move down field and only get into FG range being able to use 4 downs (which makes it a lot easier) and kicking off with about 1:15 left. I know that many teams have been able to get into FG range with less than 30 seconds and no timeouts, plus they have to kick deep. Finally, I believe Seattle had one timeout left (can someone confirm this?)

Time and time again when a team has that much time and only needs a FG, you have at the least a 35% chance of getting into FG range (remember you have 4 down to work with). With a Timeout answer % is probably at least 50%.

Point is that making that FG is definitely NOT game over

[...]

3) And this is the big one that most people are not thinking about - you could get stuffed going for the 4th down play and still have a decent chance at winning the game. A) Dallas had all 3 of their timeouts and all they would need to do is stop Seattle from getting a first down and Dallas would get the ball back with anywhere from 50 seconds to 1:30 or so and probably have the ball at worst at the 50 yard line and possibly almost in FG range after the punt. B) Dallas could also have forced a Turnover or safety as well as a possibility and that would have won the game as well.

I disagree...Since 1983, The success rate of FGs under 20yards is 95.9%...

Since 1998, when it is an "obvious pass play" (i.e. more than a 80% likelyhood that the offense will pass)... certainly the situation the Seahawks where in - the offense gains, on average, 5.2 yards per play (adjusted for penalties and ignoring kneeldowns) taking 19 seconds to do so...

With 80 seconds left (or so) and no timeouts... assuming the kickoff return is average - the Seahawks would have gotten the ball on the 25 yard line...

Suppose they need to get to the Cowboys 35 yard line (to attempt a 52 yard FG)... they would have needed to gain 40 yards on less than 5 plays (and they would have needed to lineup for that FG with no timeouts also)...

As the Cowboys HC... if you don't like these chances - then you certainly don't have much confidence in your defense (maybe deservely so!) and shouldn't be in the playoffs in the first place...

---

As for point 3) above... you are correct... but that exact situation happended last night - and Alexander ran for 20 yards or so on the first play... game over...

 

[H.K.]

BTW, I'm embarrased. This is the most obvious post ever, and I bit it hook, line and sinker.

Kudos, Liquid!

 

[Liquid Tension]

there's no way you go for it on 4th down when you're behind in that situation.

Could you imagine the second guessing if Dallas went for it and got stuffed? No other option than kick the field goal. Don't forget that Dallas called plays specifically to burn Seattle's TO's, as well. It was the right strategy to play for the lead with as little time left as possible and your opponent having no time outs. Football 101, no questions asked. Execution was poor, not the strategy.

VERY There was absolutely no other choice.

Gentlemen, this is the reaction I expected to get, but I think you guys are wrong. Dallas is the team I like least in the NFL so this is not second guessing; I said it at the time. I am also not saying it was a BAD move to kick the FG, what I am saying is that you guys are being VERY naive to think rt hat if Dallas does make the FG the game is over. That is simply WRONG and has been proven time and time again.BTW, making an extra point is NOT 99% and this was not centered which make it even harder because you are so close. Remember KC missed a similar one earlier and that was not centered.

C'mon, folks think a little rather than just responding. Saying NO OTHER OPTION is sticking your head in the sand. I thought these forums had more depth to them. Only one person said that after making the FG he felt Seattle would go down and kick the GW FG.

 

[H.K.]

Gentlemen, this is the reaction I expected to get, but I think you guys are wrong. Dallas is the team I like least in the NFL so this is not second guessing; I said it at the time. I am also not saying it was a BAD move to kick the FG, what I am saying is that you guys are being VERY naive to think rt hat if Dallas does make the FG the game is over. That is simply WRONG and has been proven time and time again.BTW, making an extra point is NOT 99% and this was not centered which make it even harder because you are so close. Remember KC missed a similar one earlier and that was not centered.C'mon, folks think a little rather than just responding. Saying NO OTHER OPTION is sticking your head in the sand. I thought these forums had more depth to them. Only one person said that after making the FG he felt Seattle would go down and kick the GW FG.

You are my new favorite poster! I usually save stuff like this to work the anti-mojo on my FF players, but schtick like this is pure gold!

 

[bentley]

there's no way you go for it on 4th down when you're behind in that situation.

Could you imagine the second guessing if Dallas went for it and got stuffed? No other option than kick the field goal. Don't forget that Dallas called plays specifically to burn Seattle's TO's, as well. It was the right strategy to play for the lead with as little time left as possible and your opponent having no time outs. Football 101, no questions asked. Execution was poor, not the strategy.

VERY There was absolutely no other choice.

Gentlemen, this is the reaction I expected to get, but I think you guys are wrong. Dallas is the team I like least in the NFL so this is not second guessing; I said it at the time. I am also not saying it was a BAD move to kick the FG, what I am saying is that you guys are being VERY naive to think rt hat if Dallas does make the FG the game is over. That is simply WRONG and has been proven time and time again.BTW, making an extra point is NOT 99% and this was not centered which make it even harder because you are so close. Remember KC missed a similar one earlier and that was not centered.

C'mon, folks think a little rather than just responding. Saying NO OTHER OPTION is sticking your head in the sand. I thought these forums had more depth to them. Only one person said that after making the FG he felt Seattle would go down and kick the GW FG.

This is the point where your argument falls apart.

 

[PatsWillWin]

there's no way you go for it on 4th down when you're behind in that situation.

Could you imagine the second guessing if Dallas went for it and got stuffed? No other option than kick the field goal. Don't forget that Dallas called plays specifically to burn Seattle's TO's, as well. It was the right strategy to play for the lead with as little time left as possible and your opponent having no time outs. Football 101, no questions asked. Execution was poor, not the strategy.

VERY There was absolutely no other choice.

Gentlemen, this is the reaction I expected to get, but I think you guys are wrong. Dallas is the team I like least in the NFL so this is not second guessing; I said it at the time. I am also not saying it was a BAD move to kick the FG, what I am saying is that you guys are being VERY naive to think rt hat if Dallas does make the FG the game is over. That is simply WRONG and has been proven time and time again.BTW, making an extra point is NOT 99% and this was not centered which make it even harder because you are so close. Remember KC missed a similar one earlier and that was not centered.

C'mon, folks think a little rather than just responding. Saying NO OTHER OPTION is sticking your head in the sand. I thought these forums had more depth to them. Only one person said that after making the FG he felt Seattle would go down and kick the GW FG.

there's no other option. you being wrong doesn't mean that this board doesn't have "depth".

 

[bentley]

PS - How in the world did you manage to use the word "Parcell's" more than once? Is English your second language?

"The Dalla's Cowboy's, led by head coach Bill Parcell's, led by five point's before the Seahawk's final scoring drive."

 

[Liquid Tension]

1) You have to successfully make the FG (although this is a 90% chance because not centered)

2) You then have to stop Seattle from being able to move down field and only get into FG range being able to use 4 downs (which makes it a lot easier) and kicking off with about 1:15 left. I know that many teams have been able to get into FG range with less than 30 seconds and no timeouts, plus they have to kick deep. Finally, I believe Seattle had one timeout left (can someone confirm this?)

Time and time again when a team has that much time and only needs a FG, you have at the least a 35% chance of getting into FG range (remember you have 4 down to work with). With a Timeout answer % is probably at least 50%.

Point is that making that FG is definitely NOT game over

[...]

3) And this is the big one that most people are not thinking about - you could get stuffed going for the 4th down play and still have a decent chance at winning the game. A) Dallas had all 3 of their timeouts and all they would need to do is stop Seattle from getting a first down and Dallas would get the ball back with anywhere from 50 seconds to 1:30 or so and probably have the ball at worst at the 50 yard line and possibly almost in FG range after the punt. B) Dallas could also have forced a Turnover or safety as well as a possibility and that would have won the game as well.

I disagree...Since 1983, The success rate of FGs under 20yards is 95.9%...

Since 1998, when it is an "obvious pass play" (i.e. more than a 80% likelyhood that the offense will pass)... certainly the situation the Seahawks where in - the offense gains, on average, 5.2 yards per play (adjusted for penalties and ignoring kneeldowns) taking 19 seconds to do so... Don't understand your logic here? In a conservative time you have to have faith that your run defense which has been solid all game can stop 3 straight runs. if they pass you have even more time and you could get a safety or turnover. Not sure where you get 19 seconds as well because Dallas could have snapped the ball with 1:40 left ion the 4th down play and 3 and outed Seattle and had well over a minute to go a few yards into FG range.With 80 seconds left (or so) and no timeouts... assuming the kickoff return is average - the Seahawks would have gotten the ball on the 25 yard line... I think the average position is the 32 yard line from a stat someone sent out and that does not include returns for TD's which could happen.

Suppose they need to get to the Cowboys 35 yard line (to attempt a 52 yard FG)... they would have needed to gain 40 yards on less than 5 plays (and they would have needed to lineup for that FG with no timeouts also)... The above makes it closer to 30-35 yards and remember it could be 10 plays, but only a few will keep the clock going, as the others could all be incomplete passes. having 4 downs is the reason why you see so many teams go down and kick a game tying or winning FG as it increases your chances of moving the ball because you get 33% more downs.

As the Cowboys HC... if you don't like these chances - then you certainly don't have much confidence in your defense (maybe deservedly so!) and shouldn't be in the playoffs in the first place... The playoff comment is irrelevant, but the weak pas defense is something that needs to be considered just as if Manning were on the other side, going for the TD was the absolutely correct call. Because it was Seattle, that favored going for the FG a little more.---

As for point 3) above... you are correct... but that exact situation happened last night - and Alexander ran for 20 yards or so on the first play... game over...

Again irrelevant because that is like me saying missing the FG happened so it was clearly the wrong call by Parcells. I wouldn't say that and neither should you. I am talking about playing the percentages and just like Alexander was unlikely to break one when he has been bottled up, it was also very unlikely that they botched the snap or missed the kick.BTW, even with Alexander getting the 1st down and moving 20 yards forward, Dallas still had a hail mary chance at the end. Point is imagine is Dallas was at the 50 with 45 seconds left, I would be pretty comfortable that they would have had a good chance to win the game even if they failed at the goal line carry/throw.

Jay, thanks for the FG percentage as that helps, although you could argue the Dallas FG kicker is a weak link. See above my comments in large font and then above

 

[redman]

The only way you consider going for it is if you have these or some combination of these things happening:

injury to kicker

extremely bad game by kicker

excellent short yardage running game

extreme problems on defense (can't stop subsequent drive)

The Cowboys can't really claim any of these things. On the road, trailing by 2 points, with a "gimmee" feild goal that would give them the lead with less than two minutes to go, this was a no-brainer. Romo screwed up the hold. End of story.

 

[bentley]

So to arrive at your conclusion, you have to make a series of baseless conclusions that fly in the face of the numbers presented? Deep thought here.

 

[Liquid Tension]

there's no way you go for it on 4th down when you're behind in that situation.

Could you imagine the second guessing if Dallas went for it and got stuffed? No other option than kick the field goal. Don't forget that Dallas called plays specifically to burn Seattle's TO's, as well. It was the right strategy to play for the lead with as little time left as possible and your opponent having no time outs. Football 101, no questions asked. Execution was poor, not the strategy.

VERY There was absolutely no other choice.

Gentlemen, this is the reaction I expected to get, but I think you guys are wrong. Dallas is the team I like least in the NFL so this is not second guessing; I said it at the time. I am also not saying it was a BAD move to kick the FG, what I am saying is that you guys are being VERY naive to think rt hat if Dallas does make the FG the game is over. That is simply WRONG and has been proven time and time again.BTW, making an extra point is NOT 99% and this was not centered which make it even harder because you are so close. Remember KC missed a similar one earlier and that was not centered.

C'mon, folks think a little rather than just responding. Saying NO OTHER OPTION is sticking your head in the sand. I thought these forums had more depth to them. Only one person said that after making the FG he felt Seattle would go down and kick the GW FG.

there's no other option. you being wrong doesn't mean that this board doesn't have "depth".

Let me show you the difference between depth and what your answer:Your answer = "NO OTHER OPTION"

Depth - Looking at all the other options and still possibly concluding you would kick the FG

More in depth - detailing all the other options with percentages attached to each and then deciding your answer.

Either way this is not a NO OTHER OPTION situation.

Why don't you refute the points instead of just saying "wrong" No other option? I just listed a bunch of them. Why don't you find the stats that show how often a team with 4 down to use is able to come back and kick a game tying FG? You are out of your mind if you think it is game over if the Cowboys kick that FG and you are also out of your mind if you think that if Dallas failed on going for 4th down that the game was over. Even with Seattle getting a 1st down Dallas STILL had a hail mary chance, even if that is only a 2% chance.

 

[PatsWillWin]

there's no way you go for it on 4th down when you're behind in that situation.

Could you imagine the second guessing if Dallas went for it and got stuffed? No other option than kick the field goal. Don't forget that Dallas called plays specifically to burn Seattle's TO's, as well. It was the right strategy to play for the lead with as little time left as possible and your opponent having no time outs. Football 101, no questions asked. Execution was poor, not the strategy.

VERY There was absolutely no other choice.

Gentlemen, this is the reaction I expected to get, but I think you guys are wrong. Dallas is the team I like least in the NFL so this is not second guessing; I said it at the time. I am also not saying it was a BAD move to kick the FG, what I am saying is that you guys are being VERY naive to think rt hat if Dallas does make the FG the game is over. That is simply WRONG and has been proven time and time again.BTW, making an extra point is NOT 99% and this was not centered which make it even harder because you are so close. Remember KC missed a similar one earlier and that was not centered.

C'mon, folks think a little rather than just responding. Saying NO OTHER OPTION is sticking your head in the sand. I thought these forums had more depth to them. Only one person said that after making the FG he felt Seattle would go down and kick the GW FG.

there's no other option. you being wrong doesn't mean that this board doesn't have "depth".

Let me show you the difference between depth and what your answer:Your answer = "NO OTHER OPTION"

Depth - Looking at all the other options and still possibly concluding you would kick the FG

More in depth - detailing all the other options with percentages attached to each and then deciding your answer.

Either way this is not a NO OTHER OPTION situation.

Why don't you refute the points instead of just saying "wrong" No other option? I just listed a bunch of them. Why don't you find the stats that show how often a team with 4 down to use is able to come back and kick a game tying FG? You are out of your mind if you think it is game over if the Cowboys kick that FG and you are also out of your mind if you think that if Dallas failed on going for 4th down that the game was over. Even with Seattle getting a 1st down Dallas STILL had a hail mary chance, even if that is only a 2% chance.

Fine let me rephrase - every other option is stupid.

 

[bentley]

If you type Parcell's again, I'm going to have to demand that you be banned on general principle.

 

[H.K.]

I'm with Liquid on this one.

Just because Parcells has taken four separate teams to the playoffs, along with three Super Bowl appearances, and won two Lombardi trophies as a coach does not get him off the hook here.

Liquid Tension obviously posesses a knowledge of the game that Parcells lacks, and it was obviously Parcells who lost this game for Dallas.

 

[Liquid Tension]

The only way you consider going for it is if you have these or some combination of these things happening:

injury to kicker

extremely bad game by kicker

excellent short yardage running game

extreme problems on defense (can't stop subsequent drive)

The Cowboys can't really claim any of these things. On the road, trailing by 2 points, with a "gimmee" feild goal that would give them the lead with less than two minutes to go, this was a no-brainer. Romo screwed up the hold. End of story.

Uh, no, what about the options I already discussed? Everyone is dismissing all the other options. Plus Dallas defense has been torched by lesser teams of late and their FG kicker is about as weak as you can get so not sure what you are trying to say.Let's look at what you need to happen to win if you kick the FG:

You must make the kick 95% chance (as shown above) and you must then kick off and stop Seattle from scoring a FG with 4 downs to go down and try. I need stats to help me here (anyone) but I would say that there is at about a 30% chance when all you need is a FG and 4 downs with over a minute to go that you can kick a FG

Therefore, to win the game you need .95 x .7 which is a 67% chance to win the game. Adjust the numbers, but even if the % of getting into FG is only 20% which is low in my opinion, that is only a 76% chance of winning so that is NOT "END OF STORY" IS IT??

 

[CalBear]

I usually think that coaches are too reluctant to go for it on fourth down--for example, I totally supported Seattle going for it on fourth and two at the other end, which they failed at but eventually made a safety.

But I don't think it's feasible to go for it in the situation the Cowboys were in. Your probability of winning if you kick the field goal is:

P1: Probability of making the field goal (95%)

P2: Probability of keeping Seattle from scoring after kickoff (call it 50%)

.95*.5=.475

If you go for it, the probability is:

P1: Probability of making the first down (call it 70%)

P2: Probability of scoring a TD after making the first down (call it 60%)

P3: Probability of keeping Seattle from scoring a TD after kickoff (call it 70%)

.7*.6*.7=.294

This latter slightly understates the probability, as it leaves out the case where you make the first down, don't make the TD, but still make the FG. Still, I think scenario 1 is better.

 

[redman]

I'm with Liquid on this one.

Just because Parcells has taken four separate teams to the playoffs, along with three Super Bowl appearances, and won two Lombardi trophies as a coach does not get him off the hook here.

Liquid Tension obviously posesses a knowledge of the game that Parcells lacks, and it was obviously Parcells who lost this game for Dallas.

I think he's missing the fact that Parcells did try to go for it with that fake FG. (With credit to Assani Fisher)

 

[PatsWillWin]

The only way you consider going for it is if you have these or some combination of these things happening:

injury to kicker

extremely bad game by kicker

excellent short yardage running game

extreme problems on defense (can't stop subsequent drive)

The Cowboys can't really claim any of these things. On the road, trailing by 2 points, with a "gimmee" feild goal that would give them the lead with less than two minutes to go, this was a no-brainer. Romo screwed up the hold. End of story.

Uh, no, what about the options I already discussed? Everyone is dismissing all the other options. Plus Dallas defense has been torched by lesser teams of late and their FG kicker is about as weak as you can get so not sure what you are trying to say.Let's look at what you need to happen to win if you kick the FG:

You must make the kick 95% chance (as shown above) and you must then kick off and stop Seattle from scoring a FG with 4 downs to go down and try. I need stats to help me here (anyone) but I would say that there is at about a 30% chance when all you need is a FG and 4 downs with over a minute to go that you can kick a FG

Therefore, to win the game you need .95 x .7 which is a 67% chance to win the game. Adjust the numbers, but even if the % of getting into FG is only 20% which is low in my opinion, that is only a 76% chance of winning so that is NOT "END OF STORY" IS IT??

Yeah why didn't Dallas choose a strategy that get's them a 100% chance of winning?

 

[bentley]

I usually think that coaches are too reluctant to go for it on fourth down--for example, I totally supported Seattle going for it on fourth and two at the other end, which they failed at but eventually made a safety.

But I don't think it's feasible to go for it in the situation the Cowboys were in. Your probability of winning if you kick the field goal is:

P1: Probability of making the field goal (95%)

P2: Probability of keeping Seattle from scoring after kickoff (call it 50%)

.95*.5=.475

If you go for it, the probability is:

P1: Probability of making the first down (call it 70%)

P2: Probability of scoring a TD after making the first down (call it 60%)

P3: Probability of keeping Seattle from scoring a TD after kickoff (call it 70%)

.7*.6*.7=.294

This latter slightly understates the probability, as it leaves out the case where you make the first down, don't make the TD, but still make the FG. Still, I think scenario 1 is better.

Dallas was 10/21 this year on 3rd and 4th and 1, so you need to reduce P1 to 50%. On the first scenario, some % needs to be added in for Dallas blowing the field goal, stopping Seattle and getting it on the second try.

I'd say it's more like 50/50 for kicking versus 20/80 if going for it. Gramatica's 49/52 in his career with FGs under 30 yards, so I'm not sure where the "weak kicking game" stuff is coming from. Likely out of Liquid's ### like everything else he's said.

 

[H.K.]

I'm with Liquid on this one.

Just because Parcells has taken four separate teams to the playoffs, along with three Super Bowl appearances, and won two Lombardi trophies as a coach does not get him off the hook here.

Liquid Tension obviously posesses a knowledge of the game that Parcells lacks, and it was obviously Parcells who lost this game for Dallas.

I think he's missing the fact that Parcells did try to go for it with that fake FG. (With credit to Assani Fisher)

Personally, I thought the "botched snap fake" was genius, only a perfect tackle prevented the first down or maybe even TD.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I usually think that coaches are too reluctant to go for it on fourth down--for example, I totally supported Seattle going for it on fourth and two at the other end, which they failed at but eventually made a safety.

But I don't think it's feasible to go for it in the situation the Cowboys were in. Your probability of winning if you kick the field goal is:

P1: Probability of making the field goal (95%)

P2: Probability of keeping Seattle from scoring after kickoff (call it 50%)

.95*.5=.475

If you go for it, the probability is:

P1: Probability of making the first down (call it 70%)

P2: Probability of scoring a TD after making the first down (call it 60%)

P3: Probability of keeping Seattle from scoring a TD after kickoff (call it 70%)

.7*.6*.7=.294

This latter slightly understates the probability, as it leaves out the case where you make the first down, don't make the TD, but still make the FG. Still, I think scenario 1 is better.

This is why I enjoy CalBear's posts. I am fine with someone disagreeing and he backs it up with logic to boot. he also acknowledges that option 2 is at least an option.That being said, I disagree with the math. I think you are throwing p2 into the equation when if you make the 1st down there is probably a 75% chance you score on that play and if the 25% chance happens where you get the 1st and do not get the TD then the game is 95% win based on the FG on the final play.

Also, if people think that there was such a small chance to go down and kick a FG after Dallas kicked it with a minute left, what are the chances that Seattle could go down and score a TD are at most 10%.

Therefore, I put the numbers as

.7*.95* .9 = 60% for option 2 or going for it

Now, I would also make option 1 a little more of a chance though s I don't know if it is 50=50 to go down and kick the FG I would say closer to 35-40% (again numbers would help)

That would be .95 * .6 = 57%

60 - 57% is pretty close, but either way

 

[PatsWillWin]

I usually think that coaches are too reluctant to go for it on fourth down--for example, I totally supported Seattle going for it on fourth and two at the other end, which they failed at but eventually made a safety.

But I don't think it's feasible to go for it in the situation the Cowboys were in. Your probability of winning if you kick the field goal is:

P1: Probability of making the field goal (95%)

P2: Probability of keeping Seattle from scoring after kickoff (call it 50%)

.95*.5=.475

If you go for it, the probability is:

P1: Probability of making the first down (call it 70%)

P2: Probability of scoring a TD after making the first down (call it 60%)

P3: Probability of keeping Seattle from scoring a TD after kickoff (call it 70%)

.7*.6*.7=.294

This latter slightly understates the probability, as it leaves out the case where you make the first down, don't make the TD, but still make the FG. Still, I think scenario 1 is better.

This is why I enjoy CalBear's posts. I am fine with someone disagreeing and he backs it up with logic to boot. he also acknowledges that option 2 is at least an option.That being said, I disagree with the math. I think you are throwing p2 into the equation when if you make the 1st down there is probably a 75% chance you score on that play and if the 25% chance happens where you get the 1st and do not get the TD then the game is 95% win based on the FG on the final play.

Also, if people think that there was such a small chance to go down and kick a FG after Dallas kicked it with a minute left, what are the chances that Seattle could go down and score a TD are at most 10%.

Therefore, I put the numbers as

.7*.95* .9 = 60% for option 2 or going for it

Now, I would also make option 1 a little more of a chance though s I don't know if it is 50=50 to go down and kick the FG I would say closer to 35-40% (again numbers would help)

That would be .95 * .6 = 57%

60 - 57% is pretty close, but either way

When did 4th down conversion rates become 70%?GB making up numbers to support a ridiculous argument.

 

[bentley]

I usually think that coaches are too reluctant to go for it on fourth down--for example, I totally supported Seattle going for it on fourth and two at the other end, which they failed at but eventually made a safety.

But I don't think it's feasible to go for it in the situation the Cowboys were in. Your probability of winning if you kick the field goal is:

P1: Probability of making the field goal (95%)

P2: Probability of keeping Seattle from scoring after kickoff (call it 50%)

.95*.5=.475

If you go for it, the probability is:

P1: Probability of making the first down (call it 70%)

P2: Probability of scoring a TD after making the first down (call it 60%)

P3: Probability of keeping Seattle from scoring a TD after kickoff (call it 70%)

.7*.6*.7=.294

This latter slightly understates the probability, as it leaves out the case where you make the first down, don't make the TD, but still make the FG. Still, I think scenario 1 is better.

This is why I enjoy CalBear's posts. I am fine with someone disagreeing and he backs it up with logic to boot. he also acknowledges that option 2 is at least an option.That being said, I disagree with the math. I think you are throwing p2 into the equation when if you make the 1st down there is probably a 75% chance you score on that play and if the 25% chance happens where you get the 1st and do not get the TD then the game is 95% win based on the FG on the final play.

Also, if people think that there was such a small chance to go down and kick a FG after Dallas kicked it with a minute left, what are the chances that Seattle could go down and score a TD are at most 10%.

Therefore, I put the numbers as

.7*.95* .9 = 60% for option 2 or going for it

Now, I would also make option 1 a little more of a chance though s I don't know if it is 50=50 to go down and kick the FG I would say closer to 35-40% (again numbers would help)

That would be .95 * .6 = 57%

60 - 57% is pretty close, but either way

When did 4th down conversion rates become 70%?GB making up numbers to support a ridiculous argument.

And begging for math and then ignoring the fact that the Cowboys are under 50% on 3rd and 4th and 1 this year.

 

[H.K.]

When did 4th down conversion rates become 70%?GB making up numbers to support a ridiculous argument.

Bentley said that Dallas was 10/21 this year on 3rd and 4th and 1, so it only makes sense to put it at 70%This reminds me of Animal House:"Was it over when the Germans bomber Pearl Harbor?""Germans?""Forget it. He's rolling."

 

[Sea Bass]

NO

 

[bentley]

When did 4th down conversion rates become 70%?GB making up numbers to support a ridiculous argument.

Bentley said that Dallas was 10/21 this year on 3rd and 4th and 1, so it only makes sense to put it at 70%This reminds me of Animal House:"Was it over when the Germans bomber Pearl Harbor?""Germans?""Forget it. He's rolling."

I took this stat from last night's broadcast. You would think that someone that was so on top of the game and clearly thought everything through might have noticed and remembered that point.

 

[The_U]

OK, folks please remove your emotion and any actual outcome and think this through before jumping to a conclusion.I was watching the game needing only one point to win the final part of a teaser (this after Seattle correctly getting their TD over turned, then not kicking the (for me) winning extra point and then failing on the 2 point conversion) and if I was Parcell's I would have gone for the 4th and a foot. Here is my logic.Going for the FG to get the win: 1) You have to successfully make the FG (although this is a 90% chance because not centered)2) You then have to stop Seattle from being able to move down field and only get into FG range being able to use 4 downs (which makes it a lot easier) and kicking off with about 1:15 left. I know that many teams have been able to get into FG range with less than 30 seconds and no timeouts, plus they have to kick deep. Finally, I believe Seattle had one timeout left (can someone confirm this?) Time and time again when a team has that much time and only needs a FG, you have at the least a 35% chance of getting into FG range (remember you have 4 down to work with). With a Timeout answer % is probably at least 50%.Point is that making that FG is definitely NOT game overGoing for 4th down to get the win.1) If you make the first down and not score the TD, you will have the final play of the game and then kicking the FG would win the game.2) If you score the TD you then give the ball back to Seattle with the MUCH harder task of scoring a TD to either win or tie (after Dallas would go for 2).3) And this is the big one that most people are not thinking about - you could get stuffed going for the 4th down play and still have a decent chance at winning the game. A) Dallas had all 3 of their timeouts and all they would need to do is stop Seattle from getting a first down and Dallas would get the ball back with anywhere from 50 seconds to 1:30 or so and probably have the ball at worst at the 50 yard line and possibly almost in FG range after the punt. B) Dallas could also have forced a Turnover or safety as well as a possibility and that would have won the game as well.An interesting debate could go on if you are whether you want to let the clock run down to the 1:15 left before hiking the 4th down play, or you could hike the play with 1:45 left just in case you don't make it. This one is debatable.That being said, Parcells had a ton of time to think this over as the review went on for awhile and I think made a mistake and put the odds AGAINST him by going for the FG. Yeah, I know it is hard to not take the lead there, but I think there is a reasonable chance they don't win the game if they make that FG and that seems to be forgotten.I think if you run the percentages on driving down to kick a FG after getting kicked off to with a minute left and losing by 1 - 3 points, the team receiving scores at a much higher percentage than anyone is thinking about. Also, the weakness of Dallas is their secondary so moving the ball on that unit is not far fetched.Bottom line is that I think it is debatable at worst and possibly the correct moveIf anyone has those numbers it would be interesting as you could run every permutation and get what was the better % move.

I was incredulous they didn't go for it. There was too much time left on the clock to kick that ball and Barber would have been the perfect hammer to drive that nail a foot deep. Just an absolute disaster.

 

[Ozymandias]

In addition, if they had kicked the field goal, Seattle would have had to make it to the 35 with no time outs, and without their two best wr's.

Kicking the field goal was the right strategy. But Parcells is probably in favor of his team's execution, starting with Romo.

 

[H.K.]

When did 4th down conversion rates become 70%?GB making up numbers to support a ridiculous argument.

Bentley said that Dallas was 10/21 this year on 3rd and 4th and 1, so it only makes sense to put it at 70%This reminds me of Animal House:"Was it over when the Germans bomber Pearl Harbor?""Germans?""Forget it. He's rolling."

I took this stat from last night's broadcast. You would think that someone that was so on top of the game and clearly thought everything through might have noticed and remembered that point.

Nothing's over until Liquid Tension says it is!

 

[Ed Wood]

My opinion is if they're going to throw on 3rd down, Witten has to run his pattern a yard further down the field. If they're going to throw, why throw right at the first down spot and leave things open to interpretation (i.e. the spot on the field)? I knew as soon as I saw where the onfield official marked the spot that he was wrong. I did not know you could overturn something so subjective.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I usually think that coaches are too reluctant to go for it on fourth down--for example, I totally supported Seattle going for it on fourth and two at the other end, which they failed at but eventually made a safety.

But I don't think it's feasible to go for it in the situation the Cowboys were in. Your probability of winning if you kick the field goal is:

P1: Probability of making the field goal (95%)

P2: Probability of keeping Seattle from scoring after kickoff (call it 50%)

.95*.5=.475

If you go for it, the probability is:

P1: Probability of making the first down (call it 70%)

P2: Probability of scoring a TD after making the first down (call it 60%)

P3: Probability of keeping Seattle from scoring a TD after kickoff (call it 70%)

.7*.6*.7=.294

This latter slightly understates the probability, as it leaves out the case where you make the first down, don't make the TD, but still make the FG. Still, I think scenario 1 is better.

Dallas was 10/21 this year on 3rd and 4th and 1, so you need to reduce P1 to 50%. On the first scenario, some % needs to be added in for Dallas blowing the field goal, stopping Seattle and getting it on the second try.

I'd say it's more like 50/50 for kicking versus 20/80 if going for it. Gramatica's 49/52 in his career with FGs under 30 yards, so I'm not sure where the "weak kicking game" stuff is coming from. Likely out of Liquid's ### like everything else he's said.

Attack my logic and keep the personal attacks to yourself...First, your comment about some % needs to be added for missing the kick and then getting a 2nd try is actually a little against your option. The reason is that if you go for the 4th down play, and miss it you leave Seattle pinned on their own 1-2 yard line instead of them getting the ball on their own 9-10 yard line from the kick. The loss of the threat of a safety which would win the game for Dallas is lost if you go for the kick. You also lose the 7 yards. That being said, as it turned out an even lesser option happened in that Romo kind of went for it on 4th down and got stopped so what happened was similar to getting stopped on 4th down.

The numbers being 50-50 for making the 1st down on 4th and 1 are pretty low for any team. I do wonder if 4th and 1 foot makes a difference though as that is easier than 4th and 4 feet.

Taking those numbers into account though

.94*.6 = 56%

.5 * .95 *.9 = 43%

That does sow that if Dallas has been so poor at going for 4th and 1 that % wise it was the correct move to go for the FG. But it is clearly an option when you take the safety part of it into the equation

NOTE: I just thought of something that is NOT taken into account here. Gramatica DID NOT MISS THE KICK. So the stats we are using are not accurate. How often does a bad snap cost a team?

This is not in the stats...I would bet that not converting from that range happen more often from bad snaps than actually misses??? Maybe than converting is actually about 88%? This would lower the number to 53%

I guess the main issue here is that there were options regardless of what some people may think and also, people thought that the game was a 95% chance of Dallas winning at that point and we have shown that 60% was at most the situation.

 

[bentley]

I usually think that coaches are too reluctant to go for it on fourth down--for example, I totally supported Seattle going for it on fourth and two at the other end, which they failed at but eventually made a safety.

But I don't think it's feasible to go for it in the situation the Cowboys were in. Your probability of winning if you kick the field goal is:

P1: Probability of making the field goal (95%)

P2: Probability of keeping Seattle from scoring after kickoff (call it 50%)

.95*.5=.475

If you go for it, the probability is:

P1: Probability of making the first down (call it 70%)

P2: Probability of scoring a TD after making the first down (call it 60%)

P3: Probability of keeping Seattle from scoring a TD after kickoff (call it 70%)

.7*.6*.7=.294

This latter slightly understates the probability, as it leaves out the case where you make the first down, don't make the TD, but still make the FG. Still, I think scenario 1 is better.

Dallas was 10/21 this year on 3rd and 4th and 1, so you need to reduce P1 to 50%. On the first scenario, some % needs to be added in for Dallas blowing the field goal, stopping Seattle and getting it on the second try.

I'd say it's more like 50/50 for kicking versus 20/80 if going for it. Gramatica's 49/52 in his career with FGs under 30 yards, so I'm not sure where the "weak kicking game" stuff is coming from. Likely out of Liquid's ### like everything else he's said.

Attack my logic and keep the personal attacks to yourself...First, your comment about some % needs to be added for missing the kick and then getting a 2nd try is actually a little against your option. The reason is that if you go for the 4th down play, and miss it you leave Seattle pinned on their own 1-2 yard line instead of them getting the ball on their own 9-10 yard line from the kick. The loss of the threat of a safety which would win the game for Dallas is lost if you go for the kick. You also lose the 7 yards. That being said, as it turned out an even lesser option happened in that Romo kind of went for it on 4th down and got stopped so what happened was similar to getting stopped on 4th down.

The numbers being 50-50 for making the 1st down on 4th and 1 are pretty low for any team. I do wonder if 4th and 1 foot makes a difference though as that is easier than 4th and 4 feet.

Taking those numbers into account though

.94*.6 = 56%

.5 * .95 *.9 = 43%

That does sow that if Dallas has been so poor at going for 4th and 1 that % wise it was the correct move to go for the FG. But it is clearly an option when you take the safety part of it into the equation

NOTE: I just thought of something that is NOT taken into account here. Gramatica DID NOT MISS THE KICK. So the stats we are using are not accurate. How often does a bad snap cost a team?

This is not in the stats...I would bet that not converting from that range happen more often from bad snaps than actually misses??? Maybe than converting is actually about 88%? This would lower the number to 53%

I guess the main issue here is that there were options regardless of what some people may think and also, people thought that the game was a 95% chance of Dallas winning at that point and we have shown that 60% was at most the situation.

OK. You started with a silly proposition. Few people thought Dallas had a 95% chance of winning the game with that kick. I'm sure most would say that its closer to 60%. The real point is that the odds of them winning if they don't kick it are much lower than that.

 

[Bevo]

We can sit back and Sunday morning quarterback all we want but does anyone out there think that there is a single head coach in the league that would NOT have attempted the field goal in that situation? I seriously doubt it. It was the right call but sometimes #### happens.

I do agree that even a made field does not mean the game is over. However I really like my odds with a made field goal there.

 

[H.K.]

I guess the main issue here is that there were options regardless of what some people may think and also, people thought that the game was a 95% chance of Dallas winning at that point and we have shown that 60% was at most the situation.

You are 100% correct. The only thing left to do now is send Jerry Jones your resume. Parcells, excuse me...Parcell's, clearly knows less about coaching and critical decision making based on playing the percentages than you do. Good luck coaching the Cowboys next season, but with your math skills, you won't need any.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Liquid Tension's crafty use of the font function to throw the reader off the trail is worth the price of admission to this thread. Well played young man.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I usually think that coaches are too reluctant to go for it on fourth down--for example, I totally supported Seattle going for it on fourth and two at the other end, which they failed at but eventually made a safety.

But I don't think it's feasible to go for it in the situation the Cowboys were in. Your probability of winning if you kick the field goal is:

P1: Probability of making the field goal (95%)

P2: Probability of keeping Seattle from scoring after kickoff (call it 50%)

.95*.5=.475

If you go for it, the probability is:

P1: Probability of making the first down (call it 70%)

P2: Probability of scoring a TD after making the first down (call it 60%)

P3: Probability of keeping Seattle from scoring a TD after kickoff (call it 70%)

.7*.6*.7=.294

This latter slightly understates the probability, as it leaves out the case where you make the first down, don't make the TD, but still make the FG. Still, I think scenario 1 is better.

Dallas was 10/21 this year on 3rd and 4th and 1, so you need to reduce P1 to 50%. On the first scenario, some % needs to be added in for Dallas blowing the field goal, stopping Seattle and getting it on the second try.

I'd say it's more like 50/50 for kicking versus 20/80 if going for it. Gramatica's 49/52 in his career with FGs under 30 yards, so I'm not sure where the "weak kicking game" stuff is coming from. Likely out of Liquid's ### like everything else he's said.

Attack my logic and keep the personal attacks to yourself...First, your comment about some % needs to be added for missing the kick and then getting a 2nd try is actually a little against your option. The reason is that if you go for the 4th down play, and miss it you leave Seattle pinned on their own 1-2 yard line instead of them getting the ball on their own 9-10 yard line from the kick. The loss of the threat of a safety which would win the game for Dallas is lost if you go for the kick. You also lose the 7 yards. That being said, as it turned out an even lesser option happened in that Romo kind of went for it on 4th down and got stopped so what happened was similar to getting stopped on 4th down.

The numbers being 50-50 for making the 1st down on 4th and 1 are pretty low for any team. I do wonder if 4th and 1 foot makes a difference though as that is easier than 4th and 4 feet.

Taking those numbers into account though

.94*.6 = 56%

.5 * .95 *.9 = 43%

That does sow that if Dallas has been so poor at going for 4th and 1 that % wise it was the correct move to go for the FG. But it is clearly an option when you take the safety part of it into the equation

NOTE: I just thought of something that is NOT taken into account here. Gramatica DID NOT MISS THE KICK. So the stats we are using are not accurate. How often does a bad snap cost a team?

This is not in the stats...I would bet that not converting from that range happen more often from bad snaps than actually misses??? Maybe than converting is actually about 88%? This would lower the number to 53%

I guess the main issue here is that there were options regardless of what some people may think and also, people thought that the game was a 95% chance of Dallas winning at that point and we have shown that 60% was at most the situation.

OK. You started with a silly proposition. Few people thought Dallas had a 95% chance of winning the game with that kick. I'm sure most would say that its closer to 60%. The real point is that the odds of them winning if they don't kick it are much lower than that.

Uh, you have a different opinion on what "much" means than I do. Also, quotes on this board and by Parcells were "if we make the FG the game is over." That is simply not the case.

 

[PatsWillWin]

You didn't start the thread saying "the game wasn't OVER if Dallas made the FG". You started it by saying that Parcells made the wrong call. You're not arguing Game is Over Vs. Game is Not Over, you're arguing Going for it on 4th and 1 Vs. Kicking the FG.

 

[bentley]

I usually think that coaches are too reluctant to go for it on fourth down--for example, I totally supported Seattle going for it on fourth and two at the other end, which they failed at but eventually made a safety.

But I don't think it's feasible to go for it in the situation the Cowboys were in. Your probability of winning if you kick the field goal is:

P1: Probability of making the field goal (95%)

P2: Probability of keeping Seattle from scoring after kickoff (call it 50%)

.95*.5=.475

If you go for it, the probability is:

P1: Probability of making the first down (call it 70%)

P2: Probability of scoring a TD after making the first down (call it 60%)

P3: Probability of keeping Seattle from scoring a TD after kickoff (call it 70%)

.7*.6*.7=.294

This latter slightly understates the probability, as it leaves out the case where you make the first down, don't make the TD, but still make the FG. Still, I think scenario 1 is better.

Dallas was 10/21 this year on 3rd and 4th and 1, so you need to reduce P1 to 50%. On the first scenario, some % needs to be added in for Dallas blowing the field goal, stopping Seattle and getting it on the second try.

I'd say it's more like 50/50 for kicking versus 20/80 if going for it. Gramatica's 49/52 in his career with FGs under 30 yards, so I'm not sure where the "weak kicking game" stuff is coming from. Likely out of Liquid's ### like everything else he's said.

Attack my logic and keep the personal attacks to yourself...First, your comment about some % needs to be added for missing the kick and then getting a 2nd try is actually a little against your option. The reason is that if you go for the 4th down play, and miss it you leave Seattle pinned on their own 1-2 yard line instead of them getting the ball on their own 9-10 yard line from the kick. The loss of the threat of a safety which would win the game for Dallas is lost if you go for the kick. You also lose the 7 yards. That being said, as it turned out an even lesser option happened in that Romo kind of went for it on 4th down and got stopped so what happened was similar to getting stopped on 4th down.

The numbers being 50-50 for making the 1st down on 4th and 1 are pretty low for any team. I do wonder if 4th and 1 foot makes a difference though as that is easier than 4th and 4 feet.

Taking those numbers into account though

.94*.6 = 56%

.5 * .95 *.9 = 43%

That does sow that if Dallas has been so poor at going for 4th and 1 that % wise it was the correct move to go for the FG. But it is clearly an option when you take the safety part of it into the equation

NOTE: I just thought of something that is NOT taken into account here. Gramatica DID NOT MISS THE KICK. So the stats we are using are not accurate. How often does a bad snap cost a team?

This is not in the stats...I would bet that not converting from that range happen more often from bad snaps than actually misses??? Maybe than converting is actually about 88%? This would lower the number to 53%

I guess the main issue here is that there were options regardless of what some people may think and also, people thought that the game was a 95% chance of Dallas winning at that point and we have shown that 60% was at most the situation.

OK. You started with a silly proposition. Few people thought Dallas had a 95% chance of winning the game with that kick. I'm sure most would say that its closer to 60%. The real point is that the odds of them winning if they don't kick it are much lower than that.

Uh, you have a different opinion on what "much" means than I do. Also, quotes on this board and by Parcells were "if we make the FG the game is over." That is simply not the case.

Read my post above. I believe Dallas was 50/50 if they kicked and 20/80 if they went for it. That's much different.

 

[coolnerd]

There was no other LOGICAL option, but to take the play that puts in the lead 95% of the time and take your chance from preventing the other team from scoring in the 90 seconds. The obvious answer is the correct one.

 

[Liquid Tension]

We can sit back and Sunday morning quarterback all we want but does anyone out there think that there is a single head coach in the league that would NOT have attempted the field goal in that situation? I seriously doubt it. It was the right call but sometimes #### happens.I do agree that even a made field does not mean the game is over. However I really like my odds with a made field goal there.

I am not saying I disagree with you and I even stated my expectation that almost everyone would say that you have to kick the FG. However, I am pointing out that you need to coach to win and not to worry about 2nd guessing.Quick example, Marty Morningweg was CRUCIFIED for kicking the ball away in OT when his team won the toss when there was a heavy wind going in one direction. Now Marty might have been fired anyway, but everyone killed him for the decision because it didn't work and the incorrect opinion that you have to always take the Ball in OT, even if the stats show only a few % difference between the receiving and kicking teams. With a heavy wind a smart coach on a routine team (not against a Manning offense) is smart to kick and take the wind, but people just say "you have to take the ball." BTW, Parcells has taken the wind in his days when the Giants defense was good and their offense was bad...

 

[Liquid Tension]

I usually think that coaches are too reluctant to go for it on fourth down--for example, I totally supported Seattle going for it on fourth and two at the other end, which they failed at but eventually made a safety.

But I don't think it's feasible to go for it in the situation the Cowboys were in. Your probability of winning if you kick the field goal is:

P1: Probability of making the field goal (95%)

P2: Probability of keeping Seattle from scoring after kickoff (call it 50%)

.95*.5=.475

If you go for it, the probability is:

P1: Probability of making the first down (call it 70%)

P2: Probability of scoring a TD after making the first down (call it 60%)

P3: Probability of keeping Seattle from scoring a TD after kickoff (call it 70%)

.7*.6*.7=.294

This latter slightly understates the probability, as it leaves out the case where you make the first down, don't make the TD, but still make the FG. Still, I think scenario 1 is better.

Dallas was 10/21 this year on 3rd and 4th and 1, so you need to reduce P1 to 50%. On the first scenario, some % needs to be added in for Dallas blowing the field goal, stopping Seattle and getting it on the second try.

I'd say it's more like 50/50 for kicking versus 20/80 if going for it. Gramatica's 49/52 in his career with FGs under 30 yards, so I'm not sure where the "weak kicking game" stuff is coming from. Likely out of Liquid's ### like everything else he's said.

Attack my logic and keep the personal attacks to yourself...First, your comment about some % needs to be added for missing the kick and then getting a 2nd try is actually a little against your option. The reason is that if you go for the 4th down play, and miss it you leave Seattle pinned on their own 1-2 yard line instead of them getting the ball on their own 9-10 yard line from the kick. The loss of the threat of a safety which would win the game for Dallas is lost if you go for the kick. You also lose the 7 yards. That being said, as it turned out an even lesser option happened in that Romo kind of went for it on 4th down and got stopped so what happened was similar to getting stopped on 4th down.

The numbers being 50-50 for making the 1st down on 4th and 1 are pretty low for any team. I do wonder if 4th and 1 foot makes a difference though as that is easier than 4th and 4 feet.

Taking those numbers into account though

.94*.6 = 56%

.5 * .95 *.9 = 43%

That does sow that if Dallas has been so poor at going for 4th and 1 that % wise it was the correct move to go for the FG. But it is clearly an option when you take the safety part of it into the equation

NOTE: I just thought of something that is NOT taken into account here. Gramatica DID NOT MISS THE KICK. So the stats we are using are not accurate. How often does a bad snap cost a team?

This is not in the stats...I would bet that not converting from that range happen more often from bad snaps than actually misses??? Maybe than converting is actually about 88%? This would lower the number to 53%

I guess the main issue here is that there were options regardless of what some people may think and also, people thought that the game was a 95% chance of Dallas winning at that point and we have shown that 60% was at most the situation.

OK. You started with a silly proposition. Few people thought Dallas had a 95% chance of winning the game with that kick. I'm sure most would say that its closer to 60%. The real point is that the odds of them winning if they don't kick it are much lower than that.

Uh, you have a different opinion on what "much" means than I do. Also, quotes on this board and by Parcells were "if we make the FG the game is over." That is simply not the case.

Read my post above. I believe Dallas was 50/50 if they kicked and 20/80 if they went for it. That's much different.

Yeah, but we have shown that your numbers are wrong. The difference was more like 53% - 45% not 50-20