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

[Slum Lord]

Please help me

Yeah I knew you wouldnt understand. You just keep looking for those stats that look pretty.

 

[MarcO]

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.

Hi liq,What is your question?

Is that the game is over with a FG? That is obviously no. Nobody would say making the FG was a "game over" move.

Is your question was the FG the right move? The answer there is obviously yes.

Given the options and the situation, the correct move was to score, move ahead, and let your defense win the game.

I bet if he could make the call again, he kicks the FG there without even thinking about it.

Sure, he could have gone for it on 4th down. But that would have been the best option less than 5% of the time.

J

Joe, what do you mean 5% of the time? Not sure I am following? At the end of the day I think it was the right (to kick the FG) move based on Dallas not doing a good job in short yardage (even against a weak run defense), but people as well as Parcells said "if we make the FG we advance" and that is simply not correct. You can say nobody is saying that, but this thread and Parcells DID say it.My thought was more about analyzing was it really the right choice? Most people immediately would say yes, but after review you see that it wouldn;t have been crazy to go for the touchdown, even if it wasn't the highest percentage move. Again, that being said, after all the data and review I think the better (but not absolute move) was to go for the FG.

Hi liq,Why the change from thinking "Parcells goofed" going for the FG to now thinking it was the right move?

Parcells and everyone else knows it wasn't over after a made FG there. It should be over after a made FG there but obviously anything can happen.

J

Joe, I am back to say that I think Parcells goofed, although close. It is all based on playing the percentages. The success rate on making 4th and a foot changes the percentages drastically. Therefore, if it is a 65% chance rather than the 50% JayMan said to make the 1st down, you should go for the first down.

If Parcells really wanted to play the percentages that would have given him the best chance to win he would have gone for it on 4th down - BUT he would have told either MBIII or JJ to take a knee once they get the first - DO NOT score a TD. then they could run some more time off the clock and kick a FG with time expiring.

That's wrong... (for details - look at post #92)Scenario 1. Kick the FG:

goodFG + stopSEA = .959 * (1- .247) = .7221

Scenario 2. Go for it on 4th-and-1:

make_it(noTD) + goodFG = .656 * .959 = .6291

3 elements:

They had a 65.6% chance of getting the 1st down;

A 95.9% chance of a succesful FG of less than 20yds;

A 75.3% chance of stoping the Seahawks having scored the FG (NFL averages for teams trailing by less than 3 points - approximately 1:00 left - no timeouts).

Combining those... 72.2% change of winning if kicking the FG on 4th1... 62.9% chance of winning by combinaison of (making the 1st down + succesful FG)...All this because they had a better chance of stoping the Seahawks after the FG than getting the 1st down on 4th-and-1...

uh yeah - KIDDING. You don't REALLY think a coach would advocate taking a knee before getting into the endzone, do you? A vacation may help...

 

[Liquid Tension]

My thought was more about analyzing was it really the right choice? Most people immediately would say yes, but after review you see that it wouldn;t have been crazy to go for the touchdown, even if it wasn't the highest percentage move. Again, that being said, after all the data and review I think the better (but not absolute move) was to go for the FG.

Hi liq,

Why the change from thinking "Parcells goofed" going for the FG to now thinking it was the right move?

Parcells and everyone else knows it wasn't over after a made FG there. It should be over after a made FG there but obviously anything can happen.

J

Joe, I am back to say that I think Parcells goofed, although close. It is all based on playing the percentages. The success rate on making 4th and a foot changes the percentages drastically. Therefore, if it is a 65% chance rather than the 50% JayMan said to make the 1st down, you should go for the first down.

If Parcells really wanted to play the percentages that would have given him the best chance to win he would have gone for it on 4th down - BUT he would have told either MBIII or JJ to take a knee once they get the first - DO NOT score a TD. then they could run some more time off the clock and kick a FG with time expiring.



That's wrong... (for details - look at post #92)

Scenario 1. Kick the FG:

goodFG + stopSEA = .959 * (1- .247) = .7221

Scenario 2. Go for it on 4th-and-1:

make_it(noTD) + goodFG = .656 * .959 = .6291

3 elements:

They had a 65.6% chance of getting the 1st down;

A 95.9% chance of a succesful FG of less than 20yds;

A 75.3% chance of stoping the Seahawks having scored the FG (NFL averages for teams trailing by less than 3 points - approximately 1:00 left - no timeouts).

Combining those... 72.2% change of winning if kicking the FG on 4th1... 62.9% chance of winning by combinaison of (making the 1st down + succesful FG)...All this because they had a better chance of stoping the Seahawks after the FG than getting the 1st down on 4th-and-1...

OK, JayMan, now we are getting somewhere. Good job finding the stats. If your stat about stopping them is correct then that does reduce the benefit of going for it. That number seems low to me though. Where did you get that from and what is it specifically?

I also think the number for making the FG is too high based on the fact that does not include FG's that are not executed (such as what we saw in the Dallas game). I would think that at that short range there are as many failed Fg's because of bad snaps as missed kicks which is why I used 92% for Gramatica

 

[Liquid Tension]

Just Win Baby; I see what you did on your calculations, now, i missed your thought process the first time (running to a client and rushed through it...my apologies)

JayMan good job laying out all the probabilities and your point about the break even is a great way to look at it. If we reduce the kick to about 92%, what I think it should be, the break even seems to fall to about Dallas' average of about 65%.

Two other factors:

1) Can we confirm how many timeouts Seattle had? If they had one timeout that makes their odds higher. Also we need to confirm the Seattle possible drive number into a %.

2) One other factor that we haven't calculated is Seattle getting the ball on the 1.5 yard line could lead to a safety. Small chance but could happen and then the game is over. This may be a tie breaker if all else is equal.

 

[Liquid Tension]

The answers to all your "should Dallas have..." questions is in this Protrade.com article.

If Dallas gets the first down there, their win probability goes from 85% to 92%. If they make the field goal, win probability goes from 85% to 86%. By failing to do either, the win probability drop to just 27%.

Dallas made the right call here though because they would only have about a 50/50 chance of actually converting, and we MB3 was the worst in the league in short yardage situations.

Hoss, this was interesting, thanks for sharing. Here is what the guy said.4th quarter, 1:19, Tomy Romo botches the snap on a field goal, and his scramble towards the first down comes up short as Jordan Babineaux catches him from behind.

Dallas' Win Probability Before: 85%

Dallas' Win Probability After: 27%

Dallas' Win Probability if the kick is made: 86%

Dallas' Win Probability if Romo gets the 1st down: 92%

Dallas' Win Probability if Romo scores a TD: 96%

Commentary:Ahh, the biggest play of the game, as Romo botches the snap as the wet ball slips through his fingers. I guess that eternal Northwest wetness adds to the Seattle home field advantage. After picking the ball up, Romo did have a chance to either salvage a first down or maybe even a TD, but Babineaux makes a great diving tackle to save the game for the 'hawks. Interesting note: if Martin Gramatica turns around and throws a block, Babineaux has no play on Romo and the Cowboys likely win. Now who's the idiot kicker

I am not sure where he got his numbers from though; it could be wrong? It is interesting that Dallas still had a 27% chance of winning after the miss according to this guy. That would be the same if they went for the TD then. Just looking at those numbers then if it is correct that it is about a 70% chance to make a 4th and a foot (and our numbers seem to bear that out) then the % of winning when going for the first down was 64.4% or 67.2% if they got the TD.

The part that does not add up at all for me is his numbers on the FG. There is no way Dallas had a 85% chance of winning before he kicked the FG? He is missing something there?

 

[CalBear]

The part that does not add up at all for me is his numbers on the FG. There is no way Dallas had a 85% chance of winning before he kicked the FG? He is missing something there?

Given the situation: fourth and 1 at the 2 yard line, down by 1 point with a minute left and the opponent having no timeouts, I think 85% sounds about right for your win probability. The only difference between before the FG and after the FG is that after the FG, you've eliminated the small possibility that the FG is missed, while adding in a degredation in field position (they get the ball on the 28 instead of the 2).

 

[Tau837]

1) Can we confirm how many timeouts Seattle had? If they had one timeout that makes their odds higher. Also we need to confirm the Seattle possible drive number into a %.

From this Play by Play, you can see that Seattle took all of its timeouts in the fourth quarter, with 14:41, 1:53, and 1:19 remaining, respectively.

 

[Liquid Tension]

The part that does not add up at all for me is his numbers on the FG. There is no way Dallas had a 85% chance of winning before he kicked the FG? He is missing something there?

Given the situation: fourth and 1 at the 2 yard line, down by 1 point with a minute left and the opponent having no timeouts, I think 85% sounds about right for your win probability. The only difference between before the FG and after the FG is that after the FG, you've eliminated the small possibility that the FG is missed, while adding in a degredation in field position (they get the ball on the 28 instead of the 2).

Impossible unless the odds to stop Seattle with 1:05 remaining from their own 30 are over 90%. The odds of making that kick for Gramatica were 95% but that does not take botched snaps into account. Therefore a small deduction should get taken off for s slick field (Seattle) Let's say 92.5%. I think it was shown that the worst odds of scoring were 27% (which I thought was low) but let's make it the worst case scenario. If that is the case the odds of winning were at best 76.7% going for the FG

 

[Liquid Tension]

1) Can we confirm how many timeouts Seattle had? If they had one timeout that makes their odds higher. Also we need to confirm the Seattle possible drive number into a %.

From this Play by Play, you can see that Seattle took all of its timeouts in the fourth quarter, with 14:41, 1:53, and 1:19 remaining, respectively.

You know what was really odd was Seattle taking the timeout after letting at least 20 seconds go off the clock. That was a mistake that ended up helping them.BTW, If Dallas goes for the 1st down they could have lined up and left themselves more than 1:30 and all 3 timeouts. They clearly had enough time to decide with the instant replay time and they could have just got to the line and hiked it. I think they have a pretty good chance of getting the ball back in good field position there. Come to think of it, that was the 27% chance in the article.

 

[JayMan]

Still think that the Cowboys (Patriots) should have gone for it on 4th down when losing (tied) with 1:19 (1:14) to go, with a possible 20yd FG (31yd FG), to take the lead and force the Seahawks (Chargers) to beat (tie) them with a FG of their own with only 1:00 to go and no timeout?...