Strategy Question (1 Viewer)

[shnikies]

I remember hearing this strategy a while back during a telecast and I think it's the way to go. The Bears were down by 11 when they moved the ball to the 24 yard line with 40 seconds left. Why wouldn't you run to the line spike it and kick the field goal? With the amount of time that would be left once you get into the end zone with no time outs, it would be basically impossible to get into field goal range after an onside kick and kick the game tying field goal. The basic principle is that you can score a touchdown from further away from the end zone than you can kick a field goal meaning the field goal is actually the tougher thing to get in this situation. Anyone agree?

 

[Voice Of Reason]

I remember hearing this strategy a while back during a telecast and I think it's the way to go. The Bears were down by 11 when they moved the ball to the 24 yard line with 40 seconds left. Why wouldn't you run to the line spike it and kick the field goal? With the amount of time that would be left once you get into the end zone with no time outs, it would be basically impossible to get into field goal range after an onside kick and kick the game tying field goal. The basic principle is that you can score a touchdown from further away from the end zone than you can kick a field goal meaning the field goal is actually the tougher thing to get in this situation. Anyone agree?

But the goal is to win the game, not tie it. You've got to factor in that you're approx. 50-50 to win if you go to OT. So losing the touchdown-touchdown possibility hurts.

 

[shnikies]

I remember hearing this strategy a while back during a telecast and I think it's the way to go. The Bears were down by 11 when they moved the ball to the 24 yard line with 40 seconds left. Why wouldn't you run to the line spike it and kick the field goal? With the amount of time that would be left once you get into the end zone with no time outs, it would be basically impossible to get into field goal range after an onside kick and kick the game tying field goal. The basic principle is that you can score a touchdown from further away from the end zone than you can kick a field goal meaning the field goal is actually the tougher thing to get in this situation. Anyone agree?

But the goal is to win the game, not tie it. You've got to factor in that you're approx. 50-50 to win if you go to OT. So losing the touchdown-touchdown possibility hurts.

There would be no situation that you would be playing for the win. Let's say they throw a touchdown on the first play and leave 30 seconds on the clock which is extremely unlikely, once you get the onside kick there's 25 seconds left and you wouldn't be playing for the win, but trying to get into field goal range to tie.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

I remember hearing this strategy a while back during a telecast and I think it's the way to go. The Bears were down by 11 when they moved the ball to the 24 yard line with 40 seconds left. Why wouldn't you run to the line spike it and kick the field goal? With the amount of time that would be left once you get into the end zone with no time outs, it would be basically impossible to get into field goal range after an onside kick and kick the game tying field goal. The basic principle is that you can score a touchdown from further away from the end zone than you can kick a field goal meaning the field goal is actually the tougher thing to get in this situation. Anyone agree?

IIRC the falcons got down and scored a fg after getting kicked off to (so much further back than an onside kick would be recovered from) with 11 seconds left. So no I would disagree that it would be hard to get in FG range quickly following an onside.

 

[shnikies]

I remember hearing this strategy a while back during a telecast and I think it's the way to go. The Bears were down by 11 when they moved the ball to the 24 yard line with 40 seconds left. Why wouldn't you run to the line spike it and kick the field goal? With the amount of time that would be left once you get into the end zone with no time outs, it would be basically impossible to get into field goal range after an onside kick and kick the game tying field goal. The basic principle is that you can score a touchdown from further away from the end zone than you can kick a field goal meaning the field goal is actually the tougher thing to get in this situation. Anyone agree?

IIRC the falcons got down and scored a fg after getting kicked off to (so much further back than an onside kick would be recovered from) with 11 seconds left. So no I would disagree that it would be hard to get in FG range quickly following an onside.

Did they have a timeout? Regardless, using one example with an extremely unlikely outcome doesn't prove that it's a more probable strategy. You have to factor in the small probability of a scoring a touchdown with the 40 seconds left against a prevent defense and leaving enough time for one play to set a field goal up.

 

[shnikies]

The Falcons had the ball from their own 44 with 6 seconds left, moved to Chicago's 30 with 1 second left and kicked the field goal. That is such an anomaly that I don't think it should even be included in the discussion. The biggest point is that the difference in odds of scoring from the 24 yard line when the defense's only objective is to not let you score and scoring from your own 45 is a whole lot smaller than you would think.

 

[jbz]

If you need the 3 points like the Bears did, I would kick the FG as soon as possible and try to leave myself in position to tie the game with a onside recovery/TD.

 

[macknova]

Agree. As soon as you're in FG range, kick the FG, and hope you recover the onsides. When you need 2 scores, you can't waste all your time getting the first score.

If you're inside the 10 yard-line, take some shots at the end-zone and try to score. But if you're at the 25-30, take the points. You need to recover an onsides kick to have a chance anyway, now if you get the TD, you can tie it.

Wasting all the time left to get one score isn't good clock management.

 

[T J]

Agree. As soon as you're in FG range, kick the FG, and hope you recover the onsides. When you need 2 scores, you can't waste all your time getting the first score.If you're inside the 10 yard-line, take some shots at the end-zone and try to score. But if you're at the 25-30, take the points. You need to recover an onsides kick to have a chance anyway, now if you get the TD, you can tie it.Wasting all the time left to get one score isn't good clock management.

I disagree.The touchdown has got to be scored and acccounts for over half of the needed points.I think you take as many shots at the end zone as it takes, then if/when you get the TD a recovered onside kick will have you in good field position relatively speaking.

 

[Perfect Tommy]

Interesting concept. At first I thought I would strongly disagree but now I can see some reasons for taking the immediate FG. Primarily because they are already in perfect FG position. If they are fortunate to score the TD first time around they might not get into perfect FG position next time and wind up kicking a short FG or too long a FG attempt instead. That is wasteful. At 11 points, though, getting the TD first is very valuable since they get to see if they make their 2-pt conversion attempt so they will know whether they need another TD to win or if the FG forcing overtime is their best shot. My guess is that they should go for the TD. The Bears big mistake was taking short passes over the middle. They just didn't have time for that. If the score differential is 9 or 10 points, taking the FG first is much more attractive since there is no 2-pt conversion to worry so we know that that 1 TD and 1 FG is enough to win or force overtime.

 

[Short Corner]

I think you have to take your shots at the endzone while you can. There is a pretty big difference between tossing it in from 25 yards and 50 yards. Everything goes to the end zone to make the clock less of a factor and like the previous poster stated, you know whether a FG is any good if you get the TD first. Fourth down I take the FG.

 

[shnikies]

Agree. As soon as you're in FG range, kick the FG, and hope you recover the onsides. When you need 2 scores, you can't waste all your time getting the first score.If you're inside the 10 yard-line, take some shots at the end-zone and try to score. But if you're at the 25-30, take the points. You need to recover an onsides kick to have a chance anyway, now if you get the TD, you can tie it.Wasting all the time left to get one score isn't good clock management.

I disagree.The touchdown has got to be scored and acccounts for over half of the needed points.I think you take as many shots at the end zone as it takes, then if/when you get the TD a recovered onside kick will have you in good field position relatively speaking.

You start at you your own 45 usually on an onside kick meaning you have to move the ball 17 yards at least to have a chance at a field goal. I think the misconception is that you will be leaving any time whatsoever on the clock when you go for the touchdown first. Your goal should be to leave as much time on the clock for when you're within once possession and by kicking the field goal first you do just that.

 

[ArbyMelt]

Agree completely with OP. Have seen this over and over and over, and never understood why not kick the FG right away.

 

[FavreCo]

I remember hearing this strategy a while back during a telecast and I think it's the way to go. The Bears were down by 11 when they moved the ball to the 24 yard line with 40 seconds left. Why wouldn't you run to the line spike it and kick the field goal? With the amount of time that would be left once you get into the end zone with no time outs, it would be basically impossible to get into field goal range after an onside kick and kick the game tying field goal. The basic principle is that you can score a touchdown from further away from the end zone than you can kick a field goal meaning the field goal is actually the tougher thing to get in this situation. Anyone agree?

Exactly what I would have done. Instead, they wasted about 10-15 seconds lining up for the next play. They have virtually no chance either way but here's the deal. Kick the FG. If you fail, game over anyway. If you make it, you have more time to throw 4 hail mary passes, than the other way around, dicking around like they did, if you recover the onside kick. Additionally, since you have virtually no chance, if you miss the FG, you don't subject your 'O' to a fluke injury on a game you are almost guaranteed to lose as you futilly try and score while eating the clock away.

 

[CalBear]

A touchdown isn't 8 points, it's 6 points. A touchdown and 2-point conversion is 8 points.

There is an obvious situation where you'll play for the win; down by 11, you get the TD, miss the 2-point conversion, and now you're down by 5 kicking off. Obviously if you recover the on-sides kick, you're going to go for the TD. If you kick the FG instead of getting the TD first, now you're down by 8 and will likely play to have no time left on the clock when you score your TD--then if you miss the 2-point conversion (60% likelihood) you're screwed.

Teams which are down by 8 late in the game win less often than teams down by 9 (see last year's "down by 15" thread--teams down by 15 also win less often than teams down by 17), probably because they don't sufficiently weigh the probability that they'll miss a 2-point conversion.

If you're down by 9 or 10, I think kicking the quick FG is probably the winning action if you're more than one play from the end zone (outside the 10) and within 40-yard field goal range (23 yard line). So I'd say if you're on the 10-23 yard lines, down by 9 or 10, kick the FG. Other than that, keep going for the TD.

 

[shadyridr]

This is how Ive always done it in Madden

 

[Reepicheep]

The strategy is sound. A TD can be scored on a single play. With no timeouts a FG needs three plays minimum. (pass, spike, kick) You need probably 20-25 seconds to recover an onside kick, run one play to get into FG range, and spike the ball. But even 5 seconds on the clock before the onside kick is enough to recover and run one play to try for the TD.

 

[Moe.]

If you need the 3 points like the Bears did, I would kick the FG as soon as possible and try to leave myself in position to tie the game with a onside recovery/TD.

Of course you would, and anyone with a lick of sense would do the same. It's hilarious that NFL coaches bungle this over and over.

 

[SacramentoBob]

I think the biggest problem the Bears had was they didn't seem to be taking the situation very seriously. You have to get that TD. Once you get in a reasonable range, you have to take a shot at the end zone. A quick TD score is likely the only outcome that has any remote chance of working. They lollygagged down the field acting like the 2pt conversion was assured if they scored and having a lot of time on the clock wouldn't matter to get into FG range. Going for the FG quick mentality seems off since you aren't guaranteed to get the conversion. You need to score and see whether or not the FG ties it first, not assume the FG ties.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Yes, big difference between being down by 9 and being down by 11. Down by 9, a TD and a FG wins you the game 100% of the time. Down by 11, a TD and a FG wins you the game about 20-25% of the of the time. How can those be considered the same?

 

[Joe Summer]

Yes, big difference between being down by 9 and being down by 11. Down by 9, a TD and a FG wins you the game 100% of the time. Down by 11, a TD and a FG wins you the game about 20-25% of the of the time. How can those be considered the same?

Because both scenarios require the same initial choice: TD or FG.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Yes, big difference between being down by 9 and being down by 11. Down by 9, a TD and a FG wins you the game 100% of the time. Down by 11, a TD and a FG wins you the game about 20-25% of the of the time. How can those be considered the same?

Because both scenarios require the same initial choice: TD or FG.

They don't. The point is a FG + TD doesn't automatically get you a tie when down 11, whereas it does when down 9.

 

[Lash]

any sane person would spike and kick the FG in this situation, it is all depending on timeouts and time left, but CLEARLY this situation called for the FG first

unfortunately we are speaking of NFL coaches here and I don't know if i've seen any of them try this strategy yet ... it may take a QB to do this on his own (i.e. Peyton) and just run over to the sideline after a spike

the illogical thing about it all is that these coaches mostly have very high IQs, but they just don't "get it" sometimes

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

If you need the 3 points like the Bears did, I would kick the FG as soon as possible and try to leave myself in position to tie the game with a onside recovery/TD.

They didn't need 3 points. They needed 12 points.

 

[Joe Summer]

Yes, big difference between being down by 9 and being down by 11. Down by 9, a TD and a FG wins you the game 100% of the time. Down by 11, a TD and a FG wins you the game about 20-25% of the of the time. How can those be considered the same?

Because both scenarios require the same initial choice: TD or FG.

They don't.

Really? You're down by 11 and you seriously think that you don't have the option of kicking a FG?

 

[SacramentoBob]

Weird how people think TDs are worth 8 points.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Yes, big difference between being down by 9 and being down by 11. Down by 9, a TD and a FG wins you the game 100% of the time. Down by 11, a TD and a FG wins you the game about 20-25% of the of the time. How can those be considered the same?

Because both scenarios require the same initial choice: TD or FG.

They don't.

Really? You're down by 11 and you seriously think that you don't have the option of kicking a FG?

Of course they have the option of kicking a FG. They also have the option of handing off to the opponent's OLB. The question isn't can they kick a FG, it's should they kick a FG. Down by 9 you probably should. Down by 11 you probably shouldn't.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Yes, big difference between being down by 9 and being down by 11. Down by 9, a TD and a FG wins you the game 100% of the time. Down by 11, a TD and a FG wins you the game about 20-25% of the of the time. How can those be considered the same?

Because both scenarios require the same initial choice: TD or FG.

They don't.

Really? You're down by 11 and you seriously think that you don't have the option of kicking a FG?

You have the option of kicking a FG down 14.

 

[shnikies]

A touchdown isn't 8 points, it's 6 points. A touchdown and 2-point conversion is 8 points.There is an obvious situation where you'll play for the win; down by 11, you get the TD, miss the 2-point conversion, and now you're down by 5 kicking off. Obviously if you recover the on-sides kick, you're going to go for the TD. If you kick the FG instead of getting the TD first, now you're down by 8 and will likely play to have no time left on the clock when you score your TD--then if you miss the 2-point conversion (60% likelihood) you're screwed.Teams which are down by 8 late in the game win less often than teams down by 9 (see last year's "down by 15" thread--teams down by 15 also win less often than teams down by 17), probably because they don't sufficiently weigh the probability that they'll miss a 2-point conversion.If you're down by 9 or 10, I think kicking the quick FG is probably the winning action if you're more than one play from the end zone (outside the 10) and within 40-yard field goal range (23 yard line). So I'd say if you're on the 10-23 yard lines, down by 9 or 10, kick the FG. Other than that, keep going for the TD.

First, I thought it was over 50% chance for 2 point conversion success? Regardless, the probability of getting the 2 point conversion is negligible relative to the extremely poor odds of getting to the situation where you can get a 2-point conversion to tie the game.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Yes, big difference between being down by 9 and being down by 11. Down by 9, a TD and a FG wins you the game 100% of the time. Down by 11, a TD and a FG wins you the game about 20-25% of the of the time. How can those be considered the same?

Because both scenarios require the same initial choice: TD or FG.

They don't. The point is a FG + TD doesn't automatically get you a tie when down 11, whereas it does when down 9.

Down 9, a FG + TD wins every time. Down 11, a FG + TD loses the vast majority of the time. You go for the TD, unless it's 4th down, IMO.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Yes, big difference between being down by 9 and being down by 11. Down by 9, a TD and a FG wins you the game 100% of the time. Down by 11, a TD and a FG wins you the game about 20-25% of the of the time. How can those be considered the same?

Because both scenarios require the same initial choice: TD or FG.

They don't. The point is a FG + TD doesn't automatically get you a tie when down 11, whereas it does when down 9.

Down 9, a FG + TD wins every time. Down 11, a FG + TD loses the vast majority of the time. You go for the TD, unless it's 4th down, IMO.

99.9% of the time since XPs are blocked/missed occasionally.

 

[Joe Summer]

Yes, big difference between being down by 9 and being down by 11. Down by 9, a TD and a FG wins you the game 100% of the time. Down by 11, a TD and a FG wins you the game about 20-25% of the of the time. How can those be considered the same?

Because both scenarios require the same initial choice: TD or FG.

They don't.

Really? You're down by 11 and you seriously think that you don't have the option of kicking a FG?

Of course they have the option of kicking a FG. They also have the option of handing off to the opponent's OLB. The question isn't can they kick a FG, it's should they kick a FG. Down by 9 you probably should. Down by 11 you probably shouldn't.

My answer had nothing to do with what you should or shouldn't do. I was merely pointing out SactoBob's fallacy.Both scenarios start with the team trailing by more than 8 points but less than 12 points.

Both scenarios start with less than a minute to go on the clock.

Both scenarios start with the same question: Should I go for the field goal or should I go for the TD?

And both scenarios can be won if you kick the field goal first.

And both scenarios can be lost if you score the TD first.

 

[CalBear]

A touchdown isn't 8 points, it's 6 points. A touchdown and 2-point conversion is 8 points.There is an obvious situation where you'll play for the win; down by 11, you get the TD, miss the 2-point conversion, and now you're down by 5 kicking off. Obviously if you recover the on-sides kick, you're going to go for the TD. If you kick the FG instead of getting the TD first, now you're down by 8 and will likely play to have no time left on the clock when you score your TD--then if you miss the 2-point conversion (60% likelihood) you're screwed.Teams which are down by 8 late in the game win less often than teams down by 9 (see last year's "down by 15" thread--teams down by 15 also win less often than teams down by 17), probably because they don't sufficiently weigh the probability that they'll miss a 2-point conversion.If you're down by 9 or 10, I think kicking the quick FG is probably the winning action if you're more than one play from the end zone (outside the 10) and within 40-yard field goal range (23 yard line). So I'd say if you're on the 10-23 yard lines, down by 9 or 10, kick the FG. Other than that, keep going for the TD.

First, I thought it was over 50% chance for 2 point conversion success? Regardless, the probability of getting the 2 point conversion is negligible relative to the extremely poor odds of getting to the situation where you can get a 2-point conversion to tie the game.

If 2-point conversions are over 50%, you should never kick a PAT. But they're not; they're about 40%.And yes, your probability of winning when you're down by 9-11 with less than 2 minutes left is very low no matter what you do. The question is how you can give yourself the best chance to win. If you increase your chance from 5% to 10% it makes a big difference even though the probability is still low.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Yes, big difference between being down by 9 and being down by 11. Down by 9, a TD and a FG wins you the game 100% of the time. Down by 11, a TD and a FG wins you the game about 20-25% of the of the time. How can those be considered the same?

Because both scenarios require the same initial choice: TD or FG.

They don't.

Really? You're down by 11 and you seriously think that you don't have the option of kicking a FG?

Of course they have the option of kicking a FG. They also have the option of handing off to the opponent's OLB. The question isn't can they kick a FG, it's should they kick a FG. Down by 9 you probably should. Down by 11 you probably shouldn't.

My answer had nothing to do with what you should or shouldn't do. I was merely pointing out SactoBob's fallacy.Both scenarios start with the team trailing by more than 8 points but less than 12 points.

Both scenarios start with less than a minute to go on the clock.

Both scenarios start with the same question: Should I go for the field goal or should I go for the TD?

And both scenarios can be won if you kick the field goal first.

His wasn't a fallacy, it just looks that way because you cut off the rest of his post. I think we all acknowledge that you have to decide whether or not to kick a FG at that point in the game. Sarcobob was just pointing out that it's probably not much of a decision, just like you technically have to decide whether or not to kick a FG when down by 14. You could kick a FG there, and you could still win the game if you kick a FG there, but the correct decision is probably to try for a TD instead.

 

[jason12vb]

I've always wondered the same thing...why not kick the FG as soon as possible and save the time for a TD march (assuming the on-sides)

Perhaps it's as easy as, if you miss the FG the game is over. If you don't score the TD on first down, you still have more downs to try...as long as the ball is still in your possession you have a chance.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

And both scenarios can be won if you kick the field goal first.

And both scenarios can be lost if you score the TD first.

This was a poor edit. Now you're sounding like all the folks who were wrong in the down-by-15 thread from last year. "If you go for 2 you could lose! If you kick the PAT you could win! Therefore you have to kick the PAT!" In either scenario, there is some probability that you will win and there is some probability that you will lose. The trick is figuring out which scenario gives you the greater chance at winning.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Perhaps it's as easy as, if you miss the FG the game is over. If you don't score the TD on first down, you still have more downs to try...as long as the ball is still in your possession you have a chance.

No, this is another rehash of the fallacies from last year's thread. You don't get any points for "prolonging the game" or "keeping it a one-score game" or anything like that, and that shouldn't be a factor in your decision. I agree that I'd probably go for a TD instead of kicking a FG in this situation, but it's not for reasons like "if you miss the FG the game is over."

 

[Instinctive]

9-11 is a poor range. Being down by 9 or 10 is completely different from being down by 11. The 2 point conversion being necessary changes the equation.

 

[shnikies]

A touchdown isn't 8 points, it's 6 points. A touchdown and 2-point conversion is 8 points.There is an obvious situation where you'll play for the win; down by 11, you get the TD, miss the 2-point conversion, and now you're down by 5 kicking off. Obviously if you recover the on-sides kick, you're going to go for the TD. If you kick the FG instead of getting the TD first, now you're down by 8 and will likely play to have no time left on the clock when you score your TD--then if you miss the 2-point conversion (60% likelihood) you're screwed.Teams which are down by 8 late in the game win less often than teams down by 9 (see last year's "down by 15" thread--teams down by 15 also win less often than teams down by 17), probably because they don't sufficiently weigh the probability that they'll miss a 2-point conversion.If you're down by 9 or 10, I think kicking the quick FG is probably the winning action if you're more than one play from the end zone (outside the 10) and within 40-yard field goal range (23 yard line). So I'd say if you're on the 10-23 yard lines, down by 9 or 10, kick the FG. Other than that, keep going for the TD.

First, I thought it was over 50% chance for 2 point conversion success? Regardless, the probability of getting the 2 point conversion is negligible relative to the extremely poor odds of getting to the situation where you can get a 2-point conversion to tie the game.

If 2-point conversions are over 50%, you should never kick a PAT. But they're not; they're about 40%.And yes, your probability of winning when you're down by 9-11 with less than 2 minutes left is very low no matter what you do. The question is how you can give yourself the best chance to win. If you increase your chance from 5% to 10% it makes a big difference even though the probability is still low.

Various sources estimate the success rate of a two-point conversion to be between 40% and 55% from wikipedia. Just because you have an expected value of over 1 when you attempt a 2 point conversion doesn't mean it's worth attempting. There are many other factors involved including game theory and whether the increased risk is worth taking in certain situations. I think the people that are claiming going for the touchdown first are underestimating how difficult it is to score a touchdown from outside the 20 yard line let alone scoring and leaving enough time for another play after an onside kick. Obviously, both strategies are extremely unlikely of occurring in a favorable result and the odds of ever getting to attempt a 2-point conversion using either strategy are so poor that the odds of converting the 2-point conversion have a negligible effect on the probability of either strategy working.

 

[Joe Summer]

I've always wondered the same thing...why not kick the FG as soon as possible and save the time for a TD march (assuming the on-sides)Perhaps it's as easy as, if you miss the FG the game is over.

I'm sure that this possibility is what drives a lot of coaches to go for the TD. But you can't let that mentality control your decision. (What if you were trailing by 3? Would any coach avoid the FG attempt out of fear of losing?)There are a lot of factors that must be considered, and "we lose if we miss" is only one of them.

 

[Thorpe]

NFL defenses are too good to allow a team to drive 60 yards for a TD with under a minute and no timeouts. Your only chance is a Hail Mary.

If you get a quick TD, it is much easier to drive into FG range with under a minute and no timeouts, without resorting to a Hail Mary.

You are generally better off going for the TD first.

I think it comes down to what yard line you are on. If you complete a 50 yard pass and get out of bounds at the 10, I think you have to go for the TD.

But if the ball is on the 30 yard line, you might kick the FG first.

 

[shnikies]

NFL defenses are too good to allow a team to drive 60 yards for a TD with under a minute and no timeouts. Your only chance is a Hail Mary.

If you get a quick TD, it is much easier to drive into FG range with under a minute and no timeouts, without resorting to a Hail Mary.

You are generally better off going for the TD first.

I think it comes down to what yard line you are on. If you complete a 50 yard pass and get out of bounds at the 10, I think you have to go for the TD.

But if the ball is on the 30 yard line, you might kick the FG first.

You're assuming there will be enough time to get into field goal range after scoring a touchdown from the 24 yard line. With the end zone and sidelines very heavily guarded it is most likely you will either not get the touchdown at all or leave little or no time left to get into field goal range at the end of the game.

 

[Joe Summer]

9-11 is a poor range. Being down by 9 or 10 is completely different from being down by 11. The 2 point conversion being necessary changes the equation.

I agree, but I don't think it automatically changes the equation to the point where the TD is always the right answer. There are still other factors to consider (such as time, down, and distance) which could make the field goal the better choice.

 

[shnikies]

I'd like to see the Raiders put in the situation, the one team I think should go for the touchdown first. They score the touchdown, convert the 2 point conversion, get the onside kick and then immediately send Jani out for a game tying 70 yard field goal with 5 seconds left. Isn't that really why he was drafted in the first round anyway, for this extremely unlikely situation?

 

[Joe Summer]

I'd like to see the Raiders put in the situation, the one team I think should go for the touchdown first. They score the touchdown, convert the 2 point conversion, get the onside kick and then immediately send Jani out for a game tying 70 yard field goal with 5 seconds left. Isn't that really why he was drafted in the first round anyway, for this extremely unlikely situation?

They're also the one team that could go for the FG first if it's 4th down from the 50 yard line.

 

[Chase Stuart]

9-11 is a poor range. Being down by 9 or 10 is completely different from being down by 11. The 2 point conversion being necessary changes the equation.

The difference between being down 9 and 10 is exactly the same as the difference between being down 11. The whole overtime being necessary changes the equation by the same 50% as the 2-point conversion.

 

[shnikies]

9-11 is a poor range. Being down by 9 or 10 is completely different from being down by 11. The 2 point conversion being necessary changes the equation.

The difference between being down 9 and 10 is exactly the same as the difference between being down 11. The whole overtime being necessary changes the equation by the same 50% as the 2-point conversion.

It comes down to these two scenarios if you successfully get the touchdown or field goal first and also retrieve onside kick:Situation A: Make field goal and have 30 seconds to score a touchdown and convert 2-point conversionSituation B: Successfully convert 2-point conversion and with enough time to complete one pass and get out of bounds in field goal range, successfully kick a likely long field goal or if 2-point conversion fails use one play to throw hail mary to win game.I think where people differ on this is the odds of Situation B ever occurring because of the difficulty of scoring the touchdown in the first place. If scoring the initial touchdown was an easy task then obviously this would be the way to go but it isn't, it's probably less than 20% if that. Not to mention, being able to leave enough time for Situation B to play out.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

9-11 is a poor range. Being down by 9 or 10 is completely different from being down by 11. The 2 point conversion being necessary changes the equation.

The difference between being down 9 and 10 is exactly the same as the difference between being down 10 and 11. The whole overtime being necessary changes the equation by the same 50% as the 2-point conversion.

Just to clarify what you're saying, I assume the bolded addition is what you mean, right? When down by 9, a FG and a TD wins the game 100% of the time.

When down by 10, a FG and a TD wins the game 50% of the time.

When down by 11, a FG and a TD wins the game 25% of the time.

(Assuming the chances of winning in OT are 50%, the chances of successfully making a 2-pt conversion are 50%, and the chances of making a PAT are 100%.)

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

9-11 is a poor range. Being down by 9 or 10 is completely different from being down by 11. The 2 point conversion being necessary changes the equation.

The difference between being down 9 and 10 is exactly the same as the difference between being down 11. The whole overtime being necessary changes the equation by the same 50% as the 2-point conversion.

It comes down to these two scenarios if you successfully get the touchdown or field goal first and also retrieve onside kick:Situation A: Make field goal and have 30 seconds to score a touchdown and convert 2-point conversionSituation B: Successfully convert 2-point conversion and with enough time to complete one pass and get out of bounds in field goal range, successfully kick a likely long field goal or if 2-point conversion fails use one play to throw hail mary to win game.I think where people differ on this is the odds of Situation B ever occurring because of the difficulty of scoring the touchdown in the first place. If scoring the initial touchdown was an easy task then obviously this would be the way to go but it isn't, it's probably less than 20% if that. Not to mention, being able to leave enough time for Situation B to play out.

Yes, but just because scoring a TD is difficult doesn't mean you shouldn't try. The chances of scoring a TD from within field goal range with a minute left >>>>>>>>> the chances of scoring a TD from your own 45 with less than a minute left (which is the situation you'll be in if you kick the FG first and recover the onsides kick). So the fact that it's "probably less than 20%" doesn't make it the wrong play.Kicking the FG first ostensibly leaves more time on the clock than going for the TD. The problem is that a FG is only useful about 50% of the time. The other 50% of the time that FG was a waste, and you'll end up losing the game by 2 points anyway. I don't think the down-by-11-with-1-minute-to-go scenario is exactly analogous to the down-by-15-with-7-minutes-to-go scenario, but in both cases I want to attempt the 2-pt try as soon as possible.

 

[Chase Stuart]

9-11 is a poor range. Being down by 9 or 10 is completely different from being down by 11. The 2 point conversion being necessary changes the equation.

The difference between being down 9 and 10 is exactly the same as the difference between being down 10 and 11. The whole overtime being necessary changes the equation by the same 50% as the 2-point conversion.

Just to clarify what you're saying, I assume the bolded addition is what you mean, right? When down by 9, a FG and a TD wins the game 100% of the time.

When down by 10, a FG and a TD wins the game 50% of the time.

When down by 11, a FG and a TD wins the game 25% of the time.

(Assuming the chances of winning in OT are 50%, the chances of successfully making a 2-pt conversion are 50%, and the chances of making a PAT are 100%.)

Yes.