Theoretical Eagles-Lions questions (1 Viewer)

[bweiser]

Bear with me.

When the Eagles scored to make it 28-20, I thought this was a clear spot to try to kick the EP, even though it was sketchy. A 9-point lead is essentially the same as a 10-point lead; we basically know the Lions AREN'T going to be kicking a FG at any point. So they'll get 6 or 8, but not 9 or 10. If they score twice, it will be two TDs.

Do you agree you should try to kick here? The conditions were better in the second half.

Which leads me to my bigger question:

One team is down by 6, say 27-21, and scores on the final play of regulation to tie it up.

This is a 100 percent kick, right?

 

[Adam Harstad]

Bear with me.

When the Eagles scored to make it 28-20, I thought this was a clear spot to try to kick the EP, even though it was sketchy. A 9-point lead is essentially the same as a 10-point lead; we basically know the Lions AREN'T going to be kicking a FG at any point. So they'll get 6 or 8, but not 9 or 10. If they score twice, it will be two TDs.

Do you agree you should try to kick here? The conditions were better in the second half.

Which leads me to my bigger question:

One team is down by 6, say 27-21, and scores on the final play of regulation to tie it up.

This is a 100 percent kick, right?

In both instances, you kick provided you believe that kicking has a higher chance of converting than going for 2. If you think you only have a 33% chance of converting the kick, but a 40% chance of converting the 2pc, you attempt the 2pc. In other words, your estimate of your FG/XP chances have to be really, really, really low in order to attempt the 2-pointer there.

In related news, Philly and Detroit's estimates of their FG/XP chances were really, really, really low.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Chip answered this in his post-game. He said prior to the game his kicking coaches said it would be extremely difficult to make a kick in this weather because of footing (and that was with a half inch of snow). He said it wouldn't be fair to his kicking team to attempt any kicks unless it was for the win and they had no other options. In perfect conditions, he would have kicked.

After seeing the Akers kick attempt I'm sure he ruled out any kicks for any reason.

 

[Rove!]

Chip answered this in his post-game. He said prior to the game his kicking coaches said it would be extremely difficult to make a kick in this weather because of footing (and that was with a half inch of snow). He said it wouldn't be fair to his kicking team to attempt any kicks unless it was for the win and they had no other options. In perfect conditions, he would have kicked.

After seeing the Akers kick attempt I'm sure he ruled out any kicks for any reason.

It would have been nice if one of the network guys or self-proclaimed "experts" could have made a similar assessment...

 

[NajehHejan]

Heard on the Philly radio that the game set an NFL record for most points scored (54) without a single point coming from a kick (FG or PAT). Pretty cool!

 

[Insein]

I would have tried the kick but I can't fault him for his reasoning.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

It did answer the question of whether the Lions could invent a new way of losing for them. They showed how they could lose a game being played inside a giant snow globe.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The Akers blocked PAT answered this question.

Also the way the Eagles were running the ball I'd say even on a dry field the 2 point try maybe made more sense.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

I thought it would be worth the try at 34-20, honestly, make them score 2 2 pt conversions to win.

But its definitely possible that there was less than a 50% chance of making any kick, so worth it to go for 2 each time. Really, at anything less than like 90% chance of making a kick, you should go for 2 every time, right?

 

[Bigboy10182000]

Chip answered this in his post-game. He said prior to the game his kicking coaches said it would be extremely difficult to make a kick in this weather because of footing (and that was with a half inch of snow). He said it wouldn't be fair to his kicking team to attempt any kicks unless it was for the win and they had no other options. In perfect conditions, he would have kicked.

After seeing the Akers kick attempt I'm sure he ruled out any kicks for any reason.

 

[zftcg]

Yeah, was wondering that when it happened, but all normal calculations were thrown out the window, as Akers' kick demonstrated.

Speaking of which, does anyone know what exactly led to Akers getting blocked? I assume the weather had something to do with it, but I can't figure out what that might be. Bad hold? Couldn't make clean contact due to snow?

BTW, not sure if they showed this on the broadcast, but the funniest moment of the whole game came right before the kick, when the Lions called a 30-second timeout, and then the entire offense ran back to the spot of the kick and furiously cleared away snow. Where's Mark Henderson when you need him?

 

[Insein]

Yeah, was wondering that when it happened, but all normal calculations were thrown out the window, as Akers' kick demonstrated.

Speaking of which, does anyone know what exactly led to Akers getting blocked? I assume the weather had something to do with it, but I can't figure out what that might be. Bad hold? Couldn't make clean contact due to snow?

BTW, not sure if they showed this on the broadcast, but the funniest moment of the whole game came right before the kick, when the Lions called a 30-second timeout, and then the entire offense ran back to the spot of the kick and furiously cleared away snow. Where's Mark Henderson when you need him?

Funniest moment of the game was Staffords face when his center snapped it to him in the shotgun when he wasn't ready.

 

[zftcg]

Yeah, was wondering that when it happened, but all normal calculations were thrown out the window, as Akers' kick demonstrated.

Speaking of which, does anyone know what exactly led to Akers getting blocked? I assume the weather had something to do with it, but I can't figure out what that might be. Bad hold? Couldn't make clean contact due to snow?

BTW, not sure if they showed this on the broadcast, but the funniest moment of the whole game came right before the kick, when the Lions called a 30-second timeout, and then the entire offense ran back to the spot of the kick and furiously cleared away snow. Where's Mark Henderson when you need him?

Funniest moment of the game was Staffords face when his center snapped it to him in the shotgun when he wasn't ready.

Considering that was immediately followed by the UN-funniest moment of the game as a Lions fan (Stafford trying to pick up the ball instead of just falling on it, because, hey, what could possibly go wrong trying to pick up a frozen oblong ball in six inches of snow?) you'll excuse me for not laughing.

 

[Adam Harstad]

I thought it would be worth the try at 34-20, honestly, make them score 2 2 pt conversions to win.

But its definitely possible that there was less than a 50% chance of making any kick, so worth it to go for 2 each time. Really, at anything less than like 90% chance of making a kick, you should go for 2 every time, right?

In the early part of the game, your only concern should be maximizing your expected points. So, if (odds of 2pc) * (value of 2pc) > (odds of XP) * (value of XP), then you should go for 2 every time. Or, in other words, if you have a 45% chance of converting the 2pc, then you should kick iff you believe your chances of converting the XP are greater than 90%.

At some point later in the game, when the number of remaining possessions starts to decrease, you should shift away from maximizing points scored and start shifting towards minimizing your opponent's chances of putting together enough scores to catch you. As an example, imagine you score a TD with a minute left to go up by 8 with the PAT pending. Also imagine you estimate your chances of converting the PAT kick as 90%, and your chances of converting the 2pc at an amazing 80%. In this case, while the 2pc will yield more expected points, you should kick the XP every time. Why? Because whether you score 1 point or 2, you are taking the game from a one-possession game to a two-possession game. The only possible bad outcome here is failing to convert for any points at all, so you want to take the path that offers the smallest chances of failing to convert for any points, which in this case is the XP.

So, early on, go for 2 if your chances of converting the PAT are less than twice as much as your chances of converting the XP. Late in the game, if either an XP or a 2pc both result in a similar score differential (e.g. either will make it a two score game), go with whichever you think has a higher likelihood of converting.

The fact that Philly eschewed an XP when scoring to tie and again when scoring to take an 8-point lead tells us that they believed they were straight-up more likely to convert on the 2pc than they were on the XP.

 

[zftcg]

I thought it would be worth the try at 34-20, honestly, make them score 2 2 pt conversions to win.

But its definitely possible that there was less than a 50% chance of making any kick, so worth it to go for 2 each time. Really, at anything less than like 90% chance of making a kick, you should go for 2 every time, right?

In the early part of the game, your only concern should be maximizing your expected points. So, if (odds of 2pc) * (value of 2pc) > (odds of XP) * (value of XP), then you should go for 2 every time. Or, in other words, if you have a 45% chance of converting the 2pc, then you should kick iff you believe your chances of converting the XP are greater than 90%.

At some point later in the game, when the number of remaining possessions starts to decrease, you should shift away from maximizing points scored and start shifting towards minimizing your opponent's chances of putting together enough scores to catch you. As an example, imagine you score a TD with a minute left to go up by 8 with the PAT pending. Also imagine you estimate your chances of converting the PAT kick as 90%, and your chances of converting the 2pc at an amazing 80%. In this case, while the 2pc will yield more expected points, you should kick the XP every time. Why? Because whether you score 1 point or 2, you are taking the game from a one-possession game to a two-possession game. The only possible bad outcome here is failing to convert for any points at all, so you want to take the path that offers the smallest chances of failing to convert for any points, which in this case is the XP.

So, early on, go for 2 if your chances of converting the PAT are less than twice as much as your chances of converting the XP. Late in the game, if either an XP or a 2pc both result in a similar score differential (e.g. either will make it a two score game), go with whichever you think has a higher likelihood of converting.

The fact that Philly eschewed an XP when scoring to tie and again when scoring to take an 8-point lead tells us that they believed they were straight-up more likely to convert on the 2pc than they were on the XP.

Clearly, the weather scrambled all the usual calculations. The one kick the Lions attempted came after a false start on the initial 2-point attempt. Having to run it from the 7, they apparently decided the odds tipped back in favor of a kick.

 

[bweiser]

I really don't think the weather in the fourth quarter was as bad as you are indicating.

Akers' PAT was blocked early in the third quarter. It was still snowing pretty hard. The snow had really let up by the fourth quarter (which is why the Eagles won, but that's another matter).

 

[Adam Harstad]

I really don't think the weather in the fourth quarter was as bad as you are indicating.

Akers' PAT was blocked early in the third quarter. It was still snowing pretty hard. The snow had really let up by the fourth quarter (which is why the Eagles won, but that's another matter).

I don't think it was the weather, I think it was the field conditions.

 

[zftcg]

I really don't think the weather in the fourth quarter was as bad as you are indicating.

Akers' PAT was blocked early in the third quarter. It was still snowing pretty hard. The snow had really let up by the fourth quarter (which is why the Eagles won, but that's another matter).

I hesitate to play the "I was there, man!" card, but I promise you I know exactly what the weather was like in the 4th quarter. And yes, the snow did let up, but I suspect Adam is right that the field conditions were a more important consideration.

Regardless, your argument seems to be that the Eagles erred either because they didn't do the math correctly or because they didn't properly judge the (improved) conditions. I think it's far more plausible that they did judge the conditions and determined a 2-pointer had a better chance of succeeding than a kick. Were they right? Who knows? There's no way to tell from such a small sample.