Why the Cowher FG call was the worst of his career (1 Viewer)

[golfguy]

that call summed up bill cowher to me.bill cowher=marty schottenheimergreat regular season success, no playoff success when it matters

 

[tommyGunZ]

Cowher would have been castrated for running the Bus 4 straight times if/when the Steelers didn't get it. The Pats goal line D appeared to be an even match with the Steelers OL yesterday. Marty was chastised in SD for giving LT2 the rock 3 straight times at the 23 yard line in OT a couple weeks ago. Running up the gut 4 times from the 4 seems like a good idea until it's 4th and goal from the 2.

 

[AB in DC]

I'm pretty sure this exactly the situation those ECON weenies were talking about in the study about coaches not going for it enough on 4th down. Having another team pinned against their goal line generally produces a positive point expectation for your team. I think it was pretty definitively the wrong call, and I don't even think getting the fans jazzed/silent has much to do with it.

Speaking as a math weenie myself, I can answer this. Pete Palmer estimated the point expectation for pinning your opponent at the goal line at about +2, with a good rule of thumb being two points subtracted every 25 yards in field position.If you kick off and your opponent starts around the 25 the expectation there is basically 0. NE's average start after kickoffs up to that point was their own 29, so call it -0.3.So the FG (+2.9 assuming he makes it almost 100%) plus kickoff (-0.3) has an expected value of +2.6. Since scoring the TD would be +7-0.3=+6.7 (TD+XP+kickoff) and failing would be +2, Pittsburgh should have gone for it if they felt that they could score at least (2.6-2)/(6.7-2) = 13% of the time.This is assuming average offense vs. average defense. If you take into account how well the Pats offense had done, field position wouldn't matter as much. So I would change the goal line expectancy to +1 and the kickoff expectancy to -1. That means a FG is +1.9 and a TD is +6.0, which brings the required odds up to (1.9-1)/(6-1) = 18%.Either way, the math says Pittsburgh should probably have gone for it...

 

[ko-jack]

if you do the math, they would have been down 11. a fg and a td with a 2pt conv ties the game. makes sense. or maybe cowher bought too much into those promos for Num3rs

 

[ko-jack]

that call summed up bill cowher to me.bill cowher=marty schottenheimergreat regular season success, no playoff success when it matters

5 AFC title games isnt playoff success? the games that led to the title games, didnt matter? only the losses mattered? in 2 of those 4 losses, they were dogs and not expected to win anyways

 

[ko-jack]

You have to go for it in that situation. You kick the FG you're down by 11 which pretty much equates to having to score two more TDs. You go for it and miss you're down by 14 which means you need to score 2 more TDs. Yo go for and get it, down by 7 with 10 to go.....

actually it equates to a td with a 2pt play and a fg. dont get it and you will never play for a FG when they are down there

 

[ko-jack]

I'm pretty sure this exactly the situation those ECON weenies were talking about in the study about coaches not going for it enough on 4th down.  Having another team pinned against their goal line generally produces a positive point expectation for your team.  I think it was pretty definitively the wrong call, and I don't even think getting the fans jazzed/silent has much to do with it.

Speaking as a math weenie myself, I can answer this. Pete Palmer estimated the point expectation for pinning your opponent at the goal line at about +2, with a good rule of thumb being two points subtracted every 25 yards in field position.If you kick off and your opponent starts around the 25 the expectation there is basically 0. NE's average start after kickoffs up to that point was their own 29, so call it -0.3.So the FG (+2.9 assuming he makes it almost 100%) plus kickoff (-0.3) has an expected value of +2.6. Since scoring the TD would be +7-0.3=+6.7 (TD+XP+kickoff) and failing would be +2, Pittsburgh should have gone for it if they felt that they could score at least (2.6-2)/(6.7-2) = 13% of the time.This is assuming average offense vs. average defense. If you take into account how well the Pats offense had done, field position wouldn't matter as much. So I would change the goal line expectancy to +1 and the kickoff expectancy to -1. That means a FG is +1.9 and a TD is +6.0, which brings the required odds up to (1.9-1)/(6-1) = 18%.Either way, the math says Pittsburgh should probably have gone for it...

i bet you watched Numb3rs

 

[Bloom]

1) the steelers get more energy from their crowd than any team in the league

2) advantage steelers D

1) the steelers get more energy from their crowd than any team in the league...says who?advantage steelers D...The Steelers D had no advantage whatsoever...41 points in a conference championship? Going for a FG over a TD is a moot point because the Steelers D was non-existent yesterday. They had to actually stop the Pats to make a difference.

1) watch all 8 home games by any team this year, and tell me which team feeds the most off of their crowd. i say its the steelers.2) advantage steelers D BECAUSE NE is backed up at the 2. no matter who the offense is, the D has a much better chance to stop the offense at the 2 than they at the 20. you have to take a lot of plays off the table at the two because you cant commit a penalty in the end zone or have as much time to look for a pass. the steelers had breakdowns all day, that is clear. what i was saying i would rather be down 14 with NE at the 2, than down 11 with NE at the 40 (which is what we faced)

 

[tommyGunZ]

1) the steelers get more energy from their crowd than any team in the league

2) advantage steelers D

1) the steelers get more energy from their crowd than any team in the league...says who?advantage steelers D...The Steelers D had no advantage whatsoever...41 points in a conference championship? Going for a FG over a TD is a moot point because the Steelers D was non-existent yesterday. They had to actually stop the Pats to make a difference.

1) watch all 8 home games by any team this year, and tell me which team feeds the most off of their crowd. i say its the steelers.2) advantage steelers D BECAUSE NE is backed up at the 2. no matter who the offense is, the D has a much better chance to stop the offense at the 2 than they at the 20. you have to take a lot of plays off the table at the two because you cant commit a penalty in the end zone or have as much time to look for a pass. the steelers had breakdowns all day, that is clear. what i was saying i would rather be down 14 with NE at the 2, than down 11 with NE at the 40 (which is what we faced)

1) subjective; all homers from NE, SD, etc. would claim their fans provide the biggest HF advantage.2) after watching the Steeler Defense absolutely fail to make any game changing plays yesterday, I'm reluctant to say "advantage Steeler D" in any situation vs. Tom Brady and the Pats.

Call me an idiot, but if I'm a Steeler fan, I blame this loss on the Defense, not Big Ben.

 

[Da Guru]

I just don`t think he trusted Big Ben in that situation. It had to be some sort of roll out pass/run type of play. I think Cowher just did not have the faith in Ben to get in done.

 

[SammyJankis]

I saw Cowher's decision to kick the FG as an unwillingness to go "all in" at that moment of the game... I didn't agree with the call, but I can see the argument for believing his D was good enough to get the ball back and have a chance at a FG and a TD (+2)...

I made the exact same comparison yesterday. I think its a very fair one. My wife had asked me if I agreed with the call, and I had to think hard about it before making the hold em anology.When you're short stacked and the blinds are quickly growing, every player hopes to look down and find A-A. Or limp with a suited ace and catch a flush on the flop. You're looking for the "perfect" situation. Not even one that can win it for you, but one that can close the gap between you and your opponents. You're not looking to win, but trying to put yourself in a position where its possible. But when you're facing elimination and the clock is ticking, you find that you don't have enough time to wait for the perfect situation. You have to make a move with a less than premium hand. Its a situation where the odds are against you and you'll surely be critizing for it when it doesn't work. But the fact is, just like the Steelers, the best way out of this pickle is to not get into it in the first place. Of course that's easier said than done. So when you find youself in bad shape, you just have to roll the dice, look for your best opportunity and risk elimination if your gambit fails. Playing it safe is a luxury the big stacks(and the team leading by 14) have.

But I myself made a bad decision in a hold em tourney a couple of weeks ago and mentally berated myself for it all the way home. Its easy to to criticize a call from the rails, where you have all the time to reflect on it and the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. But in the heat of battle, with everything at stake and having to make a decision right now it isn't so easy. I think going for it was the right call for the Steelers, but not going for it being a "defining a career" type mistake? Not even close.

Regardless of the decision, I don't think the Steelers were going to win this game. The fact is that the Patriots schemed to all out stop the run. To win the Steelers needed to put the ball in the air and Roethlisbeger, as good as he is, just isn't going to be able to get that done as a rookie. As disappointing as the loss was for Steelers fans, the thought of developing Ben for another year and subtracting Burress and replacing him with someone can catch, would have me excited for next year. Where the Steelers couldn't air it enough to win this year, I don't think that will be the case in 05.

 

[cstu]

I thought it was a good call. Furthermore, it seemed to be vindicated by NE scoring a field goal on the next position. They were still in the game, down by 14 with 7+ minutes left.

You go for the FG because you know that Vinatieri is going to hit a FG sometime in the rest of the game. After the FG, they still had a chance to tie are two scores (TD+2 and FG) or score 2 TD's and give up a FG to NE. Forget blaming Cowher, the responsibility for the loss all goes to Ben for throwing all those INT's.

 

[beefcake]

I thought it was a good call. Furthermore, it seemed to be vindicated by NE scoring a field goal on the next position. They were still in the game, down by 14 with 7+ minutes left.

You go for the FG because you know that Vinatieri is going to hit a FG sometime in the rest of the game. After the FG, they still had a chance to tie are two scores (TD+2 and FG) or score 2 TD's and give up a FG to NE. Forget blaming Cowher, the responsibility for the loss all goes to Ben for throwing all those INT's.

well said

 

[trader jake]

Why the Cowher FG call was the worst of his career

No, that would be sticking with Kordell Stewart for so long.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Forget blaming Cowher, the responsibility for the loss all goes to Ben for throwing all those INT's.

I disagree. While Big Ben's picks hurt, the inability of Pittsburgh's defense to slow down Brady and the Pats offense (34 pts) was the deciding factor.No way Ben and the offense should be expected to put up 35+.

 

[SuperJohn96]

I think the guy who hijacked my thread about "Playing it Safe" was on the money in bringing Coward into the equation.You wanna win...go big or go home.

 

[wadegarrett]

1) the steelers get more energy from their crowd than any team in the league

2) advantage steelers D

1) the steelers get more energy from their crowd than any team in the league...says who?advantage steelers D...The Steelers D had no advantage whatsoever...41 points in a conference championship? Going for a FG over a TD is a moot point because the Steelers D was non-existent yesterday. They had to actually stop the Pats to make a difference.

1) watch all 8 home games by any team this year, and tell me which team feeds the most off of their crowd. i say its the steelers.2) advantage steelers D BECAUSE NE is backed up at the 2. no matter who the offense is, the D has a much better chance to stop the offense at the 2 than they at the 20. you have to take a lot of plays off the table at the two because you cant commit a penalty in the end zone or have as much time to look for a pass. the steelers had breakdowns all day, that is clear. what i was saying i would rather be down 14 with NE at the 2, than down 11 with NE at the 40 (which is what we faced)

1) subjective; all homers from NE, SD, etc. would claim their fans provide the biggest HF advantage.2) after watching the Steeler Defense absolutely fail to make any game changing plays yesterday, I'm reluctant to say "advantage Steeler D" in any situation vs. Tom Brady and the Pats.

Call me an idiot, but if I'm a Steeler fan, I blame this loss on the Defense, not Big Ben.

beat me to it

 

[SuperJohn96]

I saw Cowher's decision to kick the FG as an unwillingness to go "all in" at that moment of the game... I didn't agree with the call, but I can see the argument for believing his D was good enough to get the ball back and have a chance at a FG and a TD (+2)...

I made the exact same comparison yesterday. I think its a very fair one. My wife had asked me if I agreed with the call, and I had to think hard about it before making the hold em anology.When you're short stacked and the blinds are quickly growing, every player hopes to look down and find A-A. Or limp with a suited ace and catch a flush on the flop. You're looking for the "perfect" situation. Not even one that can win it for you, but one that can close the gap between you and your opponents. You're not looking to win, but trying to put yourself in a position where its possible. But when you're facing elimination and the clock is ticking, you find that you don't have enough time to wait for the perfect situation. You have to make a move with a less than premium hand. Its a situation where the odds are against you and you'll surely be critizing for it when it doesn't work. But the fact is, just like the Steelers, the best way out of this pickle is to not get into it in the first place. Of course that's easier said than done. So when you find youself in bad shape, you just have to roll the dice, look for your best opportunity and risk elimination if your gambit fails. Playing it safe is a luxury the big stacks(and the team leading by 14) have.

But I myself made a bad decision in a hold em tourney a couple of weeks ago and mentally berated myself for it all the way home. Its easy to to criticize a call from the rails, where you have all the time to reflect on it and the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. But in the heat of battle, with everything at stake and having to make a decision right now it isn't so easy. I think going for it was the right call for the Steelers, but not going for it being a "defining a career" type mistake? Not even close.

Regardless of the decision, I don't think the Steelers were going to win this game. The fact is that the Patriots schemed to all out stop the run. To win the Steelers needed to put the ball in the air and Roethlisbeger, as good as he is, just isn't going to be able to get that done as a rookie. As disappointing as the loss was for Steelers fans, the thought of developing Ben for another year and subtracting Burress and replacing him with someone can catch, would have me excited for next year. Where the Steelers couldn't air it enough to win this year, I don't think that will be the case in 05.

That's sig worthy material.It should be enough to all the homers who cry whenever anyone assails their chicken choker coaches (Jets, Chargers, Steelers, etc)

 

[scoobygang]

Forget blaming Cowher, the responsibility for the loss all goes to Ben for throwing all those INT's.

I disagree. While Big Ben's picks hurt, the inability of Pittsburgh's defense to slow down Brady and the Pats offense (34 pts) was the deciding factor.No way Ben and the offense should be expected to put up 35+.

But the turnovers, as well as a few borderline calls that went the Pats way, were a big reason for those points.The Patriots had an absurd ratio of points scored per yardage gained. We can attribute that to the Pats ability to "make those big plays when they counted" or we can attribute it to a variety of factors, including luck, that consistently broke for the Pats.I think it's a combination of both, but the fact that Brady made no glaring mistakes while Ben did was pivotal. And we forget that on the 2nd TD drive of the third quarter, Asante Samuel had his hands on two Roethlisberger passes. It could have been worse for Ben.

 

[cstu]

Forget blaming Cowher, the responsibility for the loss all goes to Ben for throwing all those INT's.

I disagree. While Big Ben's picks hurt, the inability of Pittsburgh's defense to slow down Brady and the Pats offense (34 pts) was the deciding factor.No way Ben and the offense should be expected to put up 35+.

But the turnovers, as well as a few borderline calls that went the Pats way, were a big reason for those points.The Patriots had an absurd ratio of points scored per yardage gained. We can attribute that to the Pats ability to "make those big plays when they counted" or we can attribute it to a variety of factors, including luck, that consistently broke for the Pats.I think it's a combination of both, but the fact that Brady made no glaring mistakes while Ben did was pivotal. And we forget that on the 2nd TD drive of the third quarter, Asante Samuel had his hands on two Roethlisberger passes. It could have been worse for Ben.

If Ben doesn't throw those INT's and Brady throws 1 or 2, then the Steelers probably win the game. Games usually come down to turnovers and it did in this game as well.

 

[CalBear]

if you do the math, they would have been down 11. a fg and a td with a 2pt conv ties the game. makes sense. or maybe cowher bought too much into those promos for Num3rs

Please note that a 2-point conversion is more difficult than converting on fourth down from the 2. So remember, not only did they need a field goal and a touchdown after the kick, they also would have needed to convert the equivalent of a fourth-down play from further out.

 

[Bloom]

if you do the math, they would have been down 11. a fg and a td with a 2pt conv ties the game. makes sense. or maybe cowher bought too much into those promos for Num3rs

Please note that a 2-point conversion is more difficult than converting on fourth down from the 2. So remember, not only did they need a field goal and a touchdown after the kick, they also would have needed to convert the equivalent of a fourth-down play from further out.

thank you! i made this point in my initial post, and i think a lot of people missed it. cowher wimped out of trying a play, causing the team to have to convert an even harder quasi-4th down play later if everything went well. if you think your team can convert from 4, then they can convert from 2, conversely, if you dont trust the team to convert from 2, how you could put them in a position when they have to convert from 4?i really thought this decision was a no brainer while i was watching the game. i was too shocked to be POed when reed came out.

 

[bueno]

I think worst call is pretty harsh language. Having said that, given the score and the time left in the game, they really needed a touchdown in that situation. The field goal really didn't buy them anything.

 

[cstu]

if you do the math, they would have been  down 11. a fg and a td with a 2pt conv ties the game. makes sense. or maybe cowher bought too much into those promos for Num3rs

Please note that a 2-point conversion is more difficult than converting on fourth down from the 2. So remember, not only did they need a field goal and a touchdown after the kick, they also would have needed to convert the equivalent of a fourth-down play from further out.

thank you! i made this point in my initial post, and i think a lot of people missed it. cowher wimped out of trying a play, causing the team to have to convert an even harder quasi-4th down play later if everything went well. if you think your team can convert from 4, then they can convert from 2, conversely, if you dont trust the team to convert from 2, how you could put them in a position when they have to convert from 4?i really thought this decision was a no brainer while i was watching the game. i was too shocked to be POed when reed came out.

So you're willing to give up the game at that point if you don't score a TD? Like someone said, you go for it on 4th and it's the same thing as going all-in. Too me that's too much risk when you have the Steelers defense that should have been able to hold the Pats to a FG the rest of the game and an offense that should be able to score 2 TD's.

 

[beefcake]

all in = mike martz = 8-8

 

[Fiddles.]

1st and goal from the 4 (where Hines Ward stepped out)1st play: Bettis run for 1 yard2nd play: Fade pattern to Burress3rd play: Bettis run for no gain.I said from the start "Run Bettis 3 times"I particularly didn't like the fade pattern to Burress on 2nd down. Too much is at stake to run a play like that which could result in an INT. Maybe on 3rd down, but not on 2nd down. Even the shuffle pass to Hines Ward (which worked against NYJ) would've been better. :Hindsight:

Totally agree

 

[CalBear]

So you're willing to give up the game at that point if you don't score a TD? Like someone said, you go for it on 4th and it's the same thing as going all-in. Too me that's too much risk when you have the Steelers defense that should have been able to hold the Pats to a FG the rest of the game and an offense that should be able to score 2 TD's.

If your offense can score 2 TDs, you're still in the game even if you don't make it on fourth down; especially since your defense will get its first shot with the opponents backed into their own end zone. Being down by 11, with the other team having the ball at their own 30, isn't a whole lot better than being down by 14, with the other team having the ball at their own 2. And if you get in the end zone, being down by 7 is a whole lot better than being down by either 11 or 14.

 

[Bloom]

So you're willing to give up the game at that point if you don't score a TD? Like someone said, you go for it on 4th and it's the same thing as going all-in. Too me that's too much risk when you have the Steelers defense that should have been able to hold the Pats to a FG the rest of the game and an offense that should be able to score 2 TD's.

If your offense can score 2 TDs, you're still in the game even if you don't make it on fourth down; especially since your defense will get its first shot with the opponents backed into their own end zone. Being down by 11, with the other team having the ball at their own 30, isn't a whole lot better than being down by 14, with the other team having the ball at their own 2. And if you get in the end zone, being down by 7 is a whole lot better than being down by either 11 or 14.

what he said. it makes me feel better than someone else sees this exactly how i did.

 

[scoobygang]

So you're willing to give up the game at that point if you don't score a TD? Like someone said, you go for it on 4th and it's the same thing as going all-in. Too me that's too much risk when you have the Steelers defense that should have been able to hold the Pats to a FG the rest of the game and an offense that should be able to score 2 TD's.

God forgive me for participating in a poker analogy, but if we're going to stay with the "all-in" metaphor we need to understand that the odds were STRONGLY against Cowher getting another "hand" as good as what he folded.Cowher needed a TD eventually, which we can consider the equivalent of "doubling up" in this situation. Not only was the shot at the 2 likely to be his very best shot of doubling up (or akin to getting his AA pre-flop), but even if he had failed, keeping New England that close to the goal line probably represented as good a "hand" as he could have expected the rest of the game. The opportunity to start a drive potentially in the opponent's field is a situation with a large positive expectation.So if the blinds are going up, your stack is shrinking, you're sitting with AA, and you know that even if you lose, you'll get an AK on the next hand, would you make a pot limit bet in a limit game? I would. Everytime.Of course, his chances weren't as good as AA. I get that. But compared to his other opportunities, they were as good as he was going to get.

 

[SammyJankis]

all in = mike martz = 8-8

Big difference there. Martz takes risks when he doesn't have to. He takes risks just to take risks. He takes risks to further enhance his image as "mad genius".Taking stupid risks ala "All in" Martz is worse than not taking any risks at all. A perfect example of this was in week 3. Saints at Rams. Game goes to overtime. Martz elects to go for it on 4th and 1 at his own 41 yard line. The Rams converted on the play, but went on to lose the game. Whether it worked or not, it was a risk not worth taking. A perfect example of an "all-in" type move that Martz shouldn't have tried. Make it and you may or may not win the game, but if you don't get it, your opponent needs to move the ball less than 10 yards to kick a field goal and beat you.

But the call Cowher made yesterday was nothing like what Martz does. It wasn't an unnessacery risk, but rather one that had to be made based on the game situation. Does any team want to be going for it on 4th and goal in the 4th quarter when its basically game over if they fail? No way, no how. But the fact is if you get yourself in bad shape, you're going to have to make a move with the "worst of it".

 

[Da Guru]

Pound Bettis 4 straight times if need be. If NE stops your bread and butter you deserve to lose!

 

[Standing Hampton]

1) It completely took the crowd out of the game. the steelers get more energy from their crowd than any team in the league. If they dont make it, does the crowd get that deflated? i dont think so. you still have the pats backed up at the 2. the playbook is much smaller when youre backed up like that, advantage steelers D. the crowd would have known getting loud could force a safety or D touchdown. instead, they were disgusted.2) (this is from faletti who was watching the game with me) So, you made the FG. what does that gain you? you still need 2 scores, a FG and a TD+2. to get the 2, you need to make the equivalent of a 4th and goal from the 4 (i think). you just passed up a 4th and goal from the 2. do you really believe your team has a better shot of making 4th and 4 and than 4th and 2?the steelers had everything to gain on that play, and nothing to lose. too bad cowher thought "we cant afford to get nothing on this drive", when he really should have thought "we cant afford to not get a TD". belicheck really showed cowher how to coach winning football when he went for it on 4th to ice the game up 34-20.

ALways take the points, always.

 

[cstu]

So you're willing to give up the game at that point if you don't score a TD? Like someone said, you go for it on 4th and it's the same thing as going all-in. Too me that's too much risk when you have the Steelers defense that should have been able to hold the Pats to a FG the rest of the game and an offense that should be able to score 2 TD's.

God forgive me for participating in a poker analogy, but if we're going to stay with the "all-in" metaphor we need to understand that the odds were STRONGLY against Cowher getting another "hand" as good as what he folded.Cowher needed a TD eventually, which we can consider the equivalent of "doubling up" in this situation. Not only was the shot at the 2 likely to be his very best shot of doubling up (or akin to getting his AA pre-flop), but even if he had failed, keeping New England that close to the goal line probably represented as good a "hand" as he could have expected the rest of the game. The opportunity to start a drive potentially in the opponent's field is a situation with a large positive expectation.So if the blinds are going up, your stack is shrinking, you're sitting with AA, and you know that even if you lose, you'll get an AK on the next hand, would you make a pot limit bet in a limit game? I would. Everytime.Of course, his chances weren't as good as AA. I get that. But compared to his other opportunities, they were as good as he was going to get.

Are you planning on not giving up another 3 points the rest of the game? It was also guaranteed that the Pats could score a FG so it made sense you get those points and then focus on getting 2 more TD's. A lot of good it would do to fail on 4th down and since be down 2 TD's when you know the Pats are going to get into FG range sometime by the end of the game and have the most clutch kicker in history.

 

[Cunning Linguist]

Try being a lions fan.

 

[ICON211]

Not sure if anyone in here brought this up. The Steelers were on the 2 yard line. If you kick the field goal you still need another FG, TD, and 2 pt conversion. The 2 pt conversion comes from the 2 yard line. So you are saying you can't get a TD from the 2, but you can get a 2 point conversion from the exact same spot on the field? Makes absolutely no sense.

 

[jcab2000]

Not sure if anyone in here brought this up. The Steelers were on the 2 yard line. If you kick the field goal you still need another FG, TD, and 2 pt conversion. The 2 pt conversion comes from the 2 yard line. So you are saying you can't get a TD from the 2, but you can get a 2 point conversion from the exact same spot on the field? Makes absolutely no sense.

I agere, it was a ridiculous call. In fact, Cowher even defended his decision basing it on the fact that he'd only need another field goal and TD (and 2 pt conversion). As if the 2 point conversion was easier to convert than the 4th and goal from the 2.

 

[Bloom]

Not sure if anyone in here brought this up. The Steelers were on the 2 yard line. If you kick the field goal you still need another FG, TD, and 2 pt conversion. The 2 pt conversion comes from the 2 yard line. So you are saying you can't get a TD from the 2, but you can get a 2 point conversion from the exact same spot on the field? Makes absolutely no sense.

I agere, it was a ridiculous call. In fact, Cowher even defended his decision basing it on the fact that he'd only need another field goal and TD (and 2 pt conversion). As if the 2 point conversion was easier to convert than the 4th and goal from the 2.

calbear and I hammer on this point farther up on the page, and its my point #2 in my initial post.

 

[Doug Drinen]

Please note that a 2-point conversion is more difficult than converting on fourth down from the 2. So remember, not only did they need a field goal and a touchdown after the kick, they also would have needed to convert the equivalent of a fourth-down play from further out.

CalBear = smart dude.I thought it was an atrocious call at the time and I didn't even think of that angle. Completely indefensible.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

if you do the math, they would have been down 11. a fg and a td with a 2pt conv ties the game. makes sense. or maybe cowher bought too much into those promos for Num3rs

Please note that a 2-point conversion is more difficult than converting on fourth down from the 2. So remember, not only did they need a field goal and a touchdown after the kick, they also would have needed to convert the equivalent of a fourth-down play from further out.

How? It's two yards either way. Two point conversions are spotted at the two yard line yes?

 

[jcab2000]

if you do the math, they would have been down 11. a fg and a td with a 2pt conv ties the game. makes sense. or maybe cowher bought too much into those promos for Num3rs

Please note that a 2-point conversion is more difficult than converting on fourth down from the 2. So remember, not only did they need a field goal and a touchdown after the kick, they also would have needed to convert the equivalent of a fourth-down play from further out.

How? It's two yards either way. Two point conversions are spotted at the two yard line yes?

You're right, but it's worth 4 extra points when you're going for a TD.

 

[CalBear]

Are you planning on not giving up another 3 points the rest of the game? It was also guaranteed that the Pats could score a FG so it made sense you get those points and then focus on getting 2 more TD's. A lot of good it would do to fail on 4th down and since be down 2 TD's when you know the Pats are going to get into FG range sometime by the end of the game and have the most clutch kicker in history.

Your argument is getting increasingly limited. You are basing it on two very flimsy premises:Flimsy Premise #1: The Patriots will score exactly 3 points, no matter what you do on fourth and 2.

If the Pats score 0 or 7 the rest of the way, it is better to go for the TD than kick the FG; the FG does you no good in either scenario. So to even advance this argument, you have to assume that they're going to score exactly 3. You also have to assume that they're just as likely to score 3 if you kick off to them (they get the ball at the 25-35) as if you go for the TD and fail (they get the ball on the 1-2). There are three scenarios here:

1: You go for the TD and miss. Pats get the ball on the 2.

2: You go for the TD and make it. You kick off to the Pats.

3: You kick the FG. You kick off to the Pats.

It should be trivially obvious that the Pats are less likely to score another 3 points in scenario 1. And that scenario 2 is better than scenario 3, if they do score another 3 points (or 7).

Flimsy Premise #2: The Steelers are more likely to score two TDs from average field goal position, than one TD on fourth and goal from the 2.

So let's say your first premise was right--the Patriots were destined to score exactly 3 points more. Now the Steelers will get the ball back on a kickoff, as well as on a punt after a 3-and-out (for the sake of argument). In both cases, you get the ball in average field position; let's say, at

your own 30. If you'd made the TD on fourth and two, you would need one TD and one FG--you have a very good FG kicker. If you kicked the field goal, you would need two TDs. If you had missed the TD, you would need three scores, and the game would be over.

So let's look at those scenarios. Obviously there is benefit to kicking the field goal over not making the TD, but making the TD would have been much better than kicking the field goal. The thing is, the benefit of kicking the field goal only kicks in if you manage two 70-yard drives for TDs. Do you really think that's more likely than just making two yards, when your team is #1 in the league in goal-line rushing TD percentage?

Clearly there are some scenarios where kicking the field goal helps, but those scenarios are marginal. In the core scenarios, going for the TD is the better call.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

Personally, the Cowher bashing is getting on my nerves. The Pats had shown, both in this game and in other big games (last year's AFC Championship versus the Colts) that they can stop the run in critical situations. Cowher was betting on his defense to keep them in the game. You dance with the one who brought you, plain and simple. As BB has said, Pittsburg is a class organization and Cowher and the coaching staff did a great job this year. They just got beat.

 

[ICON211]

Not sure if anyone in here brought this up. The Steelers were on the 2 yard line. If you kick the field goal you still need another FG, TD, and 2 pt conversion. The 2 pt conversion comes from the 2 yard line. So you are saying you can't get a TD from the 2, but you can get a 2 point conversion from the exact same spot on the field? Makes absolutely no sense.

I agere, it was a ridiculous call. In fact, Cowher even defended his decision basing it on the fact that he'd only need another field goal and TD (and 2 pt conversion). As if the 2 point conversion was easier to convert than the 4th and goal from the 2.

calbear and I hammer on this point farther up on the page, and its my point #2 in my initial post.

Nice job guys....bastards banned me from fantasy sites at work so sometimes when I get home I don't have time to read all the posts before mine.

 

[CalBear]

Personally, the Cowher bashing is getting on my nerves. The Pats had shown, both in this game and in other big games (last year's AFC Championship versus the Colts) that they can stop the run in critical situations. Cowher was betting on his defense to keep them in the game. You dance with the one who brought you, plain and simple. As BB has said, Pittsburg is a class organization and Cowher and the coaching staff did a great job this year. They just got beat.

I'm not bashing Cowher; I think he did a remarkable job with a rookie QB, and I think it's likely the Steelers would have lost even if they went for it and made it on that posession. And frankly, I don't care about the result of the game; I only care from a game-theory viewpoint.

 

[scoobygang]

Are you planning on not giving up another 3 points the rest of the game? It was also guaranteed that the Pats could score a FG so it made sense you get those points and then focus on getting 2 more TD's. A lot of good it would do to fail on 4th down and since be down 2 TD's when you know the Pats are going to get into FG range sometime by the end of the game and have the most clutch kicker in history.

Let me see if I've got this straight. You're saying that when you're down 14 points in the fourth quarter, your chief concern is covering additional points you expect your opponent to score? Whether you're playing for 3 or 7, you sure as hell aren't factoring in other scores for the opponent there.

 

[cstu]

Not sure if anyone in here brought this up. The Steelers were on the 2 yard line. If you kick the field goal you still need another FG, TD, and 2 pt conversion. The 2 pt conversion comes from the 2 yard line. So you are saying you can't get a TD from the 2, but you can get a 2 point conversion from the exact same spot on the field? Makes absolutely no sense.

I agere, it was a ridiculous call. In fact, Cowher even defended his decision basing it on the fact that he'd only need another field goal and TD (and 2 pt conversion). As if the 2 point conversion was easier to convert than the 4th and goal from the 2.

Huh, seems you guys have no understanding of the term "strategy"

 

[jcab2000]

Not sure if anyone in here brought this up. The Steelers were on the 2 yard line. If you kick the field goal you still need another FG, TD, and 2 pt conversion. The 2 pt conversion comes from the 2 yard line. So you are saying you can't get a TD from the 2, but you can get a 2 point conversion from the exact same spot on the field? Makes absolutely no sense.

I agere, it was a ridiculous call. In fact, Cowher even defended his decision basing it on the fact that he'd only need another field goal and TD (and 2 pt conversion). As if the 2 point conversion was easier to convert than the 4th and goal from the 2.

Huh, seems you guys have no understanding of the term "strategy"

I have no understanding on how that could be considered a good strategy.

 

[ICON211]

Not sure if anyone in here brought this up. The Steelers were on the 2 yard line. If you kick the field goal you still need another FG, TD, and 2 pt conversion. The 2 pt conversion comes from the 2 yard line. So you are saying you can't get a TD from the 2, but you can get a 2 point conversion from the exact same spot on the field? Makes absolutely no sense.

I agere, it was a ridiculous call. In fact, Cowher even defended his decision basing it on the fact that he'd only need another field goal and TD (and 2 pt conversion). As if the 2 point conversion was easier to convert than the 4th and goal from the 2.

Huh, seems you guys have no understanding of the term "strategy"

If you kick the field goal there you are saying that you can score 3 times in one quarter against that Patriot D. What I can't understand is a flawed strategy like that. And please explain to me how you can say that you can't score a TD from the 2 but you can get a 2 point conversion from the exact same spot.

 

[scoobygang]

Personally, the Cowher bashing is getting on my nerves. The Pats had shown, both in this game and in other big games (last year's AFC Championship versus the Colts) that they can stop the run in critical situations. Cowher was betting on his defense to keep them in the game. You dance with the one who brought you, plain and simple. As BB has said, Pittsburg is a class organization and Cowher and the coaching staff did a great job this year. They just got beat.

How's it Cowher bashing? The guy makes a living as a professional football coach. His record shows that he's good one. But in a big game, at a critical juncture, he lacked the imagination or will to make the call that would give his team the best chance to win. Not a better than average chance to win, for sure, but the best chance he was going to get.And I don't think Cowher is alone here. 2/3 of the coaches in the league would have made the same call. They might even have made a crack about "football not being played with slide rules". But they would still be wrong. The study of interesting things in football statistics is light years behind where we're at in baseball, but this is actually one field where someone has put together a ton of data. And the data suggests, strongly, that Cowher made the wrong choice.

 

[cstu]

QUOTE

Are you planning on not giving up another 3 points the rest of the game? It was also guaranteed that the Pats could score a FG so it made sense you get those points and then focus on getting 2 more TD's. A lot of good it would do to fail on 4th down and since be down 2 TD's when you know the Pats are going to get into FG range sometime by the end of the game and have the most clutch kicker in history.

Your argument is getting increasingly limited. You are basing it on two very flimsy premises:

Flimsy Premise #1: The Patriots will score exactly 3 points, no matter what you do on fourth and 2.

If the Pats score 0 or 7 the rest of the way, it is better to go for the TD than kick the FG; the FG does you no good in either scenario. So to even advance this argument, you have to assume that they're going to score exactly 3. You also have to assume that they're just as likely to score 3 if you kick off to them (they get the ball at the 25-35) as if you go for the TD and fail (they get the ball on the 1-2). There are three scenarios here:

1: You go for the TD and miss. Pats get the ball on the 2.

2: You go for the TD and make it. You kick off to the Pats.

3: You kick the FG. You kick off to the Pats.

It should be trivially obvious that the Pats are less likely to score another 3 points in scenario 1. And that scenario 2 is better than scenario 3, if they do score another 3 points (or 7).

Whether or not the Patriots score "exactly 3 points" is not the issue. The issue is what you can expect to happen and if you have any common sense you would have to guess that they would be able to at least kick another FG. If you give up another TD the game is probably over and if you shut them down you will need a TD+2 and a FG. I don't care if you put the Pats on the 2 or the 30, they can score a FG regardless.

Flimsy Premise #2: The Steelers are more likely to score two TDs from average field goal position, than one TD on fourth and goal from the 2.

So let's say your first premise was right--the Patriots were destined to score exactly 3 points more. Now the Steelers will get the ball back on a kickoff, as well as on a punt after a 3-and-out (for the sake of argument). In both cases, you get the ball in average field position; let's say, at

your own 30. If you'd made the TD on fourth and two, you would need one TD and one FG--you have a very good FG kicker. If you kicked the field goal, you would need two TDs. If you had missed the TD, you would need three scores, and the game would be over.

I didn't say they were more likely to score 2 TD's than 1 TD and a 4th and goal on the 2. I said that it makes sense strategically based on what the Patriots are capable of. I wouldn't be willing to lay the game on the line right there for a TD run that only has a 50% at best chance of working.

So let's look at those scenarios. Obviously there is benefit to kicking the field goal over not making the TD, but making the TD would have been much better than kicking the field goal. The thing is, the benefit of kicking the field goal only kicks in if you manage two 70-yard drives for TDs. Do you really think that's more likely than just making two yards, when your team is #1 in the league in goal-line rushing TD percentage?

Clearly there are some scenarios where kicking the field goal helps, but those scenarios are marginal. In the core scenarios, going for the TD is the better call.

I think it's best for everyone to think what they want to about the play since no one is going to convince anyone else.