You're down by 15 with 7:00 minutes left in the game (1 Viewer)

[humpback]

I don't know how many times we need to go back and forth here, but WHY is there an obvious advantage to the trailing team there? Just saying it doesn't make it so. Doesn't the leading team also KNOW what they need? Can't they adjust their strategy as well KNOWING what they need? Just knowing something doesn't necessarily give you an advantage, especially when the other side knows the same exact information. Put it this way- when a team lines up to attempt a 2 pt. conversion, both teams KNOW they are attempting it. Does the team going for 2 have the "obvious advantage"?

Because knowing they news the additional score means their clock management strategy changes a LOT. The leading team may adjust somewhat, but the basic strategy remains the same: to maintain possession and run down the clock.We aren't saying that the information actually gives the trailing team the upper hand. It simply benefits a little bit more from the information than the leading team - resulting in a net gain in opportunity.

Even if you could say this with any degree of certainty (which you really can't), in order for your theory to hold true, you'd have to be able to show that changing their clock management strategy a LOT provides the trailing team with an obvious advantage. For a minute, let's just say that you're right, and the trailing team makes many more adjustments because of this information than the leading team. How is this an obvious advantage? Isn't it possible that it provides no advantage at all, or even provides a slight disadvantage? Again, the only way to really back this up would be to show how teams who have gone for 2 first in this exact situation have had a higher rate of success (winning the game) than teams who have waited to go for 2. Anything else is just opinion and speculation (on both sides).

 

[AB in DC]

I haven't read this whole thread, but I gotta say that the idea that a team losing by 15 can suddenly score three times in seven minutes is borderline delusional.

Unless you're talking about a heavy favorite who gave up a bunch of fluky TDs, it's just not going to happen.

 

[Chairshot]

I haven't read the whole thread, but I think you always take the extra point in these situations.

I feel like success in football largely depends on effort level, especially on defense. How a play turns out often depends on "who wants it more" (which is a really horrible cliche, but I think it's appropriate).

If you go for 2 and miss it, you really can deflate your defense. It would probably be hard for the majority of players to stay motivated when they need 2 scores as it seems unlikely to happen.

If you take the PAT, you only need one score and your defense can play it's game with intensity and full motivation. Your opponent is still going to try and kill the clock, but they are also going to try and at least get a FG because the game isn't out of reach. If you miss the 2 point conversion, they are going to go into full on grind-the-clock mode, which you don't want.

I really don't see any legit advantage to going for 2, unless you feel 100% confident that you are going to get it. If you feel you have a fool-proof play to get the 2, have at it. Otherwise, there's no reason to do it when you still need another score.

 

[Choke]

I haven't read this whole thread, but I gotta say that the idea that a team losing by 15 can suddenly score three times in seven minutes is borderline delusional.

Unless you're talking about a heavy favorite who gave up a bunch of fluky TDs, it's just not going to happen.

Actually, they already scored once.And now have 7 minutes left and its entirely possible they get 2 more shots at scoring in 7 minutes.

*if I read what you wrote correctly.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

The leading team gains the same "advantage". By knowing the trailing team needs 2 possessions. The leading teams knows that one 1st down practically guarantees them the win.

So... if they were only up by 7, they wouldn't try to pick up a first down? Do you honestly not realize how silly this approach is?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I haven't read this whole thread, but I gotta say that the idea that a team losing by 15 can suddenly score three times in seven minutes is borderline delusional.

Unless you're talking about a heavy favorite who gave up a bunch of fluky TDs, it's just not going to happen.

That's why the NFL is adopting a mercy rule starting in 2011.

 

[sn0mm1s]

The leading team gains the same "advantage". By knowing the trailing team needs 2 possessions. The leading teams knows that one 1st down practically guarantees them the win.

So... if they were only up by 7, they wouldn't try to pick up a first down? Do you honestly not realize how silly this approach is?

You are not understanding. If the winning team is up by 7 and they convert the 1st down - they don't know if they have won the game or not. If they are up 9 and convert the first down it is practically a guarantee.If a team is trailing, and the clock is an issue, you want your opponent to throw the ball. You want high variance plays.

 

[CalBear]

There is not a similar benefit for the leading team; on virtually any fourth down they will punt or kick a field goal, whether they're up by 7, 8, or 9.

This is untrue. Down 7 or 8 the winning team is more likely to pass. Up 9 there is a huge incentive to go for 4th and short.

Really, how strong an incentive do you think that is? The incentive is so huge that since 2002, teams have gone for it on fourth and 1-2 yards, up 9 points, a grand total of 3 times.

Conversely, when down by 7, since 2002 teams have gone for it on fourth and 1-2 yards a grand total of 1,094 times.

That should give you an idea of the scale of your wrongness in this discussion.

 

[toppshelff]

Probably talks to my personality, but you need 16 points to win. That is either 2 2-point TDs, or a missed 2-point conversion TD, a 7-point TD and a FG.

Either way, go for the 2 right up front. If you get the 2, you feel confident going for it again on the 2nd TD.

But I hate overtime and believe you go for the win. Probably why I'm not coaching in the NFL (among a dozen other reasons).

Nobody else thinks about the win? Just the tie?

 

[Jersey35]

There is not a similar benefit for the leading team; on virtually any fourth down they will punt or kick a field goal, whether they're up by 7, 8, or 9.

This is untrue. Down 7 or 8 the winning team is more likely to pass. Up 9 there is a huge incentive to go for 4th and short.

Really, how strong an incentive do you think that is? The incentive is so huge that since 2002, teams have gone for it on fourth and 1-2 yards, up 9 points, a grand total of 3 times.

Conversely, when down by 7, since 2002 teams have gone for it on fourth and 1-2 yards a grand total of 1,094 times.

That should give you an idea of the scale of your wrongness in this discussion.

Owned.

 

[sn0mm1s]

There is not a similar benefit for the leading team; on virtually any fourth down they will punt or kick a field goal, whether they're up by 7, 8, or 9.

This is untrue. Down 7 or 8 the winning team is more likely to pass. Up 9 there is a huge incentive to go for 4th and short.

Really, how strong an incentive do you think that is? The incentive is so huge that since 2002, teams have gone for it on fourth and 1-2 yards, up 9 points, a grand total of 3 times.

Conversely, when down by 7, since 2002 teams have gone for it on fourth and 1-2 yards a grand total of 1,094 times.

That should give you an idea of the scale of your wrongness in this discussion.

Are we not assuming that the trailing team will score if the offensive team loses the ball? Earlier in this discussion I was told by the go for 2 crowd that if this isn't the case then the entire exercise is pointless. So yes, there is a huge incentive to go for it on 4th and short if you assume the opposing team will score. There is also an incentive to pass up 7 or 8 for that same reason. Most NFL teams don't assume the opposing team will march down the field in 2 minutes and score a TD.I am also unsure what you are trying to say about a team going for it on 4th down when they are trailing by 7. That is pretty common.

Since the 2pt conversion was introduced in 1994 there have been 64 instances where a team is down 15pts at the start of the 4th quarter. Out of those 64 instances only 1 trailing team won the game. They kicked first, converted 2pt second, and won in overtime.

There isn't a single instance of a team going for 2 first when down by 15 at the start of the 4th quarter and scoring the first TD.

In fact, the trailing team would only go for 2 if the winning team was allowed to score again. The smallest point differential was 18 pts. All the other instances of a team going for 2 after their 1st TD is if they got down by 20+ pts in the 4th quarter. When coaches had the opportunity to cut a 15 pt lead to a 8pt lead they always took that over trying to cut it to 7 with a 2pt conversion. So where your evidence that going for 2 first is a such a large incentive?

Actual game logs suggest that when the opportunity arises to make the game look like a 1 possession game (whether or not it will be a 1 possession game) the choice is to kick first.

 

[Choke]

Since the 2pt conversion was introduced in 1994 there have been 64 instances where a team is down 15pts at the start of the 4th quarter. Out of those 64 instances only 1 trailing team won the game. They kicked first, converted 2pt second, and won in overtime.

There isn't a single instance of a team going for 2 first when down by 15 at the start of the 4th quarter and scoring the first TD.

In fact, the trailing team would only go for 2 if the winning team was allowed to score again. The smallest point differential was 18 pts. All the other instances of a team going for 2 after their 1st TD is if they got down by 20+ pts in the 4th quarter. When coaches had the opportunity to cut a 15 pt lead to a 8pt lead they always took that over trying to cut it to 7 with a 2pt conversion.

Again, if you are a coach doing this... you will end up a talking head sitting next to Matt Millen and Steve Young... and fitting right in.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Since the 2pt conversion was introduced in 1994 there have been 64 instances where a team is down 15pts at the start of the 4th quarter. Out of those 64 instances only 1 trailing team won the game. They kicked first, converted 2pt second, and won in overtime.

There isn't a single instance of a team going for 2 first when down by 15 at the start of the 4th quarter and scoring the first TD.

In fact, the trailing team would only go for 2 if the winning team was allowed to score again. The smallest point differential was 18 pts. All the other instances of a team going for 2 after their 1st TD is if they got down by 20+ pts in the 4th quarter. When coaches had the opportunity to cut a 15 pt lead to a 8pt lead they always took that over trying to cut it to 7 with a 2pt conversion.

Again, if you are a coach doing this... you will end up a talking head sitting next to Matt Millen and Steve Young... and fitting right in.

It's already been explained why that doesn't answer the question.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

There isn't a single instance of a team going for 2 first when down by 15 at the start of the 4th quarter and scoring the first TD....When coaches had the opportunity to cut a 15 pt lead to a 8pt lead they always took that over trying to cut it to 7 with a 2pt conversion. So where your evidence that going for 2 first is a such a large incentive?Actual game logs suggest that when the opportunity arises to make the game look like a 1 possession game (whether or not it will be a 1 possession game) the choice is to kick first.

No one disagrees. That's the point of this whole thread. NFL head coaches will always opt to kick the PAT; the question is whether or not that's the right decision.

 

[Choke]

Since the 2pt conversion was introduced in 1994 there have been 64 instances where a team is down 15pts at the start of the 4th quarter. Out of those 64 instances only 1 trailing team won the game. They kicked first, converted 2pt second, and won in overtime.

There isn't a single instance of a team going for 2 first when down by 15 at the start of the 4th quarter and scoring the first TD.

In fact, the trailing team would only go for 2 if the winning team was allowed to score again. The smallest point differential was 18 pts. All the other instances of a team going for 2 after their 1st TD is if they got down by 20+ pts in the 4th quarter. When coaches had the opportunity to cut a 15 pt lead to a 8pt lead they always took that over trying to cut it to 7 with a 2pt conversion.

Again, if you are a coach doing this... you will end up a talking head sitting next to Matt Millen and Steve Young... and fitting right in.

It's already been explained why that doesn't answer the question.

A: Because there are far too many scoring variables to let that point slip away. Outcome: Looking for another source of employment.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

The leading team gains the same "advantage". By knowing the trailing team needs 2 possessions. The leading teams knows that one 1st down practically guarantees them the win.

So... if they were only up by 7, they wouldn't try to pick up a first down? Do you honestly not realize how silly this approach is?

You are not understanding. If the winning team is up by 7 and they convert the 1st down - they don't know if they have won the game or not. If they are up 9 and convert the first down it is practically a guarantee.

On the contrary, you're not understanding. Of what practical use is the knowledge that they've "won the game?" You say if they're up by seven and convert a first down, they don't know if they've won the game or not. I agree - so what? They don't gain some kind of strategic advantage from that knowledge, let alone an advantage great enough to wipe out the huge benefit the trailing team gains from the information. They're still trying to run out the clock either way. That's the thing you guys keep misconstruing - both the leading team and the trailing team gain the same information, but the trailing team has much more use for that information.

 

[humpback]

There isn't a single instance of a team going for 2 first when down by 15 at the start of the 4th quarter and scoring the first TD.

...

When coaches had the opportunity to cut a 15 pt lead to a 8pt lead they always took that over trying to cut it to 7 with a 2pt conversion. So where your evidence that going for 2 first is a such a large incentive?

Actual game logs suggest that when the opportunity arises to make the game look like a 1 possession game (whether or not it will be a 1 possession game) the choice is to kick first.

No one disagrees. That's the point of this whole thread. NFL head coaches will always opt to kick the PAT; the question is whether or not that's the right decision.

According to you, it isn't a question at all- it's so painfully obvious that any one who disagrees with you has no idea how to "assess risk". So what you're effectively saying is that not only are the majority in this forum dead wrong, but every single coach who has ever been faced with this decision has made the wrong choice? (yes, I realize this data isn't exactly the same as what we're discussing, but I don't think we can find anything closer- I haven't verified the accuracy either)I'm assuming NFL teams have people dedicated to analyzing situations like this. If every one of them have come to the same conclusion, that it's best to kick first, then I'm going to trust their analysis, especially when I still haven't seen a single piece of actual evidence why this information is so disproportionately valuable to the trailing team.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Since the 2pt conversion was introduced in 1994 there have been 64 instances where a team is down 15pts at the start of the 4th quarter. Out of those 64 instances only 1 trailing team won the game. They kicked first, converted 2pt second, and won in overtime.

There isn't a single instance of a team going for 2 first when down by 15 at the start of the 4th quarter and scoring the first TD.

In fact, the trailing team would only go for 2 if the winning team was allowed to score again. The smallest point differential was 18 pts. All the other instances of a team going for 2 after their 1st TD is if they got down by 20+ pts in the 4th quarter. When coaches had the opportunity to cut a 15 pt lead to a 8pt lead they always took that over trying to cut it to 7 with a 2pt conversion.

Again, if you are a coach doing this... you will end up a talking head sitting next to Matt Millen and Steve Young... and fitting right in.

It's already been explained why that doesn't answer the question.

A: Because there are far too many scoring variables to let that point slip away. Outcome: Looking for another source of employment.

Sure, kicking the PAT gives the coach the best chance to keep his job. Again, no one disputes that.

 

[Sam Quentin]

Probably talks to my personality, but you need 16 points to win. That is either 2 2-point TDs, or a missed 2-point conversion TD, a 7-point TD and a FG.

Either way, go for the 2 right up front. If you get the 2, you feel confident going for it again on the 2nd TD.

But I hate overtime and believe you go for the win. Probably why I'm not coaching in the NFL (among a dozen other reasons).

Nobody else thinks about the win? Just the tie?

Historically, 2 pt conversions have a 42% success rategoing for the win gives you a 42% chance of winning

OT gives you a 50% chance of winning

generally, you would go for the tie, barring extenuating circumstances

 

[Choke]

Sure, kicking the PAT gives the coach the best chance to keep his job. Again, no one disputes that.

It gives you the best chance to allow something/anything to happen. You keep the momentum and it goes right over to your special teams and then to your defense.You are now 1 drive with a 2ptr away from tying... or perhaps 1 drive and just 1 mistake by the opponent from winning. 7 minutes is a lot of time. An incomplete pass, an out of bounds, a penalty. Let alone your time outs and designed clock stops.The opposing offense does become a bit more predictable as well. Very few coaches are gonna go pass-pass on 1st and 2nd.A: Because there are far too many scoring variables to let that point slip away.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Sure, kicking the PAT gives the coach the best chance to keep his job. Again, no one disputes that.

It gives you the best chance to allow something/anything to happen. You keep the momentum and it goes right over to your special teams and then to your defense.

You are now 1 drive with a 2ptr away from tying... or perhaps 1 drive and just 1 mistake by the opponent from winning.

7 minutes is a lot of time. An incomplete pass, and out of bounds, a penalty. Let alone your time outs and designed clock stops.

The bolded is what you're leaving out of the equation. You're making the same mistake everyone else did, by assuming that an 8-point deficit is a one possession game.

The opposing offense does come a bit more predictable as well.

They're not any more predictable up by 8 than they would be up by 7.

A: Because there are far too many scoring variables to let that point slip away.

Actually, with under 7 minutes left in the fourth quarter, there really aren't that many scoring variables, relatively. That's why there's a discussion about possibly going for 2 with seven minutes left in the 4th quarter, but we all probably wouldn't consider it with 7 minutes left in the first quarter (when there really are far too many scoring variables to attempt the play with lower EV).

 

[Choke]

They're not any more predictable up by 8 than they would be up by 7.

Im thinking the other way... since the odds say you miss the 2 ptr and are now down by 9.

 

[humpback]

Sure, kicking the PAT gives the coach the best chance to keep his job. Again, no one disputes that.

So NFL owners would rather keep coaches who give their teams a worse chance at winning and fire coaches who give them a better chance to win- is that what you're saying?Are you completely dismissing the argument that NFL teams have done more research on this than we have?

 

[Choke]

Actually, with under 7 minutes left in the fourth quarter, there really aren't that many scoring variables, relatively. That's why there's a discussion about possibly going for 2 with seven minutes left in the 4th quarter, but we all probably wouldn't consider it with 7 minutes left in the first quarter (when there really are far too many scoring variables to attempt the play with lower EV).

And I mention in that in my very first post... you are really getting to the point-break line. But 7 minutes has a ton of possibilities.1 incomplete (penalty/oob). 1 run. 1 incomplete. 56 secs off the clock and you are getting the ball back.

You can easily go pass heavy, punt the ball yourself and still get another shot.

 

[Choke]

Sure, kicking the PAT gives the coach the best chance to keep his job. Again, no one disputes that.

So NFL owners would rather keep coaches who give their teams a worse chance at winning and fire coaches who give them a better chance to win- is that what you're saying?Are you completely dismissing the argument that NFL teams have done more research on this than we have?

Doesnt have to be NFL. Football coaches have gone through this for 50 years at the HS and Collegiate level.

 

[Liquid Tension]

NFL players are grown men. They're professionals. They've been playing football for 10-20 years. They've been down late in the game dozens of times before. They aren't going to sit on the sidelines and cry and pout and paint their nails and do their hair up in pigtails if they happen to be down by 9 points instead of by 7 points. If we're talking about 9 year old kids playing Pop Warner, then yeah, I think momentum and emotion are going to be overwhelming factors in the outcome in the game... but a clash between a hundred grown professionals who have seen everything under the sun already? Yes, I think the impact of "momentum" or "emotion" is trivial.

Fair enough. Some people think morale matters. Others don't. You might get a few military generals to disagree with you on that one.

If momentum is a real phenomenon that has a tangible impact on the game, then there should be plenty of data to support that. For instance, when a team comes back from a double digit deficit to tie the game in the 4th quarter, what is that team's winning percentage? That team has all the "momentum", so if "momentum" is a real phenomenon with a tangible impact, then they should have a pretty solid winning percentage, right?

The point is you'd have to separate teams into those with morale issues and those without, and we don't have a way to do that.

The moral of a team/player is different for professional players who have been under the spotlight and scrutiny since High School. While some players can handle it a little differently than others, because these are professionals the amount is not very significant at all. How could the team that just went down by 15 drum up the motivation to get the score to knock it down to 9,8 or 7? Wouldn't they have been demoralized by going down by 2+ scores?Not only that, if you really feel that it makes a big difference, you are discounting the positive effect it would have if they made the 2 pointer then? Wouldn't it make it easier to get the game tying TD with all that momentum?

Bottom line is that if people feel 7 minutes is too long, but they would go for 2 if there were only 5 minutes left, I can at least understand that, but if you will need to go for 2 twice, it is far more beneficial to go for 2 1st...this was you have a chance to overcome the miss rather than the game being just about over. Again, not one person has stated they would rather be down by 2 points with 30 seconds left compared to down by 9 with 7 minutes left...this is the entire situation

 

[Liquid Tension]

There is not a similar benefit for the leading team; on virtually any fourth down they will punt or kick a field goal, whether they're up by 7, 8, or 9.

This is untrue. Down 7 or 8 the winning team is more likely to pass. Up 9 there is a huge incentive to go for 4th and short.

Really, how strong an incentive do you think that is? The incentive is so huge that since 2002, teams have gone for it on fourth and 1-2 yards, up 9 points, a grand total of 3 times.

Conversely, when down by 7, since 2002 teams have gone for it on fourth and 1-2 yards a grand total of 1,094 times.

That should give you an idea of the scale of your wrongness in this discussion.

While your post clearly contradicts the "feelings" of the other side, I don't believe using what the coaches do as decisions makes "our" side stronger. it is clear that the coaches make the wrong moves all the timeBTW, where did you get those stats?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

They're not any more predictable up by 8 than they would be up by 7.

Im thinking the other way... since the odds say you miss the 2 ptr and are now down by 9.

I know you're thinking that way. That's what's wrong with your argument. That's not meant as a slight to you or anything, it's human nature - you overweight the negative outcomes of the riskier proposition and the positive outcomes of the less-risky proposition. It's a well-known phenomenon - people naturally miscalculate the outcomes when faced with choices that involve risk. If the odds say you miss the 2 point conversion, then that applies whether you try it on your first TD or your next TD. In essence, you're saying, "Here are the bad things that can happen if you miss the 2-point conversion - thus you have to kick the PAT because then it's a one-possession game." Such an argument makes no sense. I might as well just say, "You have to go for 2 first, because then you're only down by 7. Otherwise if you wait until later, the odds are you'll miss the 2-point conversion with no time left to make up the deficit." That argument doesn't make any sense either, but it's the logical equivalent of the argument you and others are making.

 

[Liquid Tension]

There is not a similar benefit for the leading team; on virtually any fourth down they will punt or kick a field goal, whether they're up by 7, 8, or 9.

This is untrue. Down 7 or 8 the winning team is more likely to pass. Up 9 there is a huge incentive to go for 4th and short.

Really, how strong an incentive do you think that is? The incentive is so huge that since 2002, teams have gone for it on fourth and 1-2 yards, up 9 points, a grand total of 3 times.

Conversely, when down by 7, since 2002 teams have gone for it on fourth and 1-2 yards a grand total of 1,094 times.

That should give you an idea of the scale of your wrongness in this discussion.

Are we not assuming that the trailing team will score if the offensive team loses the ball? Earlier in this discussion I was told by the go for 2 crowd that if this isn't the case then the entire exercise is pointless. So yes, there is a huge incentive to go for it on 4th and short if you assume the opposing team will score. There is also an incentive to pass up 7 or 8 for that same reason. Most NFL teams don't assume the opposing team will march down the field in 2 minutes and score a TD.I am also unsure what you are trying to say about a team going for it on 4th down when they are trailing by 7. That is pretty common.

Since the 2pt conversion was introduced in 1994 there have been 64 instances where a team is down 15pts at the start of the 4th quarter. Out of those 64 instances only 1 trailing team won the game. They kicked first, converted 2pt second, and won in overtime.

There isn't a single instance of a team going for 2 first when down by 15 at the start of the 4th quarter and scoring the first TD.

In fact, the trailing team would only go for 2 if the winning team was allowed to score again. The smallest point differential was 18 pts. All the other instances of a team going for 2 after their 1st TD is if they got down by 20+ pts in the 4th quarter. When coaches had the opportunity to cut a 15 pt lead to a 8pt lead they always took that over trying to cut it to 7 with a 2pt conversion. So where your evidence that going for 2 first is a such a large incentive?

Actual game logs suggest that when the opportunity arises to make the game look like a 1 possession game (whether or not it will be a 1 possession game) the choice is to kick first.

As I said, what the coaches do is not what is correct. BB gets criticized for doing what was right, others would have gotten fired. The Detroit coach (can't remember which one), got crucified for kicking off in OT rather than receiving because the other team went down and kicked a GW FG...he got fired. But, anyone with a brain could see it was the right move. There was a lot of wind and in the entire game not one team scored against the wind; taking the wind was the correct choice, but he lost his job because the masses thought you never kick off in OT.As for your example, maybe more teams than 1 would have come back to win if they wold have gone for 2 first? So if every one of them followed your advice, only 1 out of 64 won...maybe your advice is simply wrong.

That being said, starting the 4th quarter is not really a good barometer because as I have said, the ONLY reason I could see someone choose to kick after the 1st score was if you felt 7 minutes was too long, but 5 was a better number for you. Personally, I don't think 7 is too long, but at least the persons thought process understands that kicking 1st is the way to go, they just draw the line at a different spot than i do. But 15 minutes left could be too far away to start with the 2 pointers.

 

[sn0mm1s]

There isn't a single instance of a team going for 2 first when down by 15 at the start of the 4th quarter and scoring the first TD....When coaches had the opportunity to cut a 15 pt lead to a 8pt lead they always took that over trying to cut it to 7 with a 2pt conversion. So where your evidence that going for 2 first is a such a large incentive?Actual game logs suggest that when the opportunity arises to make the game look like a 1 possession game (whether or not it will be a 1 possession game) the choice is to kick first.

No one disagrees. That's the point of this whole thread. NFL head coaches will always opt to kick the PAT; the question is whether or not that's the right decision.

Then CalBear's stats are irrelevant. Why is it that his stats on going for it on 4th down up 9 "prove" his point but my stats of NFL coaches *never* going for 2 first in the down by 15 situation just show that the coaches are wrong and the stats are invalid.

 

[sn0mm1s]

There is not a similar benefit for the leading team; on virtually any fourth down they will punt or kick a field goal, whether they're up by 7, 8, or 9.

This is untrue. Down 7 or 8 the winning team is more likely to pass. Up 9 there is a huge incentive to go for 4th and short.

Really, how strong an incentive do you think that is? The incentive is so huge that since 2002, teams have gone for it on fourth and 1-2 yards, up 9 points, a grand total of 3 times.

Conversely, when down by 7, since 2002 teams have gone for it on fourth and 1-2 yards a grand total of 1,094 times.

That should give you an idea of the scale of your wrongness in this discussion.

Are we not assuming that the trailing team will score if the offensive team loses the ball? Earlier in this discussion I was told by the go for 2 crowd that if this isn't the case then the entire exercise is pointless. So yes, there is a huge incentive to go for it on 4th and short if you assume the opposing team will score. There is also an incentive to pass up 7 or 8 for that same reason. Most NFL teams don't assume the opposing team will march down the field in 2 minutes and score a TD.I am also unsure what you are trying to say about a team going for it on 4th down when they are trailing by 7. That is pretty common.

Since the 2pt conversion was introduced in 1994 there have been 64 instances where a team is down 15pts at the start of the 4th quarter. Out of those 64 instances only 1 trailing team won the game. They kicked first, converted 2pt second, and won in overtime.

There isn't a single instance of a team going for 2 first when down by 15 at the start of the 4th quarter and scoring the first TD.

In fact, the trailing team would only go for 2 if the winning team was allowed to score again. The smallest point differential was 18 pts. All the other instances of a team going for 2 after their 1st TD is if they got down by 20+ pts in the 4th quarter. When coaches had the opportunity to cut a 15 pt lead to a 8pt lead they always took that over trying to cut it to 7 with a 2pt conversion. So where your evidence that going for 2 first is a such a large incentive?

Actual game logs suggest that when the opportunity arises to make the game look like a 1 possession game (whether or not it will be a 1 possession game) the choice is to kick first.

As I said, what the coaches do is not what is correct. BB gets criticized for doing what was right, others would have gotten fired.

1) Then the other stats thrown out to refute my side are pointless.2) BB plays as if he knows his D is going to give up points. He plays *exactly* the way I say a coach will play with the knowledge of what the other team needs/will do.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

There isn't a single instance of a team going for 2 first when down by 15 at the start of the 4th quarter and scoring the first TD.

...

When coaches had the opportunity to cut a 15 pt lead to a 8pt lead they always took that over trying to cut it to 7 with a 2pt conversion. So where your evidence that going for 2 first is a such a large incentive?

Actual game logs suggest that when the opportunity arises to make the game look like a 1 possession game (whether or not it will be a 1 possession game) the choice is to kick first.

No one disagrees. That's the point of this whole thread. NFL head coaches will always opt to kick the PAT; the question is whether or not that's the right decision.

Then CalBear's stats are irrelevant. Why is it that his stats on going for it on 4th down up 9 "prove" his point but my stats of NFL coaches *never* going for 2 first in the down by 15 situation just show that the coaches are wrong and the stats are invalid.

Because the tangent you were on was about what the opposing team will probably do on 4th down. So stats about what teams usually do on 4th down are relevant. If you were talking about what coaches should do on 4th down, then they wouldn't be, but that wasn't what you were talking about.If this thread was about what coaches will probably do after scoring a TD, down by 15 in the 4th quarter, stats on what coaches usually do in that situation would be relevant. Someone would have pointed out that coaches always kick the PAT in that situation, everyone would have agreed, and the thread would have died before getting to 20 posts. But that's not what this thread is about.

 

[CalBear]

Then CalBear's stats are irrelevant. Why is it that his stats on going for it on 4th down up 9 "prove" his point but my stats of NFL coaches *never* going for 2 first in the down by 15 situation just show that the coaches are wrong and the stats are invalid.

I am certainly not asserting that coaches always take the best option to help their team win; in fact I'm sure that's not true.However, I think it's highly unlikely that going for it on fourth down leading by 9 is significantly better for your team than going for it on fourth down leading by 8. Here's a scenario:

* Trailing team kicks off, you run three plays, and now it's fourth and one on your own 25 with 5:00 left. Punt or go for it?

If you go for it, success will give you another series, which will take 2:00 off the clock; if you punt, you move field position by about 35 yards. So the three possible results are:

1) Success. First and 10 at own 26. Most pertinent result, fourth down at own 30ish, 3:00 remaining.

2) Punt. On defense, first and 10 at opponent's 40.

3) Failure. On defense, first and 10 at own 25.

For your assertion to be correct, two things must be true: Result 1 must be significantly more valuable to the leading team than Result 2, because Result 3 is extremely bad. And, Result 1 must be significantly more valuable to a team up by 9 than a team up by 8.

The first part is necessary to make going for it the correct decision. The second part is necessary to make the knowledge of being up by 9 vs. up by 8 meaningful to the leading team.

Frankly, I don't think either part is correct; I think the risk of scenario 3 is high enough that punting is the correct decision for the leading team, whether up by 9 or up by 8. And I don't think that being up by 9 makes it a better choice than being up by 8; do you really want to risk giving a team down by 9 the ball already in field goal range?

 

[Matt Waldman]

The only way I go for two in this situation is if I have a huge mismatch with a great receiver or tight end one-on-one with a DB I know is hurting or has been replaced with a guy fresh off the bench. I might line up to see if I can get that mismatch and if I don't call a time out and bring the FG unit on.

You have to go for two at some point.The mismatch situation will not change when you're down by 2 with 10 seconds left and you MUST convert the two-pointer

Ummm, re-read what you quoted from me and I think you'll see that in fact the mismatch situation could change. The DB that was replaced due to injury might be back on the field. Another player might have gotten hurt. The defensive coordinator could have had a brain fart and decided to take a strategy that had an easy answer for the offense. I'd prefer to get the easy 7 first, but if my opponent gives me the opportunity to make an easy two, I'd at least be open to seeing if it comes available.

Being willing to blow a TO for this chance is undoubtedly the most ridiculous thing of the many ridiculous things posted in this thread. Sorry, cause I really like your stuff!

No worries. I don't see anything ridiculous about it. If I have three TO's, I'd consider it at that point. Why try to save every crumb of methods at your disposal until the game might be out of reach? Being down by 15 at that point, I'm focused on getting that first 7-8 points only. Otherwise, I'm hording my resources unnecessarily. Now If I only had 2 TO's at that point, I'd just kick the FG and move on with it.

 

[SSOG]

All I've heard is basically the same as what you wrote above- "Likewise, even if both coaches gain an equal amount of information when you go for 2 early, the trailing team receives a disproportionately large benefit from that information, resulting in a net advantage." There is nothing here describing "why" this is the case, it's just an opinion.

Many different people have said why this is the case. Since you seemed to have missed it the first 10 times it was said, I'll say it an 11th time- the leading team's goal is to run out the clock. This is true whether they're up by 7 or by 9 or by 8 or by 64. Knowing whether it's a 7 point lead or a 9 point lead or an 8 point lead might lead to small tactical shifts, but the overall strategy is exactly the same in all instances. In all instances, their goal is to ensure that the other team has 0 more possessions. The added knowledge provides very little benefit to the leading team, because their strategy remains constant. It provides a very large benefit to the trailing team, because their strategy changes completely. If a team is down by 8, they're trying their best to ensure that there is only 1 possession left in the game. If a team is down by 9, they are trying their best to ensure that there are 2 possessions left in the game. Since the added knowledge results in a much greater strategic shift for the trailing team than for the leading team, the added knowledge provides a disproportionate benefit to the trailing team compared to the leading team. It results in greater changes in playcalling and philosophy for the trailing team than it does for the leading team.

So NFL owners would rather keep coaches who give their teams a worse chance at winning and fire coaches who give them a better chance to win- is that what you're saying?Are you completely dismissing the argument that NFL teams have done more research on this than we have?

You know, that's exactly what people were saying to Bill James when he dared to suggest that MLB teams were not being run efficiently...

My null hypothesis is that "momentum" has a trivial impact on games at a professional level. I invite anyone to provide enough data to reject my null hypothesis.

Data for momentum? trivial?

NFL players are grown men. They're professionals. They've been playing football for 10-20 years. They've been down late in the game dozens of times before. They aren't going to sit on the sidelines and cry and pout and paint their nails and do their hair up in pigtails if they happen to be down by 9 points instead of by 7 points. If we're talking about 9 year old kids playing Pop Warner, then yeah, I think momentum and emotion are going to be overwhelming factors in the outcome in the game... but a clash between a hundred grown professionals who have seen everything under the sun already? Yes, I think the impact of "momentum" or "emotion" is trivial.If momentum is a real phenomenon that has a tangible impact on the game, then there should be plenty of data to support that. For instance, when a team comes back from a double digit deficit to tie the game in the 4th quarter, what is that team's winning percentage? That team has all the "momentum", so if "momentum" is a real phenomenon with a tangible impact, then they should have a pretty solid winning percentage, right?

I went ahead and looked up some data to try to measure how valuable "momentum" is. Consider the following:From 2000-2009, there were 26 games where Team A took a 14-0 lead, and then Team B scored 14 straight points to come back and tie it. Clearly, in those games team B had the "momentum". You know what Team B's record was in those 26 games? 10 wins, 16 losses. That's how valuable "momentum" was for those teams.

 

[Choke]

I went ahead and looked up some data to try to measure how valuable "momentum" is. Consider the following:

From 2000-2009, there were 26 games where Team A took a 14-0 lead, and then Team B scored 14 straight points to come back and tie it. Clearly, in those games team B had the "momentum". You know what Team B's record was in those 26 games? 10 wins, 16 losses. That's how valuable "momentum" was for those teams.

Thats not clear.You will have plenty of shifts. 14-14 in the 3rd quarter isnt the same as crunch time.

And as funny as it may sound>>>Its about giving yourself the best chance to win. Not just the win-loss outcome of some parses.

 

[humpback]

All I've heard is basically the same as what you wrote above- "Likewise, even if both coaches gain an equal amount of information when you go for 2 early, the trailing team receives a disproportionately large benefit from that information, resulting in a net advantage." There is nothing here describing "why" this is the case, it's just an opinion.

Many different people have said why this is the case. Since you seemed to have missed it the first 10 times it was said, I'll say it an 11th time- the leading team's goal is to run out the clock. This is true whether they're up by 7 or by 9 or by 8 or by 64. Knowing whether it's a 7 point lead or a 9 point lead or an 8 point lead might lead to small tactical shifts, but the overall strategy is exactly the same in all instances. In all instances, their goal is to ensure that the other team has 0 more possessions. The added knowledge provides very little benefit to the leading team, because their strategy remains constant. It provides a very large benefit to the trailing team, because their strategy changes completely. If a team is down by 8, they're trying their best to ensure that there is only 1 possession left in the game. If a team is down by 9, they are trying their best to ensure that there are 2 possessions left in the game. Since the added knowledge results in a much greater strategic shift for the trailing team than for the leading team, the added knowledge provides a disproportionate benefit to the trailing team compared to the leading team. It results in greater changes in playcalling and philosophy for the trailing team than it does for the leading team.

For the 100th time, this is ONLY your opinion. The goal is to WIN THE GAME- running out the clock is one of many possible strategies employed to try and reach your goal of winning the game, but that isn't the "goal" by itself. You don't win by running out the clock, you win by scoring more points than your opponent.And for the 100th time, even if you could prove that the trailing team would adjust their strategy much more (you can't), you haven't proven that to be an advantage. Not one single piece of evidence to even suggest that it is an advantage, besides you guys saying "it's obvious". Can you show us how the hypothetical "greater changes in playcalling and philosophy for the trailing team than it does for the leading team" results in an actual tangible advantage for them? Not one single thing you've written is backed up by anything besides your opinion. Sorry, but I disagree with it.

I'm all ears, but unsubstantiated opinions do not prove anything. If you can show that teams going for it early in this situation have a higher success rate than teams waiting to go for it, then you may have something. Until then, it's all just idle speculation.

 

[CalBear]

And for the 100th time, even if you could prove that the trailing team would adjust their strategy much more (you can't), you haven't proven that to be an advantage. Not one single piece of evidence to even suggest that it is an advantage, besides you guys saying "it's obvious". Can you show us how the hypothetical "greater changes in playcalling and philosophy for the trailing team than it does for the leading team" results in an actual tangible advantage for them? Not one single thing you've written is backed up by anything besides your opinion. Sorry, but I disagree with it.

I've given a concrete example multiple times in this thread. Are you suggesting that there's zero value to knowing whether you need one possession or two?

 

[Jersey35]

All I've heard is basically the same as what you wrote above- "Likewise, even if both coaches gain an equal amount of information when you go for 2 early, the trailing team receives a disproportionately large benefit from that information, resulting in a net advantage." There is nothing here describing "why" this is the case, it's just an opinion.

Many different people have said why this is the case. Since you seemed to have missed it the first 10 times it was said, I'll say it an 11th time- the leading team's goal is to run out the clock. This is true whether they're up by 7 or by 9 or by 8 or by 64. Knowing whether it's a 7 point lead or a 9 point lead or an 8 point lead might lead to small tactical shifts, but the overall strategy is exactly the same in all instances. In all instances, their goal is to ensure that the other team has 0 more possessions. The added knowledge provides very little benefit to the leading team, because their strategy remains constant. It provides a very large benefit to the trailing team, because their strategy changes completely. If a team is down by 8, they're trying their best to ensure that there is only 1 possession left in the game. If a team is down by 9, they are trying their best to ensure that there are 2 possessions left in the game. Since the added knowledge results in a much greater strategic shift for the trailing team than for the leading team, the added knowledge provides a disproportionate benefit to the trailing team compared to the leading team. It results in greater changes in playcalling and philosophy for the trailing team than it does for the leading team.

For the 100th time, this is ONLY your opinion. The goal is to WIN THE GAME- running out the clock is one of many possible strategies employed to try and reach your goal of winning the game, but that isn't the "goal" by itself. You don't win by running out the clock, you win by scoring more points than your opponent.And for the 100th time, even if you could prove that the trailing team would adjust their strategy much more (you can't), you haven't proven that to be an advantage. Not one single piece of evidence to even suggest that it is an advantage, besides you guys saying "it's obvious". Can you show us how the hypothetical "greater changes in playcalling and philosophy for the trailing team than it does for the leading team" results in an actual tangible advantage for them? Not one single thing you've written is backed up by anything besides your opinion. Sorry, but I disagree with it.

I'm all ears, but unsubstantiated opinions do not prove anything. If you can show that teams going for it early in this situation have a higher success rate than teams waiting to go for it, then you may have something. Until then, it's all just idle speculation.

This is truly embarrassing. Do you mean to suggest that you aren't aware that coaches adjust their playcalling based on how far they are behind and how much time remains?Nobody has an answer for my previous question? How much time do you think it is reasonable to expect remains on the clock when the trailing team that kicks first scores the potentially tying TD?

 

[humpback]

This is truly embarrassing. Do you mean to suggest that you aren't aware that coaches adjust their playcalling based on how far they are behind and how much time remains?

Don't be embarrased. Yes, I'm aware that coaches adjust their playcalling based on how far they are behind and how much time remains. I'm also aware that coaches adjust their playcalling based on how far they are ahead and how much time remains. I am not aware which team makes more adjustments, and more importantly, I'm not aware that making more adjustments provides a clear advantage to either team. If you don't understand that, then you should be embarrassed.

I've given a concrete example multiple times in this thread. Are you suggesting that there's zero value to knowing whether you need one possession or two?

There absolutely is value- value to both sides obviously. Are you suggesting that there's zero value to the leading team in knowing whether they lead by one or two possessions?

 

[Jersey35]

Are we not assuming that the trailing team will score if the offensive team loses the ball? Earlier in this discussion I was told by the go for 2 crowd that if this isn't the case then the entire exercise is pointless. So yes, there is a huge incentive to go for it on 4th and short if you assume the opposing team will score. There is also an incentive to pass up 7 or 8 for that same reason. Most NFL teams don't assume the opposing team will march down the field in 2 minutes and score a TD.

This quote really demonstrates an example of how some of the kick it crowd are ill-equipped to debate this. It should be obvious to you that for the purposes of our discussion that WE must assume that the trailing team is put in a position to tie or win the game at some point. Because that is the only scenario where any of this discussion come into play.That this is COMPLETELY different from suggesting that the LEADING TEAM assumes this should be just as obvious. If it isn't to you, then you might want to start by figuring that out first.

 

[Jersey35]

So Hump, when the trailing team scores the potentially tying TD, and is about to go for the conversion, down two, about how much time do you think is reasonable to expect remains on the clock?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Since the 2pt conversion was introduced in 1994 there have been 64 instances where a team is down 15pts at the start of the 4th quarter. Out of those 64 instances only 1 trailing team won the game. They kicked first, converted 2pt second, and won in overtime.

There isn't a single instance of a team going for 2 first when down by 15 at the start of the 4th quarter and scoring the first TD.

In fact, the trailing team would only go for 2 if the winning team was allowed to score again. The smallest point differential was 18 pts. All the other instances of a team going for 2 after their 1st TD is if they got down by 20+ pts in the 4th quarter. When coaches had the opportunity to cut a 15 pt lead to a 8pt lead they always took that over trying to cut it to 7 with a 2pt conversion.

Again, if you are a coach doing this... you will end up a talking head sitting next to Matt Millen and Steve Young... and fitting right in.

I read the first page and then skipped to page 11. Are we really arguing that a strategy that was successful once in sixty four tries provides such a preferable motivation factor to the team that one could not dare try something else?

 

[Jersey35]

Since the 2pt conversion was introduced in 1994 there have been 64 instances where a team is down 15pts at the start of the 4th quarter. Out of those 64 instances only 1 trailing team won the game. They kicked first, converted 2pt second, and won in overtime.

There isn't a single instance of a team going for 2 first when down by 15 at the start of the 4th quarter and scoring the first TD.

In fact, the trailing team would only go for 2 if the winning team was allowed to score again. The smallest point differential was 18 pts. All the other instances of a team going for 2 after their 1st TD is if they got down by 20+ pts in the 4th quarter. When coaches had the opportunity to cut a 15 pt lead to a 8pt lead they always took that over trying to cut it to 7 with a 2pt conversion.

Again, if you are a coach doing this... you will end up a talking head sitting next to Matt Millen and Steve Young... and fitting right in.

I read the first page and then skipped to page 11. Are we really arguing that a strategy that was successful once in sixty four tries provides such a preferable motivation factor to the team that one could not dare try something else?

Exactly. Taking into account, that your chances of winning are still slim down 14 at this point in the game, perhaps if coaches relied more on statistical analysis, rather than "gut", the success rate would be a bit higher.

 

[humpback]

So Hump, when the trailing team scores the potentially tying TD, and is about to go for the conversion, down two, about how much time do you think is reasonable to expect remains on the clock?

Try not to twist what I say this time, okay?It's impossible to really say, which is the main reason why I'd probably kick first- too many variables with 7 minutes left. I don't think you could expect more than 3-4 minutes or so (although it certainly could happen).

 

[Choke]

Since the 2pt conversion was introduced in 1994 there have been 64 instances where a team is down 15pts at the start of the 4th quarter. Out of those 64 instances only 1 trailing team won the game. They kicked first, converted 2pt second, and won in overtime.

There isn't a single instance of a team going for 2 first when down by 15 at the start of the 4th quarter and scoring the first TD.

In fact, the trailing team would only go for 2 if the winning team was allowed to score again. The smallest point differential was 18 pts. All the other instances of a team going for 2 after their 1st TD is if they got down by 20+ pts in the 4th quarter. When coaches had the opportunity to cut a 15 pt lead to a 8pt lead they always took that over trying to cut it to 7 with a 2pt conversion.

Again, if you are a coach doing this... you will end up a talking head sitting next to Matt Millen and Steve Young... and fitting right in.

I read the first page and then skipped to page 11. Are we really arguing that a strategy that was successful once in sixty four tries provides such a preferable motivation factor to the team that one could not dare try something else?

Not really. You can dare. But almost all of the people who coach football for a living are of the full belief that is the dead wrong decision.

HS. College. NFL. Some of these coaches even have complete job security no matter what they do.

 

[humpback]

Exactly. Taking into account, that your chances of winning are still slim down 14 at this point in the game, perhaps if coaches relied more on statistical analysis, rather than "gut", the success rate would be a bit higher.

What statistical analysis are you talking about?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Since the 2pt conversion was introduced in 1994 there have been 64 instances where a team is down 15pts at the start of the 4th quarter. Out of those 64 instances only 1 trailing team won the game. They kicked first, converted 2pt second, and won in overtime.

There isn't a single instance of a team going for 2 first when down by 15 at the start of the 4th quarter and scoring the first TD.

In fact, the trailing team would only go for 2 if the winning team was allowed to score again. The smallest point differential was 18 pts. All the other instances of a team going for 2 after their 1st TD is if they got down by 20+ pts in the 4th quarter. When coaches had the opportunity to cut a 15 pt lead to a 8pt lead they always took that over trying to cut it to 7 with a 2pt conversion.

Again, if you are a coach doing this... you will end up a talking head sitting next to Matt Millen and Steve Young... and fitting right in.

I read the first page and then skipped to page 11. Are we really arguing that a strategy that was successful once in sixty four tries provides such a preferable motivation factor to the team that one could not dare try something else?

Not really. You can dare. But almost all of the people who coach football for a living are of the full belief that is the dead wrong decision.

HS. College. NFL. Some of these coaches even have complete job security no matter what they do.

They all follow "the book" of not going for two until they have to in order to avoid being asked the question of why did you go against the book. You posted yourself that this is the strategy most likely to keep a head coaching job. You are correct. But the notion that losing your one in sixty four shot of winning is too much to risk for a shot of being seven down?.

 

[Jersey35]

So Hump, when the trailing team scores the potentially tying TD, and is about to go for the conversion, down two, about how much time do you think is reasonable to expect remains on the clock?

Try not to twist what I say this time, okay?It's impossible to really say, which is the main reason why I'd probably kick first- too many variables with 7 minutes left. I don't think you could expect more than 3-4 minutes or so (although it certainly could happen).

I'll do my best.So you don't think that, driving for the tie, they would most likely attempt to limit the amount of time the other team has remaining for a chance to break the tie? In pretty much every game I've watched with a team driving for the tie, they've attempted to leave as little time remaining as possible. Usually under a minute or less. Do you disagree?

 

[Choke]

They all follow "the book" of not going for two until they have to in order to avoid being asked the question of why did you go against the book. You posted yourself that this is the strategy most likely to keep a head coaching job. You are correct. But the notion that losing your one in sixty four shot of winning is too much to risk for a shot of being seven down?.

Dont forget.... Its the best strategy to win. With 7 minutes left, down by 9 and with the extra point looming.As I stated, many of these guys have total job security. I work with one, in fact. The CityCollege would never fire him for football decisions.