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

[Jersey35]

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?

Well, for starters, the fact that, as snommis pointed out, the current success rate for "doing it by the book" is about 1.5%

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Dont forget.... Its the best strategy to win. With 7 minutes left, down by 9 and with the extra point looming.

"Everyone does it" in the coaching profession is hardly evidence that the coaches are utilizing the best strategy to win.

 

[Choke]

Dont forget.... Its the best strategy to win. With 7 minutes left, down by 9 and with the extra point looming.

"Everyone does it" in the coaching profession is hardly evidence that the coaches are utilizing the best strategy to win.

Thats not the argument.I was just pointing out that those who dont see the folly in such a move, end up next to Millen in the booth.

It was a quip. Dont get stuck on it.

 

[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).

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?

So now you're using what the teams/coaches do as evidence to support your claim, but dismiss it as irrelevant when it doesn't?I think it depends on the circumstances. Their primary focus is to score the TD no matter how much time they leave on the clock- they can't win without that. If they only have 2 minutes or so when they get the ball back, then yes, they are most likely going to try and score with as little time left as possible because they know they realistically only have one shot at it. If they have 5 minutes left, maybe not- they can try to leave themselves a chance to get the ball back if they can't score the TD on that drive, or if they do score but miss the 2 pt. conversion.

 

[humpback]

What statistical analysis are you talking about?

Well, for starters, the fact that, as snommis pointed out, the current success rate for "doing it by the book" is about 1.5%

If we go with those numbers (not the same exact situation but probably the closest thing we can find), having a low success rate proves that a strategy that has never been tried is clearly better?Do you have any real statistical evidence?

 

[sn0mm1s]

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.

Sigh, I am done with this. It is like arguing with a brick wall. For some reason the leading team doesn't care if they are up by 1 or 2 or 10 possessions - their playcalling never changes. They do exactly what is best for the trailing team and the trailing team's moves are so obvious that the leading team is blindsided by the trailing team's utter predictability. The go for 2 strategy is so obvious that there isn't a single instance of it happening since the 2pt conversion was added into the NFL.

 

[CalBear]

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?

I am asserting and providing evidence that the value is much greater to the trailing team than the leading team. You seem to have ignored it.

 

[humpback]

I am asserting and providing evidence that the value is much greater to the trailing team than the leading team. You seem to have ignored it.

I'm really not trying to be difficult- can you spell out the actual evidence for me? All I recall are opinions why it's much greater, but zero actual concrete evidence showing that to be the case.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Let's say you have the ball at your own 30 yard line. There are four minutes left in the 4th quarter. You have two timeouts left. You're losing by 8. How do you approach that drive?

 

[humpback]

Let's say you have the ball at your own 30 yard line. There are four minutes left in the 4th quarter. You have two timeouts left. You're losing by 8. How do you approach that drive?

We're risking going off on another tangent here, but again, "it depends". What are my strengths and weaknesses? What are my opponents strengths and weaknesses? Have I had more success running or passing today? Is weather a factor? Injuries? Etc.As a head coach, I know I have to score at least 8 pts. If that comes with 2:30 left or :30 left, I can't be overly concerned with that. If it works out that there isn't much time left when I do, all the better, but I can't adjust my gameplan to focus on that if it gives me any less of a chance at scoring the 8 pts. My approach would be whatever I feel gives me the best chance to do that under the circumstances.

 

[CalBear]

I am asserting and providing evidence that the value is much greater to the trailing team than the leading team. You seem to have ignored it.

I'm really not trying to be difficult- can you spell out the actual evidence for me? All I recall are opinions why it's much greater, but zero actual concrete evidence showing that to be the case.

I gave a scenario of having fourth and 1 at the 25 with 2:30 left and one timeout--a plausible scenario that mirrors a lot of other potential situations. Everyone agrees that down 7, you go for it, and down 9, you kick the FG. That's a concrete example where knowing whether you need one possession or two is crucial. The consensus is that down 8, you go for it, but if you're in that situation, and you get the TD but miss the 2-point conversion, you would have been better off kicking the FG.It does not seem plausible that there are similar crucial decisions for the leading team which will be affected by being up 7 or up 9.

 

[Liquid Tension]

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.

As are your stats that you used to prove your point...although worthless may not be fair on either side. What I would say is that they are not statistically valid based on what the most important factors in making this decision are...I have stated what those most important summation factors are on numerous times, so I won't repeat it

 

[Liquid Tension]

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?

Please just answer (you or anyone) the same question that nobody has answered and that is what scenario is better?

1) You are about to kick off with 30 seconds left and you are down by 2 points

2) you are about to kick off and are down by 9 with 7 minutes left

All the other stuff is trying to cloud the important question and everyone is debating items that are hard to quantify and honestly if I look at make it MORE likely that I would go for 2 earlier because if anything a team in the lead would allow me to get the ball back quicker by going conservative even if they take more time off the clock...and then I may even win the game. But again, it is all less irrelevant than the question at hand. if you think the answer is #2 then you go for it early, if you think the answer is #1 then you go for it late.

All the rest is like a politician trying to cloud the question with more questions...stick to the core of what is important because all the rest is not as relevant.

 

[humpback]

I am asserting and providing evidence that the value is much greater to the trailing team than the leading team. You seem to have ignored it.

I'm really not trying to be difficult- can you spell out the actual evidence for me? All I recall are opinions why it's much greater, but zero actual concrete evidence showing that to be the case.

I gave a scenario of having fourth and 1 at the 25 with 2:30 left and one timeout--a plausible scenario that mirrors a lot of other potential situations. Everyone agrees that down 7, you go for it, and down 9, you kick the FG. That's a concrete example where knowing whether you need one possession or two is crucial. The consensus is that down 8, you go for it, but if you're in that situation, and you get the TD but miss the 2-point conversion, you would have been better off kicking the FG.It does not seem plausible that there are similar crucial decisions for the leading team which will be affected by being up 7 or up 9.

Do you see the hypocrisy here? You're saying that "everyone agrees" in your scenario above, which somehow proves your point, but the fact that most in this poll and every coach has agreed to kick it first doesn't mean anything? You can't have it both ways.I agree, 4th and 1 at the 25 with 2:30 and 1 timeout is plausable, however it's still an unlikely scenario. Chances are, you won't be faced with that. There are any number of plausable scenarios that you might be in with 7 minutes left, which is why it's virtually impossible to consider them all. Since you seem to be fixated on hypotheticals, here's one where I think it benefits the leading team- 4th and 3 at the opponents 33 yard line. I think knowing whether you're up 7, 8, or 9 in that situation is pretty valuable to the leading team, although I'm still not trying to say it gives them an obvious advantage. I can come up with plenty more, but I don't think it's really relevant.Also, and this is the key point still, I haven't seen how knowing that information provides an obvious advantage to the trailing team. I get it, it's intuitive that the trailing team gets the advantage because they "know" what they need, but I haven't seen any concrete evidence that shows that to be an actual advantage. Changing your playcalling, or getting some more yards or first downs (if you could show that) isn't by itself an advantage.Like I said, the best way to support your position would be to show how teams going for it first have come back to force overtime (or win) at a higher rate than those who have kicked first. If they haven't, I don't see how you can claim it's an obvious advantage to them.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

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.

Sorry, but the bolded part is incorrect. If a team leads by 9, their goal is just to prevent the other team from getting TWO possessions, not one or zero.

A team leading by 7 or 8 doesn't want the other team to get the ball at all - but if the team leads by nine, punting is not the end of the world as that team cannot tie without an onsides kick at a minimum.

 

[Liquid Tension]

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.

Choke, this is As SSOG pointed out (although one could argue that it was Billy Beane using the work of Bill James) that all the great minds in baseball had it wrong and many still do as they would use the wrong stats and not understand how to implement them. Why is batting average even the stat shown? It should all be about OPS as batting average tells you very little. It is like looking at completions for a QB...it really doesn't tell you anything, unless you hit .400 then you are guaranteed of at least being good.Also, it has been shown that these college coaches always go 2nd in OT because they want to know what they need and then adjust accordingly...OFF subject, can someone tell me the % of wins for teh teams going last in college? I might want to start a new thread

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

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.

Sorry, but the bolded part is incorrect. If a team leads by 9, their goal is just to prevent the other team from getting TWO possessions, not one or zero.

A team leading by 7 or 8 doesn't want the other team to get the ball at all - but if the team leads by nine, punting is not the end of the world as that team cannot tie without an onsides kick at a minimum.

And this works to the advantage of the trailing team.

 

[humpback]

Please just answer (you or anyone) the same question that nobody has answered and that is what scenario is better?1) You are about to kick off with 30 seconds left and you are down by 2 points2) you are about to kick off and are down by 9 with 7 minutes leftAll the other stuff is trying to cloud the important question and everyone is debating items that are hard to quantify and honestly if I look at make it MORE likely that I would go for 2 earlier because if anything a team in the lead would allow me to get the ball back quicker by going conservative even if they take more time off the clock...and then I may even win the game. But again, it is all less irrelevant than the question at hand. if you think the answer is #2 then you go for it early, if you think the answer is #1 then you go for it late. All the rest is like a politician trying to cloud the question with more questions...stick to the core of what is important because all the rest is not as relevant.

I don't know which scenario is better- I haven't tried to find the data to back up either option, partly because these are only 2 of several possible scenarios. My "preference" would be influenced by other factors (besides past data) as well.

 

[CalBear]

I am asserting and providing evidence that the value is much greater to the trailing team than the leading team. You seem to have ignored it.

I'm really not trying to be difficult- can you spell out the actual evidence for me? All I recall are opinions why it's much greater, but zero actual concrete evidence showing that to be the case.

I gave a scenario of having fourth and 1 at the 25 with 2:30 left and one timeout--a plausible scenario that mirrors a lot of other potential situations. Everyone agrees that down 7, you go for it, and down 9, you kick the FG. That's a concrete example where knowing whether you need one possession or two is crucial. The consensus is that down 8, you go for it, but if you're in that situation, and you get the TD but miss the 2-point conversion, you would have been better off kicking the FG.It does not seem plausible that there are similar crucial decisions for the leading team which will be affected by being up 7 or up 9.

Do you see the hypocrisy here? You're saying that "everyone agrees" in your scenario above, which somehow proves your point, but the fact that most in this poll and every coach has agreed to kick it first doesn't mean anything? You can't have it both ways.

Let me put it this way: I believe the expected value of kicking the FG on fourth and 1 at the 25, down 9, is higher than the expected value of going for it in the same situation, and the expected value of going for it, down 7, is higher than the expected value of kicking the FG. Obviously you can't have experimental evidence because the scenario is rare and the data are therefore sparse. I am sure that if you did the math based on Romer's numbers that those two decisions would come out to be clearly correct.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

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.

Sorry, but the bolded part is incorrect. If a team leads by 9, their goal is just to prevent the other team from getting TWO possessions, not one or zero.

A team leading by 7 or 8 doesn't want the other team to get the ball at all - but if the team leads by nine, punting is not the end of the world as that team cannot tie without an onsides kick at a minimum.

And this works to the advantage of the trailing team.

How's that?If Team A gets the ball leading by 9 with 7:00 left (Team B just scored, missed 2-pts, and kicks off) - Team A will be more inclined to run the ball and chew up clock. If they lead by 7 or 8 they are more apt to play for a longer possession and throw, which could lead to both more turnovers and / or clock stoppages.

What advantage are you stating?

 

[humpback]

Let me put it this way: I believe the expected value of kicking the FG on fourth and 1 at the 25, down 9, is higher than the expected value of going for it in the same situation, and the expected value of going for it, down 7, is higher than the expected value of kicking the FG. Obviously you can't have experimental evidence because the scenario is rare and the data are therefore sparse. I am sure that if you did the math based on Romer's numbers that those two decisions would come out to be clearly correct.

That's fine, I can go along with that opinion. Likewise, I believe knowing that information is valuable for the leading team in my hypothetical (and many others), but neither proves any quantifiable advantage overall. These are only 2 (unlikely) scenarios out of several possibilities as it is.I've said from the start that there is no "correct" answer to this question. I don't have a problem with people saying they "think" the better option is to go for 2 early, or that they would rather know early if they were in that situation. What I have an issue with is the numerous claims that there is some enormous advantage to the trailing team that is so obvious you'd have to live in a cave to not be able to see it, and anyone who thinks otherwise is dead wrong.

 

[TobiasFunke]

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.

Sorry, but the bolded part is incorrect. If a team leads by 9, their goal is just to prevent the other team from getting TWO possessions, not one or zero.

A team leading by 7 or 8 doesn't want the other team to get the ball at all - but if the team leads by nine, punting is not the end of the world as that team cannot tie without an onsides kick at a minimum.

And this works to the advantage of the trailing team.

How's that?If Team A gets the ball leading by 9 with 7:00 left (Team B just scored, missed 2-pts, and kicks off) - Team A will be more inclined to run the ball and chew up clock. If they lead by 7 or 8 they are more apt to play for a longer possession and throw, which could lead to both more turnovers and / or clock stoppages.

What advantage are you stating?

I can't believe this is still going on.Here's the deal- we can all agree that going for two early is a question of having more information on the one hand, vs. giving your opponent that same information and also potentially discouraging your team if they know need to get the ball twice in order to tie or win (as opposed to thinking that they could potentially tie the game on the next drive, although of course they will since they don't know if they'll convert on the two point try). So we've got two sides to this:

The advantages of gaining the information early for the trailing team should be obvious-if you succeed, your team gets a huge morale boost by knowing that they're only down 7 and likely to tie the game with a TD instead only having a 45% or so chance to tie the game with a TD; if you miss the try, you can kick a field goal if you have a 4th down in the red zone on your next attempt; you can use your timeouts accordingly; you can take risks on defense; you know that you need to move quickly on your next possession since you'll need to both score and get the ball back a third time, the other team is slightly more likely to just run the ball to kill clock and thus make it easy to defend and get the ball back, and so on.

On the other hand, the advantages of "hiding" the information by kick the XP and waiting for the two point try are less obvious to me, but others seem to think they're also obvious. I'll try to summarize them, but someone who likes this option can feel free to add or improve: if you try for two early and fail, your team will be demoralized and this will negatively impact them going forward; if you fail then the other team can be extra-careful to run the ball and kill clock and not turn it over, thus hurting your attempts to get a 3-and-out or a turnover ... anything else?

Now, in my opinion, the advantages gained by the trailing team in the first scenario so vastly outweigh the advantages gained by the trailing team in the second scenario that it seems like an obvious answer. But I can recognize that some people might disagree if they really think the morale issues and the leading team's play choice are important factors.

Regardless of which camp you fall into, it seems some people are just totally discounting one side or the other. What I see more of IMO is people who seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge the strategic advantage to the trailing team because making it a "one score game" holds some magical allure and that's the end of the analysis, but I'm sure there's people on the other side failing to acknowledge the advantages of kicking the XP first. But ultimately, you want to have the argument, you at least need to acknowledge that there are arguments on the other side, and then try to argue that the advantages to your choice outweigh the advantages to the other choice.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Please just answer (you or anyone) the same question that nobody has answered and that is what scenario is better?1) You are about to kick off with 30 seconds left and you are down by 2 points2) you are about to kick off and are down by 9 with 7 minutes leftAll the other stuff is trying to cloud the important question and everyone is debating items that are hard to quantify and honestly if I look at make it MORE likely that I would go for 2 earlier because if anything a team in the lead would allow me to get the ball back quicker by going conservative even if they take more time off the clock...and then I may even win the game. But again, it is all less irrelevant than the question at hand. if you think the answer is #2 then you go for it early, if you think the answer is #1 then you go for it late. All the rest is like a politician trying to cloud the question with more questions...stick to the core of what is important because all the rest is not as relevant.

I don't know which scenario is better- I haven't tried to find the data to back up either option, partly because these are only 2 of several possible scenarios. My "preference" would be influenced by other factors (besides past data) as well.

You must be a politician...stop with the subterfuge and just use your own logic and just take a stab at what scenario would you rather be in?

 

[Liquid Tension]

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.

Sorry, but the bolded part is incorrect. If a team leads by 9, their goal is just to prevent the other team from getting TWO possessions, not one or zero.

A team leading by 7 or 8 doesn't want the other team to get the ball at all - but if the team leads by nine, punting is not the end of the world as that team cannot tie without an onsides kick at a minimum.

And this works to the advantage of the trailing team.

How's that?If Team A gets the ball leading by 9 with 7:00 left (Team B just scored, missed 2-pts, and kicks off) - Team A will be more inclined to run the ball and chew up clock. If they lead by 7 or 8 they are more apt to play for a longer possession and throw, which could lead to both more turnovers and / or clock stoppages.

What advantage are you stating?

Jeff, you are missing something here. A team being conservative by nature will get the ball back in the other teams hands quicker because they don;t want to turn it over and they will run 3 times to take time off the clock or R,R, P to try and keep the drive alive assuming they do want to take that risk.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

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.

Sorry, but the bolded part is incorrect. If a team leads by 9, their goal is just to prevent the other team from getting TWO possessions, not one or zero.

A team leading by 7 or 8 doesn't want the other team to get the ball at all - but if the team leads by nine, punting is not the end of the world as that team cannot tie without an onsides kick at a minimum.

And this works to the advantage of the trailing team.

How's that?If Team A gets the ball leading by 9 with 7:00 left (Team B just scored, missed 2-pts, and kicks off) - Team A will be more inclined to run the ball and chew up clock. If they lead by 7 or 8 they are more apt to play for a longer possession and throw, which could lead to both more turnovers and / or clock stoppages.

What advantage are you stating?

We had this discussion on earlier pages - it's much more subjective than the main point of the debate, but if I'm trailing in the 4th quarter, I'd rather have my opponent run-run-run-punt than come out throwing and possibly making more of an effort to tack more points on the board. Yes, it will take more time off the clock and less likely to result in turnovers, but I think on average a more conservative approach by my opponent gives me a better chance of getting the ball back. Remember, there are 7 minutes left at this point, not 2. If I need to make a stop on defense, I'm ok with the opposition going uberconservative and punting the ball back to me. But as I said, that's just a matter of preference, and it's totally debatable. Clearly, knowing whether they're down by 7 or 9, as opposed to 8, is very useful information for the trailing team. I think one person might have tried to argue against that, without much success. Finding out as soon as possible whether you only need one more score or two completely changes how you approach the final seven minutes of the game - it tells you how you need to manage the clock, it allows you to make proper decisions on 3rd and 4th downs, etc. Down by 8 you're basically blind - you might be wasting precious time you'll need later, or you might be conserving too much time for the opponent. On 4th and 3 in the red zone, do you go for it or kick the FG? Down by 8 there's no way to know what the right answer to those questions are. Down by 7 or 9, those answers are much more obvious.

So most people recognize that it's a tremendous benefit to the trailing team to get that information. The only real debate has been whether the benefits they derive from that knowledge are greater than, lesser than, or equal to any kind of benefit that the team in the lead would derive from having that information. Personally, I see hardly any benefit the leading team gets, let alone one big enough to outweigh the benefit gained by the trailing team. Yes, they will probably change up their philosophy a bit if they're up by 9 rather than 7 or 8, but it's easily debatable whether that's even a good thing for them or not. And even if it is, I don't see how it's even close to being an advantage on the scale of the advantage gained by the trailing team by going for two early.

 

[humpback]

You must be a politician...stop with the subterfuge and just use your own logic and just take a stab at what scenario would you rather be in?

Ooohh, good one. I was just telling you that maybe the reason no one has answered your question is because it doesn't matter.Like I said, my preference would depend on the circumstances. If my offense has been playing well, I might prefer to be down 9 with 7 minutes. If they've struggled, I might prefer to be down 2 with 30 seconds. Obviously there are dozens of other scenarios which are all just as plausable, so it's another pointless hypothetical. If it makes you feel better, you can put me down for choice #1, and tell me how wrong I am.

 

[Sam Quentin]

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.

so if you kick, odds are you are still down two scores.

 

[Sam Quentin]

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.

I would argue that if you elect not to defer the 2 pt try unless you feel 100% confident that you are going to get it, beacuse if you miss on the 2nd TD, you will certainly lose.Also, I'd prefer the other team go uber-conservative - I'd like to get the ball back. If theri conventional offense doesn't move the chanins and put points on the board, why are they running it and how did they get up 15? That stuff they were doing that works - I'd like them to stop doing it.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

We had this discussion on earlier pages - it's much more subjective than the main point of the debate, but if I'm trailing in the 4th quarter, I'd rather have my opponent run-run-run-punt than come out throwing and possibly making more of an effort to tack more points on the board. Yes, it will take more time off the clock and less likely to result in turnovers, but I think on average a more conservative approach by my opponent gives me a better chance of getting the ball back. Remember, there are 7 minutes left at this point, not 2. If I need to make a stop on defense, I'm ok with the opposition going uberconservative and punting the ball back to me. But as I said, that's just a matter of preference, and it's totally debatable. Clearly, knowing whether they're down by 7 or 9, as opposed to 8, is very useful information for the trailing team. I think one person might have tried to argue against that, without much success. Finding out as soon as possible whether you only need one more score or two completely changes how you approach the final seven minutes of the game - it tells you how you need to manage the clock, it allows you to make proper decisions on 3rd and 4th downs, etc. Down by 8 you're basically blind - you might be wasting precious time you'll need later, or you might be conserving too much time for the opponent. On 4th and 3 in the red zone, do you go for it or kick the FG? Down by 8 there's no way to know what the right answer to those questions are. Down by 7 or 9, those answers are much more obvious.So most people recognize that it's a tremendous benefit to the trailing team to get that information. The only real debate has been whether the benefits they derive from that knowledge are greater than, lesser than, or equal to any kind of benefit that the team in the lead would derive from having that information. Personally, I see hardly any benefit the leading team gets, let alone one big enough to outweigh the benefit gained by the trailing team. Yes, they will probably change up their philosophy a bit if they're up by 9 rather than 7 or 8, but it's easily debatable whether that's even a good thing for them or not. And even if it is, I don't see how it's even close to being an advantage on the scale of the advantage gained by the trailing team by going for two early.

Solid response, thanks.I think I'm on board with going for 2 now, but that of course doesn't mean it'll ever happen in the NFL. (Just like they should go for it on 4th more often).Good topic, although there's way too much namecalling going on in here.

 

[Sam Quentin]

Also I'd be very unwilling to trade a 30% chance my opponent coverts the first down for the 1% chance they screw it up and turn it over - saving me a whole 40 yards that I could make up rather easily against a soft zone.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I think I'm on board with going for 2 now, but that of course doesn't mean it'll ever happen in the NFL. (Just like they should go for it on 4th more often).

Oh, I agree. There are reasons coaches don't go for two in these situations and don't go for it on 4th down more often, reasons that really have nothing to do with whether or not it gives them the best chance to win the game (see, for example, the reaction to Stoops last week, and the results of this poll).

 

[humpback]

So most people recognize that it's a tremendous benefit to the trailing team to get that information. The only real debate has been whether the benefits they derive from that knowledge are greater than, lesser than, or equal to any kind of benefit that the team in the lead would derive from having that information. Personally, I see hardly any benefit the leading team gets, let alone one big enough to outweigh the benefit gained by the trailing team. Yes, they will probably change up their philosophy a bit if they're up by 9 rather than 7 or 8, but it's easily debatable whether that's even a good thing for them or not. And even if it is, I don't see how it's even close to being an advantage on the scale of the advantage gained by the trailing team by going for two early.

Sounds like you're coming around at least a little- it is subjective. If it's debatable whether it's even a good thing for the leading team, how is it not debatable for the trailing team as well? Sure, they'll be more aggressive, but that also increases their chances at making a mistake and shooting themselves in the foot, does it not?Here's another possible factor- one benefit to the offense vs. defense earlier in games is the fact that the offense has knowledge of their playcalls and strategy that the defense doesn't have. As the game plays out, that information advantage diminishes in our scenario. By going for 2 early, the trailing team basically did that to themselves, since we're saying that the strategy doesn't really change if you're up 8 (with the kick) or up 7 (make 2 pt. conversion). Essentially, if you make it or make the extra pt., there will still be some information advantage, but if you miss it, you'll give that away.For those arguing that the leading team isn't likely to change their strategy much, did you watch the game last night? NO up 3, a little more than 2:30 left in the game, 1st and goal from the 8. The obvious thing to do is run the ball 3 times, run down the clock some and force them to take the rest of their timeouts, and kick the chippy FG (if they don't run it in). Instead, they use that to their advantage and pass for the TD to go up by 2 scores.

 

[Perfect Tommy]

I saw a statistician talking with Coach Cowher once where they had a similar disagreement. The statistician made the point that while there are other considerations such as morale or team strengths that the coach can figure in, it must at least sometimes be correct to make the statistically correct play. I could not understand how every coach could miss this obvious fact but this poll tells me it is a human condition. Most people just don't understand how to apply mathematics.

Here is another similar situation. You are down 10 and score a TD with 2:00 remaining. Do you kick the EP to pull within 3 or go for the 2 pt conversion to either pull within 2 or 4? Clearly, the odds favor going for the 2 pt conversion yet I have never seen a single coach make this obvious play.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I saw a statistician talking with Coach Cowher once where they had a similar disagreement. The statistician made the point that while there are other considerations such as morale or team strengths that the coach can figure in, it must at least sometimes be correct to make the statistically correct play. I could not understand how every coach could miss this obvious fact but this poll tells me it is a human condition. Most people just don't understand how to apply mathematics. Here is another similar situation. You are down 10 and score a TD with 2:00 remaining. Do you kick the EP to pull within 3 or go for the 2 pt conversion to either pull within 2 or 4? Clearly, the odds favor going for the 2 pt conversion yet I have never seen a single coach make this obvious play.

Why do the odds favor going for a 2 point conversion? Either way another TD by you wins, and if they get the ball back and hold it the game us over regardless. The only time it makes a difference is if you get it back and kick a FG. Assuming a 45% success rate on 2 point conversions and a 50% success rate in OT, seems like you're better taking the "sure" tie than the 45% chance at a win in that situation. Unless you have a bad kicker, or you're on the road and you want to factor that into your OT chances.

 

[SSOG]

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.

So you're saying that "momentum" only exists in the 4th quarter? That's certainly the first time I've ever heard anyone make THAT particular argument. I've always heard that "momentum" was "momentum", regardless of when it happened. A team with "momentum" is supposedly more likely to just keep on rolling, putting the game out of reach. A team without "momentum" is supposedly more likely to roll over and give up, or to play dejectedly and let the game slip away. That sample showed the exact opposite effect. Now, this isn't enough to say that momentum isn't real, but it certainly seems to suggest that momentum is less valuable than the extra half possession the team without "momentum" has been granted.I don't think a 26-game sample is definitive by any stretch, but at the end of the day, if something has a real impact on your chances of winning, it will show up in data parses if you can get a large enough sample size. If momentum is a real phenomenon that has a real impact on the outcome of a game, then there should be some data parse that will demonstrate that to be the case.

I'll be writing more on the subject of momentum later in the week, along with much larger data parses and huge sample sizes (several hundred games strong). I'll post a link in this thread once I do.

Sorry, but the bolded part is incorrect.

If a team leads by 9, their goal is just to prevent the other team from getting TWO possessions, not one or zero.

A team leading by 7 or 8 doesn't want the other team to get the ball at all - but if the team leads by nine, punting is not the end of the world as that team cannot tie without an onsides kick at a minimum.

You said it- the trailing team can tie with an onsides kick. If the leading team gives up the ball, it opens itself up to the possibility of failing to recover an onsides kick.Yes, a team with a 9 point lead has a bit of a cushion in that if they fail to meet their goal and are forced to punt, it's less of a cause for concern... but if I'm coaching a team up 9, my goal is to run out all of the clock without ever once giving the ball back. If I'm coaching a team up by 7, my goal is to run out all of the clock without ever once giving the ball back. Being up 9 gives me more of a cushion in case I fail to meet my goal, but my goal remains unchanged- get first downs, bleed the clock. With 7 minutes left, that's a realistic and achievable goal.

Now, if I'm trailing by 9 points, my goal is very, very, very, very different than it is if I'm trailing by 7 points. If I'm trailing my 9, my goal is to score while leaving as much time on the clock as is humanly possible. If I'm trailing by 7, my goal is to score while leaving as little time on the clock as is humanly possible.

The leading team's core goal remains totally unchanged, although their margin for error increases as the lead increases (and, therefore, their risk tolerance will also increase). The trailing team's core goals when trailing by 9 and by 7 aren't just different, they are complete polar opposites. The losing team's gameplan is changed far more radically by the extra knowledge of whether the 2pc was successful than the leading team's gameplan is. I don't understand how this can possibly be questioned. A simple thought experiment can demonstrate this conclusively.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Here is another similar situation. You are down 10 and score a TD with 2:00 remaining. Do you kick the EP to pull within 3 or go for the 2 pt conversion to either pull within 2 or 4? Clearly, the odds favor going for the 2 pt conversion yet I have never seen a single coach make this obvious play.

Can you explain how this one works out? The math in this situation would depend on the following probabilities:- Making the PAT- Making the 2-pt conversion- Getting the ball back- Making a FG (after kicking a PAT)- Scoring a TD (after kicking/missing the PAT or missing the 2-pt conversion)- Winning in overtimeI'm not sure how you define the probabilities on some of those to get the answer that the odds clearly favor going for 2 in that situation.

 

[SSOG]

I saw a statistician talking with Coach Cowher once where they had a similar disagreement. The statistician made the point that while there are other considerations such as morale or team strengths that the coach can figure in, it must at least sometimes be correct to make the statistically correct play. I could not understand how every coach could miss this obvious fact but this poll tells me it is a human condition. Most people just don't understand how to apply mathematics.

Here is another similar situation. You are down 10 and score a TD with 2:00 remaining. Do you kick the EP to pull within 3 or go for the 2 pt conversion to either pull within 2 or 4? Clearly, the odds favor going for the 2 pt conversion yet I have never seen a single coach make this obvious play.

Why do the odds favor going for a 2 point conversion? Either way another TD by you wins, and if they get the ball back and hold it the game us over regardless. The only time it makes a difference is if you get it back and kick a FG. Assuming a 45% success rate on 2 point conversions and a 50% success rate in OT, seems like you're better taking the "sure" tie than the 45% chance at a win in that situation. Unless you have a bad kicker, or you're on the road and you want to factor that into your OT chances.

I don't know how clear it is that the odds favor going for 2, but I can definitely see how they could. The key point you're missing is that situations that would be FG attempts if you went for 1 will instead result in going for it on 4th down if you went for 2. While it's true that a TD wins it outright whether you're down by 3 or by 4, the odds of you actually scoring a TD are significantly higher if you're down by 4. Many teams down by 3 will be content to kick the tying FG, which even if successful is a losing play 50% of the time (and there's no guarantee it will be successful- just look at the comedy of errors that was Buf/KC yesterday).I do think that, as a whole, teams overrate the attractiveness of going to overtime vs. winning outright in regulation. I'm not saying that teams should pass up the tying XP in favor of a winning 2pc with no time left on the clock, I'm just saying that teams should devote more efforts to winning outright than they currently do. I think that gets back to the point that coaches would frequently rather make a decision that "keeps them alive" for longer over a decision that gives them a better chance of winning (but which risks them being "out of it" earlier).

 

[TobiasFunke]

I saw a statistician talking with Coach Cowher once where they had a similar disagreement. The statistician made the point that while there are other considerations such as morale or team strengths that the coach can figure in, it must at least sometimes be correct to make the statistically correct play. I could not understand how every coach could miss this obvious fact but this poll tells me it is a human condition. Most people just don't understand how to apply mathematics.

Here is another similar situation. You are down 10 and score a TD with 2:00 remaining. Do you kick the EP to pull within 3 or go for the 2 pt conversion to either pull within 2 or 4? Clearly, the odds favor going for the 2 pt conversion yet I have never seen a single coach make this obvious play.

Why do the odds favor going for a 2 point conversion? Either way another TD by you wins, and if they get the ball back and hold it the game us over regardless. The only time it makes a difference is if you get it back and kick a FG. Assuming a 45% success rate on 2 point conversions and a 50% success rate in OT, seems like you're better taking the "sure" tie than the 45% chance at a win in that situation. Unless you have a bad kicker, or you're on the road and you want to factor that into your OT chances.

I don't know how clear it is that the odds favor going for 2, but I can definitely see how they could. The key point you're missing is that situations that would be FG attempts if you went for 1 will instead result in going for it on 4th down if you went for 2. While it's true that a TD wins it outright whether you're down by 3 or by 4, the odds of you actually scoring a TD are significantly higher if you're down by 4. Many teams down by 3 will be content to kick the tying FG, which even if successful is a losing play 50% of the time (and there's no guarantee it will be successful- just look at the comedy of errors that was Buf/KC yesterday).I do think that, as a whole, teams overrate the attractiveness of going to overtime vs. winning outright in regulation. I'm not saying that teams should pass up the tying XP in favor of a winning 2pc with no time left on the clock, I'm just saying that teams should devote more efforts to winning outright than they currently do. I think that gets back to the point that coaches would frequently rather make a decision that "keeps them alive" for longer over a decision that gives them a better chance of winning (but which risks them being "out of it" earlier).

It seems to me like what you're doing is factoring future poor strategical decisions into assessment of the present strategic decision. You can't really do that. You're basically saying that a coach should think "I'll be bold now, because otherwise I'd be a [slang for kitty cat] later." If he "gets it with 2:00 left, he'll "get it" with :30 left, too.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

While it's true that a TD wins it outright whether you're down by 3 or by 4, the odds of you actually scoring a TD are significantly higher if you're down by 4.

I do't think that's the right way of looking at it. The probability of scoring a TD isn't significantly higher down by 4 than it is down by 3 - at best it's probably the same, and it might even be lower because of the way your opponent will play defense in those situations. Historically, teams down by 4 have probably scored far more TDs than teams down by 3 - because NFL coaches don't attempt winning TDs when they can kick a FG to tie. But if we're trying to figure out what gives us the best chance to win, we don't care what coaches have historically done, we only care about what we should do. So it's circular to point out the fact that coaches have more frequently gone for a TD down by 4 than by 3, and use that to support the idea that you're more likely to score a TD down by 4.

 

[Jayrod]

Of course the only real answer is it depends on the specific situation of that specific game.

Few people seem willing to acknowledge that.

That said, after hearing the debate, here is exactly how I'd play it in most situations.

1) Kick the PAT

2) Play like you are down 2 scores

That gives you almost all of the advantages possible, IMO. You haven't lost "momentum" or "moral", you won't be second guessed as much, etc. You could try a surprise onside kick (much higher success rate). You can have your team run the 2 minute offense and try to conserve as much clock as possible. (But your opponent won't be stalling as if they were up by 2 scores!) If you are faced with a 4th down at midfield, a fake punt could be more adventageous. 4th and 4 or more in a certain range with some time left, kick the FG and give yourself a chance to win and not have to worry about the conversion. The thing many people are forgetting is that after the kicked PAT, you are in control of your team. If the situation dictates that you probably won't convert a 2-pt conversion, assume it as missed and play accordingly. But don't give up that knowledge to the other team. Kick it and let the other team feel the pressure of a 1 posession lead.

The only major downfall is if you convert the 2-pt after a second TD your opponent could have more time to try and win the game with their last drive.

 

[Voice Of Reason]

Completely depends on my team and the opponent.

If I think we are trying to steal a game, I'm going for 2 twice, or if my offense is much better than their defense and their offense >>>> my defense, I'm going for 2 twice.

If I really want to go to overtime, I am probably kicking the PAT and going for 2 later in the game. Because the defense tends to get more fatigued later in games than the offense.

Baring fatigue or any other factors that would lead me to believe that the 2pt attempt now would have a different percentage of success, and I knowing I want to go to OT vs go for the win on a 2 pt conversation, I don't see a difference between the options.

 

[CalBear]

For those arguing that the leading team isn't likely to change their strategy much, did you watch the game last night? NO up 3, a little more than 2:30 left in the game, 1st and goal from the 8. The obvious thing to do is run the ball 3 times, run down the clock some and force them to take the rest of their timeouts, and kick the chippy FG (if they don't run it in). Instead, they use that to their advantage and pass for the TD to go up by 2 scores.

I don't agree with your "obvious" assertion at all. Getting a FG has little value in that situation; you still lose if they get a TD. All you've done is kept them from being able to tie with their own FG. Cal had a similar situation this year against Arizona; fourth quarter, up by 3, fourth and one at the 6 yard line. Tedford decided to kick the FG, which I felt at the time was a clear mistake; and indeed we went on to lose by 1 when Arizona scored a TD. So I think in the NO situation above, getting the TD has a lot more value than running time and getting the FG.

 

[humpback]

For those arguing that the leading team isn't likely to change their strategy much, did you watch the game last night? NO up 3, a little more than 2:30 left in the game, 1st and goal from the 8. The obvious thing to do is run the ball 3 times, run down the clock some and force them to take the rest of their timeouts, and kick the chippy FG (if they don't run it in). Instead, they use that to their advantage and pass for the TD to go up by 2 scores.

I don't agree with your "obvious" assertion at all. Getting a FG has little value in that situation; you still lose if they get a TD. All you've done is kept them from being able to tie with their own FG. Cal had a similar situation this year against Arizona; fourth quarter, up by 3, fourth and one at the 6 yard line. Tedford decided to kick the FG, which I felt at the time was a clear mistake; and indeed we went on to lose by 1 when Arizona scored a TD. So I think in the NO situation above, getting the TD has a lot more value than running time and getting the FG.

Okay, I think there is a very big difference between a 3 pt. lead and a 6 pt. lead in this situation, not to mention the time/time out differences if you don't complete the pass(s). Pittsburgh thought it was the obvious strategy because they sold out to stop the run. I don't even know all of the details of the Cal/Arizona situation, but just from what you described, it seems very different.

 

[SSOG]

While it's true that a TD wins it outright whether you're down by 3 or by 4, the odds of you actually scoring a TD are significantly higher if you're down by 4.

I do't think that's the right way of looking at it. The probability of scoring a TD isn't significantly higher down by 4 than it is down by 3 - at best it's probably the same, and it might even be lower because of the way your opponent will play defense in those situations. Historically, teams down by 4 have probably scored far more TDs than teams down by 3 - because NFL coaches don't attempt winning TDs when they can kick a FG to tie. But if we're trying to figure out what gives us the best chance to win, we don't care what coaches have historically done, we only care about what we should do. So it's circular to point out the fact that coaches have more frequently gone for a TD down by 4 than by 3, and use that to support the idea that you're more likely to score a TD down by 4.

You *ARE* more likely to score a TD when down 4, though, simply because (like all coaches who have come before you), you're more likely to go for the TD. When down 3, coaches are content to kick the 80% field goal that, if good, gives them a 50% chance to win. When down 4, coaches are more likely to go for the 20% 4th down conversion that, if good, will give them a 50% chance to score a TD which will give them a 100% chance to win. Obviously, using those (arbitrarily assigned) percentages shows that you're more likely to win by kicking a FG when down 3 (40% chance to win) than going for it on 4th down when down 4 (10% chance to win), but that's not the point- the odds of scoring the TD when down 4 don't have to be better than the odds of winning in overtime when down 3, they just have to be enough better that, when combined with your odds of winning outright with a FG if you convert the 2pc, the EV of going for 2 outweighs the EV of going for 1.Since 2002, teams that were down by 4 with 2 minutes remaining have scored 38 TDs compared to 25 TDs by teams that were down 3 with 2 minutes remaining, despite the fact that historically 3-point deficits have been 2.27 times more common than 4-point deficits (a figure partially influenced by the fact that overtime games have such a high probability of ending in a 3-point margin, but still, it's safe to say that there have been more teams down 3 late in the 4th than down 4 late in the 4th over the last decade). Beyond that, it makes intuitive sense that it's easier to score TDs when you treat the entire field like 4-down territory than when you don't. So I do think your odds of scoring a TD to win outright in regulation are higher when you're down 4 than they are when you're down 3. Also, to inject some completely anecdotal evidence, in the past I've always felt more comfortable when my team held a 3-point lead with the opponent driving than I have when my team held a 4-6 point lead with the opponent driving, simply because I knew that the opposing team was going to be playing for overtime so my team would have two chances to beat them (by stopping them in regulation or by winning in overtime) instead of just one (albeit noticeably better) chance of beating them. But again, that's strictly anecdotal based on my experience as a fan and I'm not holding it up as proof or anything.

I do think it's possible for the numbers to work out in favor of going for 2 when down 4 with 2 minutes remaining, although I don't think that one's anywhere near as clear-cut as the situation in the OP.

 

[Liquid Tension]

You must be a politician...stop with the subterfuge and just use your own logic and just take a stab at what scenario would you rather be in?

Ooohh, good one. I was just telling you that maybe the reason no one has answered your question is because it doesn't matter.Like I said, my preference would depend on the circumstances. If my offense has been playing well, I might prefer to be down 9 with 7 minutes. If they've struggled, I might prefer to be down 2 with 30 seconds. Obviously there are dozens of other scenarios which are all just as plausable, so it's another pointless hypothetical. If it makes you feel better, you can put me down for choice #1, and tell me how wrong I am.

How is it possible that it doesn't matter? It is the crux of the entire discussion...and I am not going to tell you anything, but if that is what you think it tells me all I need to know

 

[Choke]

So you're saying that "momentum" only exists in the 4th quarter? That's certainly the first time I've ever heard anyone make THAT particular argument.

Because that NOT what I said.

 

[humpback]

While it's true that a TD wins it outright whether you're down by 3 or by 4, the odds of you actually scoring a TD are significantly higher if you're down by 4.

I do't think that's the right way of looking at it. The probability of scoring a TD isn't significantly higher down by 4 than it is down by 3 - at best it's probably the same, and it might even be lower because of the way your opponent will play defense in those situations. Historically, teams down by 4 have probably scored far more TDs than teams down by 3 - because NFL coaches don't attempt winning TDs when they can kick a FG to tie. But if we're trying to figure out what gives us the best chance to win, we don't care what coaches have historically done, we only care about what we should do. So it's circular to point out the fact that coaches have more frequently gone for a TD down by 4 than by 3, and use that to support the idea that you're more likely to score a TD down by 4.

You *ARE* more likely to score a TD when down 4, though, simply because (like all coaches who have come before you), you're more likely to go for the TD. When down 3, coaches are content to kick the 80% field goal that, if good, gives them a 50% chance to win. When down 4, coaches are more likely to go for the 20% 4th down conversion that, if good, will give them a 50% chance to score a TD which will give them a 100% chance to win. Obviously, using those (arbitrarily assigned) percentages shows that you're more likely to win by kicking a FG when down 3 (40% chance to win) than going for it on 4th down when down 4 (10% chance to win), but that's not the point- the odds of scoring the TD when down 4 don't have to be better than the odds of winning in overtime when down 3, they just have to be enough better that, when combined with your odds of winning outright with a FG if you convert the 2pc, the EV of going for 2 outweighs the EV of going for 1.Since 2002, teams that were down by 4 with 2 minutes remaining have scored 38 TDs compared to 25 TDs by teams that were down 3 with 2 minutes remaining, despite the fact that historically 3-point deficits have been 2.27 times more common than 4-point deficits (a figure partially influenced by the fact that overtime games have such a high probability of ending in a 3-point margin, but still, it's safe to say that there have been more teams down 3 late in the 4th than down 4 late in the 4th over the last decade). Beyond that, it makes intuitive sense that it's easier to score TDs when you treat the entire field like 4-down territory than when you don't. So I do think your odds of scoring a TD to win outright in regulation are higher when you're down 4 than they are when you're down 3. Also, to inject some completely anecdotal evidence, in the past I've always felt more comfortable when my team held a 3-point lead with the opponent driving than I have when my team held a 4-6 point lead with the opponent driving, simply because I knew that the opposing team was going to be playing for overtime so my team would have two chances to beat them (by stopping them in regulation or by winning in overtime) instead of just one (albeit noticeably better) chance of beating them. But again, that's strictly anecdotal based on my experience as a fan and I'm not holding it up as proof or anything.

I do think it's possible for the numbers to work out in favor of going for 2 when down 4 with 2 minutes remaining, although I don't think that one's anywhere near as clear-cut as the situation in the OP.

This may just be semantics- yes, you are more likely to score a TD down by 4 than you are when down by 3, but that's because you're going to try to score the TD much more often when down by 4, like you said. It doesn't mean it's easier to score the TD in that situation.Basically, if you're the HC and your team is down by 3, but you decide no matter what you're going for the TD and the win, I think your odds of getting it are about the same (if not better) than if you were trailing by 4.

 

[Liquid Tension]

We had this discussion on earlier pages - it's much more subjective than the main point of the debate, but if I'm trailing in the 4th quarter, I'd rather have my opponent run-run-run-punt than come out throwing and possibly making more of an effort to tack more points on the board. Yes, it will take more time off the clock and less likely to result in turnovers, but I think on average a more conservative approach by my opponent gives me a better chance of getting the ball back. Remember, there are 7 minutes left at this point, not 2. If I need to make a stop on defense, I'm ok with the opposition going uberconservative and punting the ball back to me. But as I said, that's just a matter of preference, and it's totally debatable. Clearly, knowing whether they're down by 7 or 9, as opposed to 8, is very useful information for the trailing team. I think one person might have tried to argue against that, without much success. Finding out as soon as possible whether you only need one more score or two completely changes how you approach the final seven minutes of the game - it tells you how you need to manage the clock, it allows you to make proper decisions on 3rd and 4th downs, etc. Down by 8 you're basically blind - you might be wasting precious time you'll need later, or you might be conserving too much time for the opponent. On 4th and 3 in the red zone, do you go for it or kick the FG? Down by 8 there's no way to know what the right answer to those questions are. Down by 7 or 9, those answers are much more obvious.So most people recognize that it's a tremendous benefit to the trailing team to get that information. The only real debate has been whether the benefits they derive from that knowledge are greater than, lesser than, or equal to any kind of benefit that the team in the lead would derive from having that information. Personally, I see hardly any benefit the leading team gets, let alone one big enough to outweigh the benefit gained by the trailing team. Yes, they will probably change up their philosophy a bit if they're up by 9 rather than 7 or 8, but it's easily debatable whether that's even a good thing for them or not. And even if it is, I don't see how it's even close to being an advantage on the scale of the advantage gained by the trailing team by going for two early.

Solid response, thanks.I think I'm on board with going for 2 now, but that of course doesn't mean it'll ever happen in the NFL. (Just like they should go for it on 4th more often).Good topic, although there's way too much namecalling going on in here.

So now that Jeff is on board are there any FBG staff that think going for the kick first is the right move?

 

[CalBear]

This may just be semantics- yes, you are more likely to score a TD down by 4 than you are when down by 3, but that's because you're going to try to score the TD much more often when down by 4, like you said. It doesn't mean it's easier to score the TD in that situation.Basically, if you're the HC and your team is down by 3, but you decide no matter what you're going for the TD and the win, I think your odds of getting it are about the same (if not better) than if you were trailing by 4.

I agree, and that's exactly why it's important to know whether you need a FG or not. Your success likelihood isn't any better when you're further down, you need to know whether it's critical to go for the TD, or whether taking an easy FG is more important. If the TD is critical, it's worth trying even if your success likelihood is relatively low; if it's not critical, you should take the easy points first.

 

[SSOG]

A note to the crowd who thinks that a team is substantially more likely to run with a 9 point lead vs. an 8 point lead...

since 2002, when teams have had an 8 point lead with 4-7 minutes remaining, they have called 72 passes vs. 138 rushes, good for a 1.92:1 runass ratio.

since 2002, when teams have had a 9 point lead with 4-7 minutes remaining, they have called 31 passes vs. 43 rushes, good for a 1.39:1 runass ratio.

On the other hand, the teams with an 8 point lead produced 55 first downs on their 210 offensive plays, good for a first down every 3.8 plays run. Meanwhile, the teams with a 9 point lead produced 19 first downs on their 74 offensive plays, good for a first down every 3.9 plays run. That data contradicts the idea that teams are more likely to go 3-and-out with a 9 point lead than they are with an 8 point lead.

On the whole, I just don't see a lot of evidence there that teams do change their strategy substantially with a 9-point lead vs. with an 8-point lead. If anything, the data suggests that the changes a team DOES make with a 9-point lead are exactly the changes that the "kick the PAT" crowd are saying provide such an advantage to only being down 8. Namely, the kick the PAT crowd has argued that teams are more likely to pass when up by 8, resulting in more clock stoppages to aid in any comeback attempt, while the actual NFL data since 2002 shows just the opposite being true.