Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
The TO was because otherwise they would have gotten a delay of game.
I wasn't watching, but have seen teams do this on a short FG so that if there's a bad snap they can fall on it and still have another down to retry the kick.
Exactly - it was a 41 yarder and it was 2nd down (not 3rd down). It seemed like he thought that the odds were better that he was going to lose yards on the next play (as opposed to gaining yards) so he just turtled up and kicked it.
Almost seemed like he just thought they would drill it and wanted to get it over with and not mess around anymore. My guess is that the 3rd down play would have likely been called a run up the middle, probably gaining anywhere from -2 to +3 yards, so I'm not sure it exactly did anything for them. As it turned out it left more time on the clock for them which actually helped them.
Yeah but you can't look at it in a vacuum. The Eagles offense has been pretty bad all year. Their offense in the game was pretty anemic. 2 things I don't like about that call. Given how poorly the Eagles offense had been playing all game, there is a decent chance they don't convert there. Given how poorly the Eagles offense had been playing, there is a decent chance they don't score a TD the rest of the game.
Best I have is this tweet by PFF_Moo which says:
(in reply to Adam Harstad saying that he thought that teams down 4 actually had a higher winning percentage than down 3.)
I disagree. FG makes it a two score game and Butker is good. If they don't convert on 4th then they lose if they give up a TD.
I don't think it was egregiously bad as some do, and he was an iffy flag away from his offense getting the ball back late with a chance to win the game, but I get why many disliked the decision. I don't think he makes that decision if the defense was playing late like it had the first 3 quarters.
The issue for GB was they couldn’t win the game without scoring a TD. The chances of scoring a TD WITH the ball at the 8 yard line are exponentially higher than scoring a TD WITHOUT having the football. Here were the options:
If the packers go for it and don't get it, the bucs are pinned deep. If they go 3 and out the pack gets the ball again with great field position.
Agree 100%, to much risk going for the FG and then having to guarantee Tampa goes 3 and out and then having enough time to go 70 or 80 yards for a TD. The only smart play I saw the GB coach was to jump offsides on purpose, I was surprised Tampa didn’t just decline the penalty.
Well stated. This is pretty clearly the correct answer. People underestimate how hard it is to get a 2 and then win in OT. Kicking the fg all but eliminates those 2 necessities to win the game.
The decision hinged on being down 8 vs. 7... Certainly changes the math. To be honest, I didn't like them going for two earlier. That extra point seems to always come back to haunt you.
Interesting. Would really love to see their math there. Particularly with the 21% conversion rate needed they say is needed to break even with the fg at 9.5% Because then you still need 50 (really maybe 48%) chance of getting the 2. And then 50% to win in OT. Which puts you at 5.25% without even accounting for Tampa being in more advantageous spot to win in regulation if you do succeed to tie it. I guess they’re giving more viability to the “if you fail to convert” scenarios (for either the td or the 2) where GB could still get the ball back and win or go to OT.
Well stated. I thought it was a poor decision.
It’s a good discussion. Forcing 2 punts is bit disingenuous when they had 3 picks and should have a had a 4th (safety dropped a lollipop right before half). Also, they were going to have to stop Brady in any of the scenarios whether it was from getting a first down or 2 to end it or from driving 40-45 for a game winning fg.
Percentages are made up. Plug in other numbers if you like. But be sure that the number you're using for converting on 4th-and-8 is a lot lower than the number you're using for making a 2-point conversion. And that for going for it to work, you need both of those things to happen, and you still need to stop Tampa Bay and win in OT. So:
Allow me to stretch your mind a little bit. Do you think that ESPN's Win Probability Model factors in who is playing Quarterback for each team?
So, GB gets a win probability upgrade for having Aaron Rodgers. What about TB for having Tom Brady?
I would say the win probability DECREASES significantly for Green Bay putting the ball in Brady's hands with 2 minutes left compared to almost any other Quarterback who has ever played the game. All the "historical stats" in which those probabilities are built, are from Quarterbacks much less talented than the GOAT.
Exactly. People are talking about fourth-and-8 as if it's the end of the game. At the very best—if you make it and you make the 2-point conversion (give those whatever chance you like but it's well under 50% combined)—now you're handing the ball to Tom Brady with over 2 minutes left when all he needs is a FG to win the game. Which, it turns out, is exactly how Brady won most of his biggest games.Cobbler1 said:
This seems like it could use some improvement but is a great start. What about stopping Brady and then scoring your own field goal?CalBear said:
There’s plenty of branches. Most of them offsetting or small as you say. The biggest one left out is probably the 75 ish % chance you don’t get the 4th and goal you still have a chance to stop them, get the ball back, and drive 60 ish yards to score and get the 2 and win in OT. That’s probably .75 * .5 * .3 * .5 *.5. That adds another 3% to the winning outcomes of going for it. It’s very interesting to me.
