Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Post here when coaches do something you disagree with


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'm surprised no one has brought up Ron Rivera's decision to punt from New Orleans' 35 yard line when down 21-13 in the third quarter. Of course it was kicked into the end zone, for a fantastic net of

Always go for 2 there. 

Payton was fully justified in complaining about an egregiously bad call that cost them a trip to the Super Bowl. Today’s non-call was borderline at best (looked like a bunch of hand fighting on both s

  • 1 month later...

I disagree with Lafleur's call to kick the field goal down by 8 with a little over 2 minutes left in the game (and Brady the opposing QB).  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, fred_1_15301 said:

I disagree with Lafleur's call to kick the field goal down by 8 with a little over 2 minutes left in the game (and Brady the opposing QB).  

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The FG was clearly the right call. Going for the TD only improves on the FG if:

  1. You get a TD on fourth and goal from the 8 (~20%)
  2. You get the 2-point conversion (~50%)
  3. You stop Tom Brady from advancing far enough to kick a FG with 2:05 on the clock (call it ~50%)
  4. You win in OT (~50%)

That's 2.5% of the time.

The FG is better if:

  1. You make the FG (~95%)
  2. You stop Tom Brady from running out the clock (call it ~40%)
  3. You get a TD after receiving a punt (call it ~30%)

That's 11.4% of the time.

Tweak those numbers as you like but I don't think you'll ever do better with the first set. TD on fourth and goal from the 8 only makes sense if it gives you the win; if you were down by 5, for example. Down by 8 you still have very little chance without another score. And if you have another score you can win anyway.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, CalBear said:

The FG was clearly the right call. Going for the TD only improves on the FG if:

  1. You get a TD on fourth and goal from the 8 (~20%)
  2. You get the 2-point conversion (~50%)
  3. You stop Tom Brady from advancing far enough to kick a FG with 2:05 on the clock (call it ~50%)
  4. You win in OT (~50%)

That's 2.5% of the time.

The FG is better if:

  1. You make the FG (~95%)
  2. You stop Tom Brady from running out the clock (call it ~40%)
  3. You get a TD after receiving a punt (call it ~30%)

That's 11.4% of the time.

Tweak those numbers as you like but I don't think you'll ever do better with the first set. TD on fourth and goal from the 8 only makes sense if it gives you the win; if you were down by 5, for example. Down by 8 you still have very little chance without another score. And if you have another score you can win anyway.

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:

- Score a TD, successful 2 point conversion. Game tied. 
- Score a TD, unsuccessful 2 point conversion. Down 2 points. 
- Turnover on downs. Still down 8 points.

The likelihood of stopping Tampa from running out the clock would not change all that much. Obviously TB would have tried to advance the ball more in a tie game. Getting a stop from the defense was required to win in regulation no matter what. 

The point being, in two of the three outcomes, the Packers would have dramatically improved their chances to win. Even if they went for it and failed, the Bucs would have been deep in their own territory (meaning a three and out would have made for a shorter field for the Packers to mount a TD drive).

Someplace will likely calculate the chances of winning over the next few days based on historical numbers. I don’t believe the numbers you listed will bear out, as I don’t think kicking the FG had a 4.5 better chance of winning the game. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the reasons the GB coach justified kicking the FG was that they still had all of their timeouts plus an extra timeout at the 2:00 warning.  Tampa Bay returned the kick but the returner slid and stopped the clock with 2:02 left.  Why didn’t he keep running which would have taken the clock down to under 2:00 and that would have used up the timeout for the 2:00 warning? Was he afraid of fumbling?  I was shocked when I saw him sliding.   That slide gave the Packers 40 seconds, it didn’t end up hurting the Bucs, but it could have.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Kevrunner said:

One of the reasons the GB coach justified kicking the FG was that they still had all of their timeouts plus an extra timeout at the 2:00 warning.  Tampa Bay returned the kick but the returner slid and stopped the clock with 2:02 left.  Why didn’t he keep running which would have taken the clock down to under 2:00 and that would have used up the timeout for the 2:00 warning? Was he afraid of fumbling?  I was shocked when I saw him sliding.   That slide gave the Packers 40 seconds, it didn’t end up hurting the Bucs, but it could have.

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.

The right play was to go for it.  You have freaking Rodgers. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, ghostguy123 said:

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.

The right play was to go for it.  You have freaking Rodgers. 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CalBear said:

The FG was clearly the right call. Going for the TD only improves on the FG if:

  1. You get a TD on fourth and goal from the 8 (~20%)
  2. You get the 2-point conversion (~50%)
  3. You stop Tom Brady from advancing far enough to kick a FG with 2:05 on the clock (call it ~50%)
  4. You win in OT (~50%)

That's 2.5% of the time.

The FG is better if:

  1. You make the FG (~95%)
  2. You stop Tom Brady from running out the clock (call it ~40%)
  3. You get a TD after receiving a punt (call it ~30%)

That's 11.4% of the time.

Tweak those numbers as you like but I don't think you'll ever do better with the first set. TD on fourth and goal from the 8 only makes sense if it gives you the win; if you were down by 5, for example. Down by 8 you still have very little chance without another score. And if you have another score you can win anyway.

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, fred_1_15301 said:

I disagree with Lafleur's call to kick the field goal down by 8 with a little over 2 minutes left in the game (and Brady the opposing QB).  

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Worse case GB goes for the TD and fails.  They have to stop TB and have enough time to try for a TD and 2 point conversion, then hope for OT.

 A good result would have been getting the TD, but failed on 2 point conversion.  So down by 2.  They still have to stop TB and have enough time to get ball back and only have to kick a FG to win.

The best result would have been getting the TD and 2 point conversion.  Kicking the ball to Tampa, holding them and getting the ball back with enough time to kick a FG to win the game, if not, take chance in OT

The worse case was not going for TD (since Aaron Rodgers is the QB), deciding to kick a FG, hoping to be able to stop Tampa and then hoping there is enough time to go and score a game winning TD. 

With Aaron Rodgers as your QB, you can’t go by percentages, he’s one of the greatest QBs of all time, let him win or lose the game, not your defense (unless your defense is the ‘85 Bears).  

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

According to the ESPN Win Probability Model, GB had a 10% chance of winning the game by going for it and a 9.5% chance by kicking the FG.

LINK

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CalBear said:

The FG was clearly the right call. Going for the TD only improves on the FG if:

  1. You get a TD on fourth and goal from the 8 (~20%)
  2. You get the 2-point conversion (~50%)
  3. You stop Tom Brady from advancing far enough to kick a FG with 2:05 on the clock (call it ~50%)
  4. You win in OT (~50%)

That's 2.5% of the time.

The FG is better if:

  1. You make the FG (~95%)
  2. You stop Tom Brady from running out the clock (call it ~40%)
  3. You get a TD after receiving a punt (call it ~30%)

That's 11.4% of the time.

Tweak those numbers as you like but I don't think you'll ever do better with the first set. TD on fourth and goal from the 8 only makes sense if it gives you the win; if you were down by 5, for example. Down by 8 you still have very little chance without another score. And if you have another score you can win anyway.

Well stated. I thought it was a poor decision.

The key is the defense had to stopped Brady. Up to that point the Packers had given up 31 points and forced two punts. In that context, LaFluer should have recognized the low probability of stopping the Bucs and put the ball in Rodgers hands. 

Curious about the percentages, are those Rodgers’ career numbers?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 32 Counter Pass said:

Well stated. I thought it was a poor decision.

The key is the defense had to stopped Brady. Up to that point the Packers had given up 31 points and forced two punts. In that context, LaFluer should have recognized the low probability of stopping the Bucs and put the ball in Rodgers hands. 

Curious about the percentages, are those Rodgers’ career numbers?

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, 32 Counter Pass said:

Well stated. I thought it was a poor decision.

The key is the defense had to stopped Brady. Up to that point the Packers had given up 31 points and forced two punts. In that context, LaFluer should have recognized the low probability of stopping the Bucs and put the ball in Rodgers hands. 

Curious about the percentages, are those Rodgers’ career numbers?

 

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:

[Some number about 50% (2PC)] * [Some number a lot lower than 50% (4th and 8)] * 50% [OT win probability] 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just get this out of the way, I am not an analytics guy. Surely in a vacuum and by comparing past results, you can create probabilities that may or may not be true. "Historically speaking, decision XYZ had the highest win probability."

 

All of that "historical data" does not apply to this situation and these players. All that historical data is applicable to average players like Kyle Orton and Phillip Rivers. This game featured two of the best Quarterbacks in NFL history:

1.) Rodgers is one of the MOST CLUTCH QBs I have ever seen. He scores a Touchdown in that situation more often than 90% of other guys who have ever played the position. So the suggested "win probability" here doesn't apply to him. He is an outlier, he gets his own subset of probabilities.

2.) Brady is the MOST WINNING QB in NFL History. The moment the Packers kicked that FG, you knew they were not going to get the ball back. Brady has the ability to convert the first down and end the game better than 90% of guys who have ever played the position. So the suggested "win probability" of kicking the FG doesn't apply when playing against him. He is an outlier, he gets his own subset of probabilities.

 

If this was a matchup of Brian Griese vs Jay Cutler (or any combination of mediocre QBs which the win probability stats are heavily weighted on), then I agree that kicking the FG is the correct move. But the moment you have a HOF Quarterback on both sides, the win projection based on the entire volume of less talented players becomes irrelevant. Because the % in which Rodgers converts a Touchdown there versus the % Brady converts a first down there are outliers from all the data in which "win probability" is built upon.


 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Anarchy99 said:

According to the ESPN Win Probability Model, GB had a 10% chance of winning the game by going for it and a 9.5% chance by kicking the FG.

LINK

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?

The obvious constraint to this data, is that ESPN would ascribe a 10% win probability to Green Bay regardless if Aaron Rodger was playing or not. It's playing the odds on the situation in general. You could plug in Tim Tebow into the game and ESPN's computer formula (remember it's just a robot) would still tell you that "Teams win 10% of the time in this situation".


But you intrinsically know that changing from Aaron Rodgers to Tim Tebow in that situation would lower the winning probability. Since the formula they use does not accurately reflect the individual situation, I don't think it is a great metric of whether or not the correct decision was made.


For instance, let's say I am at the Casino playing blackjack and I am dealt a 15 and dealer is showing a 5. Under normal probabilities, I have a 54% chance of busting my hand if I take a hit. HOWEVER, let's also assume that I am counting cards and the count is significantly negative (there are more low cards than high cards left in the shoe).

Since I KNOW more high cards have been dealt than low cards, I know that my chance of BUSTING on a hit is lower than the traditional 54% the book says it is. In this situation, it may actually be a higher percentage play to take a hit even though the book (in general) says it's the lower percentage play.

 

Does that make sense?

Edited by CFB Sicko
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, CFB Sicko said:

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?

The obvious constraint to this data, is that ESPN would ascribe a 10% win probability to Green Bay regardless if Aaron Rodger was playing or not. It's playing the odds on the situation in general. You could plug in Tim Tebow into the game and ESPN's computer formula (remember it's just a robot) would still tell you that "Teams win 10% of the time in this situation".


But you intrinsically know that changing from Aaron Rodgers to Tim Tebow in that situation would lower the winning probability. Since the formula they use does not accurately reflect the individual situation, I don't think it is a great metric of whether or not the correct decision was made.


For instance, let's say I am at the Casino playing blackjack and I am dealt a 15 and dealer is showing a 5. Under normal probabilities, I have a 54% chance of busting my hand if I take a hit. HOWEVER, let's also assume that I am counting cards and the count is significantly negative (there are more low cards than high cards left in the shoe).

Since I KNOW more high cards have been dealt than low cards, I know that my chance of BUSTING on a hit is lower than the traditional 54% the book says it is. In this situation, it may actually be a higher percentage play to take a hit even though the book (in general) says it's the lower percentage play.

 

Does that make sense?

So, GB gets a win probability upgrade for having Aaron Rodgers. What about TB for having Tom Brady?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

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.

I think you can really equate win probability as an average (if not specifically that) and in that average, Rodgers converts a touchdown there more often than the field and Brady ices the game more often than the field. That alone calls for an adjustment to the computer generated model, imo.


It's like predicting a low scoring game in basketball between two teams that average 115 points a game when the league average is 105. You're dealing with outliers and you have to treat the outliers differently than the teams who truly hover around that 105 point scored mark.

Edited by CFB Sicko
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ghostguy123 said:

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.

The right play was to go for it.  You have freaking Rodgers. 

This

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Cobbler1 said:

You don’t dodge giving the ball to the amazing Tom Brady by going for it. You actually are a coin flip away from having to give it to him twice.

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, CalBear said:

The FG was clearly the right call. Going for the TD only improves on the FG if:

  1. You get a TD on fourth and goal from the 8 (~20%)
  2. You get the 2-point conversion (~50%)
  3. You stop Tom Brady from advancing far enough to kick a FG with 2:05 on the clock (call it ~50%)
  4. You win in OT (~50%)

That's 2.5% of the time.

The FG is better if:

  1. You make the FG (~95%)
  2. You stop Tom Brady from running out the clock (call it ~40%)
  3. You get a TD after receiving a punt (call it ~30%)

That's 11.4% of the time.

Tweak those numbers as you like but I don't think you'll ever do better with the first set. TD on fourth and goal from the 8 only makes sense if it gives you the win; if you were down by 5, for example. Down by 8 you still have very little chance without another score. And if you have another score you can win anyway.

This seems like it could use some improvement but is a great start. What about stopping Brady and then scoring your own field goal? 

Why is it only a 40 percent chance of stopping Brady from getting 1 first down but above a 50 percent chance of stopping him from getting into field goal range?  Those seem further apart but in probably picking nits. 

It's really interesting trying to figure out a good model for this one with logic.  Maybe you left out a lot of the branches because of low or offsetting chances. 

Edited by kittenmittens
Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't seen much about how Tampa's play calling likely would have changed if GB went for it and failed vs taking the FG and kicking off. Typically teams get increasingly conservative in trying to finish off the game as their lead increases. And when the opponent can only tie the game in a worst case scenario, that's when you usually see a team commit to the run to burn timeouts before punting. 

So while I don't have the numbers, I'm guessing kicking the FG led TB to be a bit more aggressive in their play calling, trying to guard against GB being able to come back down the field and potentially win in regulation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, kittenmittens 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? 

Why is it only a 40 percent chance of stopping Brady from getting 1 first down but above a 50 percent chance of stopping him from getting into field goal range?  Those seem further apart but in probably picking nits. 

It's really interesting trying to figure out a good model for this one with logic.  Maybe you left out a lot of the branches because of low or offsetting chances. 

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CalBear said:

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. 

Every possible scenario required stopping the Bucs offense, unless the Bucs tried an onside kick and successfully recovered it, preventing the Bucs offense from getting the ball. So I find this post irrelevant. Yes, stopping them would have been very difficult... but it was required no matter what. So that really shouldn't have much bearing on whether or not to kick the FG or go for the TD IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Anarchy99 said:

According to the ESPN Win Probability Model, GB had a 10% chance of winning the game by going for it and a 9.5% chance by kicking the FG.

LINK

This was about how I was seeing it. Seemed about even in my mind. I was surprised to see lots of people around me think kicking the FG was insane. I was ok with either decision. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kittenmittens said:

Lost in the discussion is Arians accepting the intentional penalty.  Why did he do that? 

Thought about it at the time... Couldn't Green Bay just intentionally commit another penalty?  It would never end.  Also, I think I like the five yards and the first down vs 2nd and short.  Sure, the latter gives you the potential to convert and potentially run more plays but a negative play could compromise your ability to convert leading to fewer plays.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, DropKick said:

Thought about it at the time... Couldn't Green Bay just intentionally commit another penalty?  It would never end.  Also, I think I like the five yards and the first down vs 2nd and short.  Sure, the latter gives you the potential to convert and potentially run more plays but a negative play could compromise your ability to convert leading to fewer plays.

I believe the clock would only stay stopped after a penalty if the clock was previously stopped before penalty committed.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cobbler1 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.

Adding to this, the 12.5% of the time you get the td but don’t get the 2, you now need a stop and to drive 30-40 yards for a game winning fg attempt. .125 * .5 * .5 (tough number to figure out how frequently Rodgers would get the 30-40 yards needed in this situation and then Crosby would make the kick). Maybe it’s lower than 50% but you can adjust accordingly if you think so. Using 50% for it adds another 3.125% to the winning outcomes in the go for it scenario. I agreed wholeheartedly with CalBears logic on his initial post but now I’m seeing that the possible winning outcomes, even if you don’t get the td or do get the td but not the 2pt conversion, add significantly to your winning scenarios. I can see how the math is pretty close to even as Anarchy points out in his link with the espn win probability.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, CalBear said:

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. 

In some scenarios, Rodgers would also have time on the clock for a GB drive to tie the game with a FG.

If the probabilities are close, which I'm now convinced they are, I give MVP HOF QB Rodgers one more shot from the 8 yard line. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, CalBear said:

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. 

Agreed.  In the scenario that happened, the Bucs are likely to run the ball several times, so you only need 1 or 2 stops on a pass play.  Had they scored the TD and gotten the 2, the game is now tied and the Bucs offense is in aggressive mode to try and win the game.  Not saying I totally agree with the decision to kick the FG, but I don't think it's as egregiously bad are some are making it out to be.  

Rodgers should be taking more heat for not running in on 3rd instead of throwing a bad pass.  He had daylight and could have either scored or at least gotten it pretty close to where going for it on 4th down was more likely.  If he thought they were going for it on 4th down, which he claimed afterwards, then getting it close at least then puts them in a situation where you can run or pass, making it a little harder to defend. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DropKick said:

Thought about it at the time... Couldn't Green Bay just intentionally commit another penalty?  It would never end.  Also, I think I like the five yards and the first down vs 2nd and short.  Sure, the latter gives you the potential to convert and potentially run more plays but a negative play could compromise your ability to convert leading to fewer plays.

I think there is a rule against GB doing that but I could be mistaken.  I think TB really only needed a single first down to make a green bay win nearly impossible without Pettine or Gregg Williams calling the defense for the Bucs. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ghostguy123 said:

Dont forget to factor in how demoralozing it is for the players to kick a stupid FG.  

I'm for getting rid of kicking altogether. Make everyone go for it on 4th, and only 2 point plays after a TD. Kickers, punters, and long snappers might not like it, but who cares.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Just Win Baby said:

Every possible scenario required stopping the Bucs offense, unless the Bucs tried an onside kick and successfully recovered it, preventing the Bucs offense from getting the ball. So I find this post irrelevant. Yes, stopping them would have been very difficult... but it was required no matter what. So that really shouldn't have much bearing on whether or not to kick the FG or go for the TD IMO.

I agree to a certain point.  The difference is what TB would be trying to do in varying scenarios.  If GB tied the game then TB is in a mode to get the FG to win.  Their offense will be a lot more "creative" because they are actually trying to move the ball rather than run out the clock.  This makes stopping them a bit more difficult in theory because more of their playbook is in play (and still gives TB a decent chance to win the game in regulation based on the time remaining).  You can also say that by kicking the FG put GB in a chance to win in regulation so opening up the playbook a bit more is warranted as now losing in regulation is a possibility if TB gives the ball back (also making stopping them more difficult in theory).  Going for the TD and not getting it now puts TB in a situation where they primarily want to run as much of the clock off and that is somewhat more important because if they give the ball back a TD/2PT only ties the game (and may leave time on the clock for TB to have their own chance to go back and score in regulation).  This is probably the "easiest" situation to stop TB as there is a most likely chance of narrowing the playbook for TB.  

 

All this to say that each scenario slightly changes the stoppage percentage because TB has a slightly different goal for their drive which may affect play calling and thus your defensive play calls.  

 

Regardless, I would have gone for it even though I am now at least warming to the idea that kicking the FG has a lot more merit than I initially gave it credit for.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2021 at 9:57 PM, ghostguy123 said:

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.

The right play was to go for it.  You have freaking Rodgers. 

he is so good - he failed the prior 3 downs to score from the 8

refused to scramble for the score in a championship game

that Rodgers

Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted a new thread dedicated specifically to this GB decision. I couldn't sit still with the bad presumptions being made here that if they went for the TD there wouldn't still be a ton of action in regulation. Like OT is the only path to victory. I have GB as 17.2% to win in regulation if they score a TD. Here is my work:

https://forums.footballguys.com/topic/792583-a-deeper-dive-into-the-4th-and-8-decision-by-gb-in-the-nfc-title-game/

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
7 minutes ago, ghostguy123 said:

Pretty obviously bad decision for Kansas City to be calling timeouts at the end of the first half when Tampa was literally going to just run the clock out and go into halftime.  

Instead of 14-6, its 21-6.  Silly

Yup.  It just happened two weeks ago.  No excuse for making this mistake.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/18/2013 at 12:04 AM, GreenNGold said:

Tonight, Bruce Arians, head coach of the Arizona Cardinals chose to kick a field goal from the 4 yard line while down 18 points in the 4th quarter. I thought NFL coaches were supposed to understand the game? I mean, how do people who are so incompetent get these jobs that pay millions of dollars per year? I really feel like acts like this should be a fireable offense, similar to how John Fox cost the Broncos any chance in the playoffs last year (2012), yet he still has a job too.

I made a post similar to this in the Seahawks-Cardinals game thread tonight, but thought it could make a good thread.

How will this idiot bruce Arians ever last?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Alex P Keaton said:

Yup.  It just happened two weeks ago.  No excuse for making this mistake.

Yeah that was dumb. The first timeout ok I get it. Maybe you get a sack or inc or something. But after they gained 8 yards to make it a 3rd and short close to the 40 there’s very little upside. Most likely if you get the stop you’re getting it back around your 20 with 1 or 0 TOs and 30-35 seconds. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Cobbler1 said:

Yeah that was dumb. The first timeout ok I get it. Maybe you get a sack or inc or something. But after they gained 8 yards to make it a 3rd and short close to the 40 there’s very little upside. Most likely if you get the stop you’re getting it back around your 20 with 1 or 0 TOs and 30-35 seconds. 

The first timeout was dumb.  That next one was wow, just wow bad

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ghostguy123 said:

The first timeout was dumb.  That next one was wow, just wow bad

I disagree that the first was dumb. They had a decent shot at getting the ball back and driving for a fg at that point. After the solid gain on 2nd the risk of surrendering points was too much for my liking.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...