No more late 4th Qtr Field Goals to go up by 6

[zoostation]

Do you remember the field goal the Patriots chose not to take at the end of the 1st half against the Seahawks?

Different scenario, but what I remember is poor clock management costing the Pats 7 points (post above). First and goal on the 9 (or so), 3 timeouts, 36 seconds left, and Brady gets cute and doesn't use the timeout until 18 (BB had to run down the sideline and call it). That situation was a complete cluster that should have been a TD. But again, no comparison to yesterday's situation.

 

[The_Riddler]

Any idea why we rushed up to the line after it was 1st and Goal at the 1-yard line and got off a **** play that resulted in a 3 yard loss because of it?

In the NFL, when you're up by 3pts and there's 2 minutes and 30 seconds on the clock and you have just run for a first down to the oppponents goal line common sense tells you to let the clock run down to the 2-minute warning because yes, time is in fact on your side, go to the sideline and talk about the next 3-4 plays that you'll run to put this game away.

So rushing the play actually caused the right-side of our OLine to be out of synch to allow Ridley to get blown up. The chances of NFL teams scoring from the 1-yard line on 4 probably plays has to be around 93%. There was no frigin need to rush up to the line to try and catch the Bills quickly or anything, not sure if that was Josh or not, but the idea is to kill the clock and score the TD, that was beyond foolish.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

While I think it was the right decision, I don't think OP is crazy. It's a risk reward calculation, pure and simple. But I think it is close.

The difference between 3 and 6 points is not that high in that situation. If the Bills were out of time outs or there was only a minute left, it is different. What is the difference between 3 and 6. Well, if you stop them outside the 35, you win either way. If you give up the TD you lose either way. So, the only downside is this scenario: (1) you don't get the TD or a defensive penalty that gives you 4 more downs, (2) they get 45 but not 80 yards, (3) they make the FG. And even then, all that has happened is you reduced your chance of winning to 50/50 in OT.

There are two added benefits: you give them at least 10 extra yards to have to go even if you don't make it, and you take away their no-risk fourth down inside the 35 yard line.

On this last point, I would love to see the stats. How do teams do in the fourth quarter in drives where they know they have four downs per series? Usually, there is a disincentive not to go on fourth. Either you give up a fg try or give your opponent the ball back. When you are in the Bill's situation, there is no risk in the risk reward equation.

I think back to the 2007 super bowl. If Moss drops the TD and we only tie the game with an FG, the Giants punt on fourth down and Brady gets the ball last and OT is the worst outcome. Instead, they convert on fourth down. You want the TD of course, but putting your opponent in a no-risk 4th down situation matters.

One other thing you have to add to the math by the way: you might miss the FG. On the other side, one very small benefit of having 6 is you still get OT if they miss the extra point.

 

[zoostation]

Any idea why we rushed up to the line after it was 1st and Goal at the 1-yard line and got off a **** play that resulted in a 3 yard loss because of it?

In the NFL, when you're up by 3pts and there's 2 minutes and 30 seconds on the clock and you have just run for a first down to the oppponents goal line common sense tells you to let the clock run down to the 2-minute warning because yes, time is in fact on your side, go to the sideline and talk about the next 3-4 plays that you'll run to put this game away.

So rushing the play actually caused the right-side of our OLine to be out of synch to allow Ridley to get blown up. The chances of NFL teams scoring from the 1-yard line on 4 probably plays has to be around 93%. There was no frigin need to rush up to the line to try and catch the Bills quickly or anything, not sure if that was Josh or not, but the idea is to kill the clock and score the TD, that was beyond foolish.

I agree with everything you're saying, but I don't think they had the option to run the clock down to the 2 min warning. Could be wrong, but I think it was more like 2:50 left at that time. But either way. When it was live, I was thinking best to pull a Fitzpatrick from last year in Buffalo. Kneel twice, try to punch it in from the 1 on third, and kick the FG with 40 seconds left (and/or Buffalo burning their TO's) if you fail.

Anyway, a win is a win and although the play calling prior to the kick was horrendous, the FG was the right call in that situation.

 

[goheels22002]

Different scenario, but what I remember is poor clock management costing the Pats 7 points (post above). First and goal on the 9 (or so), 3 timeouts, 36 seconds left, and Brady gets cute and doesn't use the timeout until 18 (BB had to run down the sideline and call it). That situation was a complete cluster that should have been a TD. But again, no comparison to yesterday's situation.

Granted, a different situation, but I was just trying to remind the OP that you take the points. In one case, it wound up costing the Patriots the game. Yesterday, it might have as well if the Bills played for overtime.

 

[Gumby]

This was atrocious, I shouted at my screen for a goddamn run play there.

The worst part (if i remember correctly) was that on 1st down from the 1-2; they ran an empty backfield.

If you REALLY WANT TO PASS, in a situation that 95% of the NFL does a running play on; You arent even going to TRY PLAY ACTION ????

seemed silly to me.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Any idea why we rushed up to the line after it was 1st and Goal at the 1-yard line and got off a **** play that resulted in a 3 yard loss because of it?

In the NFL, when you're up by 3pts and there's 2 minutes and 30 seconds on the clock and you have just run for a first down to the oppponents goal line common sense tells you to let the clock run down to the 2-minute warning because yes, time is in fact on your side, go to the sideline and talk about the next 3-4 plays that you'll run to put this game away.

So rushing the play actually caused the right-side of our OLine to be out of synch to allow Ridley to get blown up. The chances of NFL teams scoring from the 1-yard line on 4 probably plays has to be around 93%. There was no frigin need to rush up to the line to try and catch the Bills quickly or anything, not sure if that was Josh or not, but the idea is to kill the clock and score the TD, that was beyond foolish.

I was at the game and wicked pissed at the hurry up call then. That idiotic decision was the root of the problem leading to the Bills having lots of time for a final winning drive attempt. It seemed clear that we out clevered ourselves with the hurry up there. This season our once vaunted clock mangement skills have approached Herm Edwards territory. BB has to look in the mirror and then take Josh and TFB to the woodshed on these kinds of decisions.

It was perfection on these small things that led to the rash of SB wins, starting in 2001 with a less talented but perfectly managed team. It is screw-ups on these small things that loses ballgames by 1-3 points, the story of this season.

 

[dizi24]

You realize we probably won last nights game because we did kick the field goal, right? If we don't get it on fourth down, we're up 3. The only reason we won last nights game is because Fitzpatrick and the Bills couldn't settle for a field goal and they forced an attempted TD pass.

The difference between having to drive down the field for 3 points vs. 7 points is HUGE. I'm usually a big fan of attempted 4th down attempts, but going up 6 points is a huge move. Even with this D, I have no problem giving the other team one drive to put up 7 with the game on the line.

 

[aluminum seats]

While I think it was the right decision, I don't think OP is crazy. It's a risk reward calculation, pure and simple. But I think it is close.

The difference between 3 and 6 points is not that high in that situation. If the Bills were out of time outs or there was only a minute left, it is different. What is the difference between 3 and 6. Well, if you stop them outside the 35, you win either way. If you give up the TD you lose either way. So, the only downside is this scenario: (1) you don't get the TD or a defensive penalty that gives you 4 more downs, (2) they get 45 but not 80 yards, (3) they make the FG. And even then, all that has happened is you reduced your chance of winning to 50/50 in OT.

There are two added benefits: you give them at least 10 extra yards to have to go even if you don't make it, and you take away their no-risk fourth down inside the 35 yard line.

On this last point, I would love to see the stats. How do teams do in the fourth quarter in drives where they know they have four downs per series? Usually, there is a disincentive not to go on fourth. Either you give up a fg try or give your opponent the ball back. When you are in the Bill's situation, there is no risk in the risk reward equation.

I think back to the 2007 super bowl. If Moss drops the TD and we only tie the game with an FG, the Giants punt on fourth down and Brady gets the ball last and OT is the worst outcome. Instead, they convert on fourth down. You want the TD of course, but putting your opponent in a no-risk 4th down situation matters.

One other thing you have to add to the math by the way: you might miss the FG. On the other side, one very small benefit of having 6 is you still get OT if they miss the extra point.

I was waiting for a reasonable response to the OP's reasonable suggestion. Considering everyone knew the Bills were going to march down the field, and the extra FG didn't change the threat of losing if the Bills scored a TD, I would have strongly considered going for it there. In fact, when the Pats went up six, the idea of OT seemed pretty appealing.

Ultimately, I think kick the FG, so as not to hurt the lame defense's feelings, etc. But it's certainly a fair question.

 

[RodThePat]

I was waiting for a reasonable response to the OP's reasonable suggestion. Considering everyone knew the Bills were going to march down the field, and the extra FG didn't change the threat of losing if the Bills scored a TD, I would have strongly considered going for it there. In fact, when the Pats went up six, the idea of OT seemed pretty appealing.

Ultimately, I think kick the FG, so as not to hurt the lame defense's feelings, etc. But it's certainly a fair question.

It's not about hurting anyone's feelings, it's about what you think our chances of converting a 4th and 9 in that situation were. And they weren't very good. If it was 4th and goal from the 2, I think Bill would've strongly considered it, but we had two straight incompletions at that point, and turning it over on downs there meant the Bills would get the ball with more than 2 minutes on the clock, 2 timeouts, needing a FG to tie it. That's an incredibly big risk to take.

 

[aluminum seats]

It's not about hurting anyone's feelings, it's about what you think our chances of converting a 4th and 9 in that situation were. And they weren't very good. If it was 4th and goal from the 2, I think Bill would've strongly considered it, but we had two straight incompletions at that point, and turning it over on downs there meant the Bills would get the ball with more than 2 minutes on the clock, 2 timeouts, needing a FG to tie it. That's an incredibly big risk to take.

But what's the risk? A TD beats them either way. I think it might have been preferable to encourage the tie.

 

[RodThePat]

But what's the risk? A TD beats them either way. I think it might have been preferable to encourage the tie.

Well, you saw the risk. Had we not converted on the 4th down play, the Bills showed us they were more than capable of easily driving into FG range. We turn it over on downs there and that game is CERTAIN to at least go into overtime. When you make the other team drive down the field to get a TD to win the game, you make them force more plays, and give you more opportunities to stop them. Do you believe that if the Bills needed only a FG to tie Fitzpatrick would've gone for the endzone in two consecutive throws from the 15-yard line? Ultimately, that's what won us the game.

 

[zoostation]

Granted, a different situation, but I was just trying to remind the OP that you take the points. In one case, it wound up costing the Patriots the game. Yesterday, it might have as well if the Bills played for overtime.

I know you were and I agree with you 100% with taking the points in yesterdays situation.

Obviously I would have liked to see them taking the points with less time left.

 

[aluminum seats]

We turn it over on downs there and that game is CERTAIN to at least go into overtime. Do you believe that if the Bills needed only a FG to tie Fitzpatrick would've gone for the endzone in two consecutive throws from the 15-yard line?

No, it's not certain at all. I have no problem imagining Fitzpatrick throwing an interception no matter what the score was.

 

[Gumby]

I was waiting for a reasonable response to the OP's reasonable suggestion. Considering everyone knew the Bills were going to march down the field, and the extra FG didn't change the threat of losing if the Bills scored a TD, I would have strongly considered going for it there. In fact, when the Pats went up six, the idea of OT seemed pretty appealing.

Ultimately, I think kick the FG, so as not to hurt the lame defense's feelings, etc. But it's certainly a fair question.

I think its only a fair question if you are asking the theoretical; WHERE IS THE CUT OFF POINT.

Asking in this situation (4th and 9 after 3 straight failed plays) is just silly.

If you are 4th and 9 after a holding penalty backs you up, 2 plays get you 6 and 5 yards and one is dropped; ok again MAYBE we could talk. but that is not what it was.

Personally, unless it was 4th and less than 5 AND it was spotted between the 9-15 would be my cutoff to START considering going for it. (so that there is 5-10 yards of cushion for a 1D as an option to a TD).

If it was less than 2 yards I would be very tempted; at the very least would go up and try to draw an offsides.

Anyway, how both kickers were booting it Sun; i think you had to take the 3; they both looked like they could hit 60 yards from how deep the KOs were. You wouldnt want to let them take it to OT from half the football field away.

 

[groundgame]

I was waiting for a reasonable response to the OP's reasonable suggestion. Considering everyone knew the Bills were going to march down the field, and the extra FG didn't change the threat of losing if the Bills scored a TD, I would have strongly considered going for it there. In fact, when the Pats went up six, the idea of OT seemed pretty appealing.

Ultimately, I think kick the FG, so as not to hurt the lame defense's feelings, etc. But it's certainly a fair question.

You are correct, up by six, the idea of OT seemed very appealing, as the premise of thread is the good likelyhood that any team can go 90 yards in the the final 90 seconds against the Pats in any game, to scorch us by 1 pt. You miss on 4th down try, you are up by 3, and the likelyhood now flips to scenario where opposing team marches down the field for late tying FG to force OT

 

[ctpatsfan77]

You take the 3 almost every time unless its 4th and less than a yard and inside of the 10......they were nowhere near that deep during that play.

Actually, you can make an argument for going for it on 4th-and-reasonable from anywhere on the field (from a statistical standpoint, apparently going for it makes you more likely to win in most situations), but 4th-and-9 isn't really "reasonable."

 

[RodThePat]

No, it's not certain at all. I have no problem imagining Fitzpatrick throwing an interception no matter what the score was.

You can't count on that when he's been carving you defense up the whole day. I also don't doubt they could've turned the ball over, but the only reason they did so was because they had to take a shot in the endzone to take the lead. Had the Bills needed only a FG to tie it, they most likely would've been more conservative once they were in the redzone.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I was waiting for a reasonable response to the OP's reasonable suggestion. Considering everyone knew the Bills were going to march down the field, and the extra FG didn't change the threat of losing if the Bills scored a TD, I would have strongly considered going for it there. In fact, when the Pats went up six, the idea of OT seemed pretty appealing.

Ultimately, I think kick the FG, so as not to hurt the lame defense's feelings, etc. But it's certainly a fair question.

OTOH, if you're counting on a "disaster" from the D, then:

Go for it and fail: BUF needs FG to tie, a TD requires that NE score a TD themselves to win.
Kick: BUF needs TD to win, but NE only needs a FG to win.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

I think its only a fair question if you are asking the theoretical; WHERE IS THE CUT OFF POINT.

Asking in this situation (4th and 9 after 3 straight failed plays) is just silly.

If you are 4th and 9 after a holding penalty backs you up, 2 plays get you 6 and 5 yards and one is dropped; ok again MAYBE we could talk. but that is not what it was.

Personally, unless it was 4th and less than 5 AND it was spotted between the 9-15 would be my cutoff to START considering going for it. (so that there is 5-10 yards of cushion for a 1D as an option to a TD).

If it was less than 2 yards I would be very tempted; at the very least would go up and try to draw an offsides.

Anyway, how both kickers were booting it Sun; i think you had to take the 3; they both looked like they could hit 60 yards from how deep the KOs were. You wouldnt want to let them take it to OT from half the football field away.

His assumption also relies both teams settling for OT. Since virtually any coach in the NFL isn't going to do that as a plan A, this means the Pats will have to defend differently once the other team gets near the 50. This creates an ideal situation for the other team to take some shots, which drastically improves their chances of winning. Leaving it as a 3 point game would just add more pressure on the secondary, which is the last thing most fans want.