Better to be up 3 or 4 at the end of the game?

[PatsFaninAZ]

There's plenty of thread topics worth mocking but this is not one of them... and for what it's worth, I think the context of the question is which do you prefer AS A FAN... yesterday was a nailbiter - and yet there was some condolence expecting that a probable outcome was that the Chargers would get it into FG range and force overtime. I think that's what the OP is trying to illustrate.

Nah, I know the OP. He's a moron.

Seriously, though, thanks much. That is what I was getting at.

 

[IcyPatriot]

Can I go politically correct and say 3.5 pts. :confused3:

 

[realtime]

Better to be up by 14 with the ball? Or down by 14 without the ball?

 

[Triumph]

Every coach and team is going to apply a different strategy as well

Up by 3 a coach may have a tendency to play for a tie depending on field position and time left...

Up by 4 a coach has no choice but to play for the win

Turner is a conservative HC.

He never took a shot in the endzone on the final drive and even though there were time outs left, and let the clock run out for the FG try. An agressive HC would have at least tried to deliver the knockout punch by going for a TD.

 

[emoney_33]

Turner is a conservative HC.

He never took a shot in the endzone on the final drive and even though there were time outs left, and let the clock run out for the FG try. An agressive HC would have at least tried to deliver the knockout punch by going for a TD.

They threw deep on 2nd down.

 

[condon84]

Where I'm from 4 is always greater than 3.

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

I don't find the question to be a no brainer at all.

The "up by 3" argument is that you are basically saying we probably can't stop them completely, but maybe we can hold them to a FG and not lose outright in regulation because they are not desperately trying to get a TD (as they would if they were down by 4).

So, if our defense is suspect and they have a coach that tends to call the game conservatively AND our offense can be trusted to win in OT if they win the coin toss, I think I would prefer to being up by only 3.

This way, they are more likely to settle for a tie and our teams has a 50/50 shot of getting the coin toss and putting the game away.

Otherwise, being up by 4 is better.

 

[ivanvamp]

I'd be really interested to see solid stats on this.

Edit: And in the opposite direction, a purely emotional analysis: suppose SD had decided NOT to run down the clock and had gone for it on 4 and 2 instead. As a Pats fan, would you have been delighted about that decision?

I was glad they went for a 45 yard FG (which, of course, became a 50 yard FG after the penalty). I was worried that they'd go for it, get it, and, with a minute left and 3 time outs, easily march in for the winning TD.

That's one reason why I think Brown saved the game with his tackle of Gates, because I was confident that it would mean SD would go for the FG.

 

[ivanvamp]

I think any statistical analysis of these situations would indicate that playing for the field goal vs. a touchdown yields a much higher percentage of success. The offense has to execute more plays. Of course, the way we were defending the pass ...

Well, I think it depends on the situation. If the D has been playing great, then obviously I'd prefer a 4-point lead, for all the reasons many here have mentioned. But in the SD game, like the Indy game from last year, it was clear that the D was having a *really* difficult time stopping them. And a 4 point lead guarantees the offense with 4 downs to keep the drive alive, with a back-to-the-wall mentality (i.e., they *have* to go for it, and strategize accordingly). With the FG as an option, they could be more conservative and play for the FG (exactly what SD did), thus, in effect, helping the defense out.

 

[aluminum seats]

What's interesting about the question is that it goes to emotion and logic. Logically, right, more points is better. But as someone else said, as a fan it's less stressful, because it doesn't feel like such an all or nothing situation.

Having said that, if you're DOWN, you're always going to pick down by 3, that feels like a no-brainer. So I think it should probably be true both ways.

In a way, it's similar to the go for it/punt question at the end of the game. One of the things tempting about going for it is that it's quick and final--one play and the stress ends! Go for it!

 

[LiveShot]

Let's see 3 or four, and the most points wins the game. I say four but is this a trick question?

 

[aluminum seats]

Let's see 3 or four, and the most points wins the game. I say four but is this a trick question?

A one-liner 6 pages into a thread. Sigh.

 

[scout]

Let's see 3 or four, and the most points wins the game. I say four but is this a trick question?

Actually, its a legitimate question. In the case of San Diego, they are not going to be foolish and turn the ball over by throwing long. The result might have been different had they not botched the kick from the 45 with illegal motion. Had it been the Colts, you know Manning is going for it, then, he'll probably have a shorter field goal if he does not make it. In Denver last week, the Jets threw it long (down by 4, I think) and got the result with a penalty.
You still have to believe that 4 is better then 3, as the other team has a much longer way to go to score.

 

[Triumph]

They threw deep on 2nd down.

In the end zone?

 

[Synovia]

I'll take the 4 every single time.

PS: Down by 3 or 4, you play the first 3 downs just about the same. They only go crazy with big plays for the TD when the clock is really low. The first down from the 30/40 is still very valuable whether you are down by 3 or 4. And if they are in a situation where they have to take big play chances then it's easier to defend them.

No, you don't.

Once you get towards the other half of the field, your play choices on 3rd down change drastically. Essentially, when you're down 3, you need to average 3.3 yards per play. Down 4, you need 2.5.

4 down offenses drastically change the way 3rd down is approached.

 

[Synovia]

I'd rather be up by 3.


I've seen too many late scores in 4 point games, and too many games where teams march down the field, and then seem to stop driving to set up a 45 yard kick. 45 yarders get missed quite a bit.

You have to remember the face saving aspect: your average coach would rather miss a 45 yard figgie, then continue driving and risk a turnover (and having not "take the points").

 

[TriplecHamp]

Id rather be up 7 Seriously I don't trust our defensive scheme enough to give the ball back to the opposition with too much time left and multiple timeouts. Up 4 against Peyton Manning with 1:30 and two timeouts is a death wish against the bend but don't break. I don't trust arrington enough to leave him man on man against Garcon or Wayne. So I see Peyton slinging the ball up and down the field with a few routes over the middle and some deep comebacks as Arrington gives too much respect to the receiver. The Colts get the ball down around the 10 yard line with 30 seconds left and we're done. Same thing happens when up 3 points. Peyton will smell the blood once they get to around the 30 and most likely take some shots around the endzone or deep middle of the field. Too many gaps in the zone and not enough talent to matchup man on man. If im the Jets I take 4, if Im the Pats I wouldn't be upset if it was 3.

 

[emoney_33]

No, you don't.

Once you get towards the other half of the field, your play choices on 3rd down change drastically. Essentially, when you're down 3, you need to average 3.3 yards per play. Down 4, you need 2.5.

4 down offenses drastically change the way 3rd down is approached.

I doubt as much as you seem to think. No one strategizes for 2.5 or 3.3 yards per play.

There are few specific situations where a 3rd down strategy might change like being right on the fringe of your kicker's range, but once again those are very specific circumstances.

The same yards that put you closer to get the kick put you closer to pick up the 1st on 4th down.

 

[emoney_33]

I'd rather be up by 3.


I've seen too many late scores in 4 point games, and too many games where teams march down the field, and then seem to stop driving to set up a 45 yard kick. 45 yarders get missed quite a bit.

You have to remember the face saving aspect: your average coach would rather miss a 45 yard figgie, then continue driving and risk a turnover (and having not "take the points").

Well then you should be able to show that the winning percentage is better being down by 4 than by 3. I suspect the reality does not agree with your perception.

 

[aluminum seats]

I'd rather be up by 3.


I've seen too many late scores in 4 point games, and too many games where teams march down the field, and then seem to stop driving to set up a 45 yard kick. 45 yarders get missed quite a bit.

You have to remember the face saving aspect: your average coach would rather miss a 45 yard figgie, then continue driving and risk a turnover (and having not "take the points").

Please don't say "figgie" again.