Bill Barnwell of Grantland on last night's game at Atlanta

[Oswlek]

It's not always about points on the board it can sometimes be about maximizing your expecting winning opportunities which is what Barnwell is arguing.

Exactly. Even if everything went right, you get the figgie, you get the onside or make the stop, then you drive down and tie it up...

It is still basically a 50/50 shot in overtime.

I see the value in prolonging the period in which you technically are still in the game. But the biggest threat to NE actually losing was if Atlanta scored a TD there. I started sweating as that drive went on, but once the ball went through the uprights, my reservations turned to confidence.

 

[Songin]

^^ Agreed with many of the above. Takes the points to get it to a "one score" game.

Atlanta's problem is that even missing both Gronk and Amandola and dealing with an UDFA, they couldn't keep Tom Brady from being Tom Brady.

The guy's unbelieveable. On the road, against a team desparate for a win no less. Another notch on the HOF resume.

 

[Deus Irae]

Barnwell's analysis is correct. You're confusing two things---what gives the team the best chance to continue to be competitive in the game (kick the FG) and what gives the team the best chance to win the game (go for the TD). While the former looks appealing, the latter is all that really matters.

Neither you nor Barnwell are correct.

 

[Deus Irae]

Over three minutes with all three timeouts. Even if you fail, you are still likely to get a possession and an on-side try. And unless NE gouges you, that first possession is going to be in good field position, giving you an easy march to FG position.

The fact that Atlanta ended up needing to convert a more difficult 4th down conversion - and it wasn't surprising in the least - validates a lot of what Bill is suggesting.

Matt Bryant is 83 for 88 lifetime from 29 yards or less. The odds of converting the 4th and 1 are considerably lower than that.


Barnwell's just wrong on the issue.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Without big Vince, I think the Pats are less likely to see a 3-4. Why would you run a 3-4 without a legitimate starting NT?

Agreed, pretty much the only reason we had to run a 3-4 in any capacity was that Wilfork and Spikes are ideally suited for it.

 

[Oswlek]

Matt Bryant is 83 for 88 lifetime from 29 yards or less. The odds of converting the 4th and 1 are considerably lower than that.

Barnwell's just wrong on the issue.

Those percentages have nothing whatsoever to do with the argument. :confused4:

 

[Demosthenes]

I think Barnwell builds a solid enough case to think otherwise. I know my confidence level took an uptick once they kicked the figgie.

Not really. A big part of his argument is that the latter drive ended up with a much harder 4th and 7 or whatever to convert. You can't predict that.

They needed 10 pts to even have a chance of winning. 3 pts got them to a 1 score game.


I like Barnwell, and I'm not one to subscribe to "conventional wisdom", but the FG at that point was the right call.

 

[Deus Irae]

Those percentages have nothing whatsoever to do with the argument. :confused4:

Success percentages have nothing to do with which is the better option?



Seriously?




Is this some online version of Candid Camera, or something?

 

[Oswlek]

Success percentages have nothing to do with which is the better option?

Seriously?

Yes. You either aren't grasping the argument or haven't read it, but the success rate of the FG vs. the success rate of the 4th down conversion have nothing whatsoever to do with Barnwell's argument. I'm not being argumentative, just stating the facts.

 

[Oswlek]

Not really. A big part of his argument is that the latter drive ended up with a much harder 4th and 7 or whatever to convert. You can't predict that.

It was a part, not a big part.

 

[Deus Irae]

Yes. You either aren't grasping the argument or haven't read it, but the success rate of the FG vs. the success rate of the 4th down conversion have nothing whatsoever to do with Barnwell's argument. I'm not being argumentative, just stating the facts.

I read Barnwell's argument. My point is that the success rates kill his arguments. If you kick the field goal (94%), you're within 7. If you get stopped on 4th (which has a lower percentage of success, which varies depending on whether you're averaging everyone or looking at specific teams*), you're going home a loser without ever having gotten a chance to tie.

His argument is lousy. You should have known that the moment he made the "only way to win in regulation" stuff part of his argument.


*according to team rankings.com, the Falcons have converted 25% and 22% of their 4th downs in their last two seasons.

 

[Oswlek]

I read Barnwell's argument. My point is that the success rates kill his arguments.

His argument is moronic. You should have known that the moment he made the "only way to win in regulation" stuff part of his argument.

Deus, the success rate of FGs has nothing whatsoever to do with the argument. It doesn't kill anything because it is completely irrelevant.

I'd be happy to explain why, but something tells me you aren't interested in the answer.

 

[Demosthenes]

Deus, the success rate of FGs has nothing whatsoever to do with the argument. It doesn't kill anything because it is completely irrelevant.

I'd be happy to explain why, but something tells me you aren't interested in the answer.

IF he isn't interested, I am. By all means, go ahead and explain it.

 

[pencilneckgeek]

The fact that Atlanta ended up needing to convert a more difficult 4th down conversion - and it wasn't surprising in the least - validates a lot of what Bill is suggesting.

THIS. If they thought this way in advance as Coach Belichick certainly would have, they would have tried for a quick 1st down on 3rd and 1and given themselves 2 chances to get 1 yard and thereby have more chances to get it in the end zone on that drive, given that they were so close with little time left. When 4th and 1 came around, they still should have gone for it. When Bill Belichick says that if you can't one yard when you need it, you don't deserve to win, he's not just talking in hyperbole, he's saying that you only get so many chances to make game-winning plays, and you should take those chances and win, if you intend on winning.

Teams take the easy points too often to keep hope alive, instead of being aggressive and trying to win. This goes for the first quarter as well as the 4th, if facing a high-powered offense. Being more aggressive is the starting point, but I think that would have been more valuable on 3rd down than 4th in this case. Knowing that you intend to go for it on 4th down makes it that much easier, because it gives you more options on 3rd down.

If you want to think clearly about strategy, you owe it to yourself to look at Advanced NFL Stats 4th Down Calculator. This uses game logs from all games from ~1996 (when enforcement of passing rules started to change) to the present and calculates probabilities for points and liklihood of wins for any 4th down decision and the break-even success probability by which you can gauge whether it's worth going for it. (Granted, some of these are limited datasets and therefore some vagaries exist related to extreme results [e.g., turnovers, blocked field goals] that have occurred in specific situations, so play with it a bit and check-out some of the research on the subject.)

This is only a piece of the puzzle, as it doesn't account for how match-ups are going, but I think it makes a convincing argument that Smith should have gone for it on 4th and 1. All other things being equal, going for it on 4th down tripled the probability of the Falcons winning the game. That's not even close, and a coach should know that offhand when making his 3rd down call.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

That's not playing to win, that's playing not to lose. You still need the TD, it's easier to get the TD on 4th and 2 than it is later in the game.

By missing on the TD you've dug a deep hole
By taking the 3 you allow time and opportunity for another "stuff happens" which could be another Brady-center miscue, gamble, pick, long pass for a TD, whatever. These potential gifts or great plays by your team would be "not enough" were you down 10.

 

[Oswlek]

IF he isn't interested, I am. By all means, go ahead and explain it.

Primarily because in that situation you assume the FG to be a foregone conclusion. The only reason why you would consider FG percentages on such a short kick is if you had a reason to think it wouldn't be made, in which case the TD becomes more attractive. Without negative evidence, though, you take those three points for granted.

Ultimately, the argument isn't FG% vs. 4th down conversion rate, it is guaranteed three points and still needing a 60 yard TD drive vs. getting a single yard to try for a TD and then only needing 25 yards to be in makeable FG range, with the added bonus of possibly even winning outright if the drive is better than you hope. The fact that the defense now needs to guard against the FG paradoxically would make a TD even easier.

Yes, you probably lose if you don't get that first yard. But you are likely to lose either way in that situation, and your odds of victory are much higher with that yard and subsequent TD than any time in regulation with the FG.

 

[pencilneckgeek]

By missing on the TD you've dug a deep hole
By taking the 3 you allow time and opportunity for another "stuff happens" which could be another Brady-center miscue, gamble, pick, long pass for a TD, whatever. These potential gifts or great plays by your team would be "not enough" were you down 10.

Hope and fear do not constitute an effective game plan.

 

[Deus Irae]

Deus, the success rate of FGs has nothing whatsoever to do with the argument. It doesn't kill anything because it is completely irrelevant.

I'd be happy to explain why, but something tells me you aren't interested in the answer.

I read the article. Yes, success rates would absolutely matter, because they kill his argument before he can even begin. That's precisely why he didn't get into the percentages in the first place. Barnwell's arguments were incredibly stupid. Every single one of his assertions was a stupid assertion, for one reason or another. Sorry, but it is what it is.

 

[tmracht]

If you look at the %Chance of the 4th and 1...call it 60%. Then you have the equivalent of starting at drive from the 6 yard line or less which is roughly a 70% chance at a TD multiplying those together you're at a 42% chance roughly at scoring at TD after being 4th and 1 from the 7 yard line.

If you the assume you need to go ~60 yards on the next drive to get a TD that number is roughly 25% on a 60 yard drive.

By kicking the field goal you're taking the higher probability of scoring the TD out of the equation. By going from a TD %expectancy of 42% down to the 25%. Either way a FG is easier to get than the FG thats not really up for debate, but even a long field goal attempt by Bryant (50+ yards hes still 55%), means you'd only need to move the sticks to about the 33 to still have a better chance of tying it up.

-Also getting my data for TD by field location from Advanced NFL Stats
Advanced NFL Stats: Drive Results

And yes by messing up 4th and 1 the game is effectively over, but scoring that TD makes the chances of them tying/winning much higher than hoping for a miscue or a long TD bomb. For every Flacco bomb to Jacoby Jones there are a handful of drives that come up short.

Alas, though most people will try to extend the game to allow something to happen as convention proves, just doesn't always mathematically make the best strategy, but again health/execution/luck that week always play a role in the likelihood that day of anything happening.

 

[Oswlek]

I read the article. Yes, success rates would absolutely matter, because they kill his argument before he can even begin. That's precisely why he didn't get into the percentages in the first place. Barnwell's arguments were incredibly stupid. Sorry, but it is what it is.

Deus, Barnwell might be wrong, but your argument continues to be mistaken. FG% is completely meaningless. See my post above.