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

[BradyFTW!]

But, apparently, that wouldn't happen if they went for it on 4th down there and got the first down. They'd never face another 4th down in that game, and certainly not a 4th and long, as they went merrily on their way to unquestionably scoring 14 unanswered points in the last 3 minutes of the game.

Lame, you're usually a much better poster than that. It's rare to see you stopping to straw men, but I guess that's all you have left for this argument.

If they'd gone for it and converted on 4th and 1, then obviously they could have kicked the field goal on 4th and 7 from the 10. 4th and 7 is an extremely low-percentage conversion, so if a virtually guaranteed tie is on the table, then of course you take that. That's why whole benefit of going for it early in a favorable situation in the first place: it gives you the option of kicking later in the event that you end up in a situation exactly like the one they ended up in.

They passed up the opportunity to convert on 4th and 1 and as a result were forced to go for it on 4th and 7. There are a ton of outside factors complicating the issue, but if you want to play dumb about it, then that doesn't really favor your case either.

 

[Deus Irae]

Lame, you're usually a much better poster than that. It's rare to see you stopping to straw men, but I guess that's all you have left for this argument.

If they'd gone for it and converted on 4th and 1, then obviously they could have kicked the field goal on 4th and 7 from the 10. 4th and 7 is an extremely low-percentage conversion, so if a virtually guaranteed tie is on the table, then of course you take that. That's why whole benefit of going for it early in a favorable situation in the first place: it gives you the option of kicking later in the event that you end up in a situation exactly like the one they ended up in.

They passed up the opportunity to convert on 4th and 1 and as a result were forced to go for it on 4th and 7. There are a ton of outside factors complicating the issue, but if you want to play dumb about it, then that doesn't really favor your case either.

There's no straw man in my argument. None at all. What you quoted was me pointing out potential things the pro-Barnwell side had chosen to ignore. I think you misread my post. The fact is that converting 4th and 1 doesn't necessarily equal scoring a TD, the clock will likely keep ticking, and defensive stops or penalties could easily end up putting the Falcons back in essentially the same position, or worse, with less time left on the clock.

It was 4th-and-1 on the 7, not 4th-and-goal from the 1.

PWP summed it up in an earlier post:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/1057090-bill-barnwell-last-night-s-game-page2.html#post3579976

 

[Demosthenes]

LOL!

What you don't get is that I am assuming a higher rate of make on the FG than your supposedly damning evidence!

The problem as I see it is that you and Barnwell are conflating general strategy with "situational football">

At the onset of their drive, being down by 10, yes, it absolutely makes more sense to play for a TD first, as then you would only need a FG to tie the game while another TD would win it in regulation.

This is absolutely undeniable as far as general strategy. BUT< then you have to look at the actual situation. 4th and 1. Failure to convert means ZERO pts and you are still down by 10. Kicking the FG means that you have pulled it to within a 1 possession game.

 

[Demosthenes]

Lame, you're usually a much better poster than that. It's rare to see you stopping to straw men, but I guess that's all you have left for this argument.

If they'd gone for it and converted on 4th and 1, then obviously they could have kicked the field goal on 4th and 7 from the 10. 4th and 7 is an extremely low-percentage conversion, so if a virtually guaranteed tie is on the table, then of course you take that. That's why whole benefit of going for it early in a favorable situation in the first place: it gives you the option of kicking later in the event that you end up in a situation exactly like the one they ended up in.

They passed up the opportunity to convert on 4th and 1 and as a result were forced to go for it on 4th and 7. There are a ton of outside factors complicating the issue, but if you want to play dumb about it, then that doesn't really favor your case either.

This is the benefit of hindsight. Obviously, if they had known that they'd have 4th and 7 from the 10 on their subsequent drive, Smith would have made a different decision on the 4th and 1.

 

[Oswlek]

The problem as I see it is that you and Barnwell are conflating general strategy with "situational football">

At the onset of their drive, being down by 10, yes, it absolutely makes more sense to play for a TD first, as then you would only need a FG to tie the game while another TD would win it in regulation.

This is absolutely undeniable as far as general strategy. BUT< then you have to look at the actual situation. 4th and 1. Failure to convert means ZERO pts and you are still down by 10. Kicking the FG means that you have pulled it to within a 1 possession game.

Can you delete the quote? I went too far and cut it myself.

 

[Demosthenes]

Can you delete the quote? I went too far and cut it myself.

Edited it to remove some stuff, while trying to leave enough to give context for my reply. That work ?

 

[patchick]

A bunch of people in this thread who are in favor of kicking have said "if you miss the 4th-conversion, the game is over." I think that psychologically, that's enormously powerful. You want to feel that there's still a chance.

But presumably we can all agree that the question "How likely is it that we'll lose this game" is more important than "How likely is it that we'll lose this game on this play." The goal is to maximize your chance of winning, period.

So let's ask which pair of events is likelier overall:

A. Scoring a touchdown starting from 4th & 1 on the opponent's 7th yardline
plus
Scoring a fieldgoal OR touchdown starting from your own 40

vs.

B. Scoring a fieldgoal starting from 4th & 1 on the opponent's 7th yardline
plus
Scoring a touchdown starting from your own 40

Barnwell is arguing that the total probability of A is greater than B. You may disagree, but IMO the fact that "a miss here would end it" shouldn't weigh too heavily in your decision.

 

[tmracht]

So let's ask which pair of events is likelier overall:

A. Scoring a touchdown starting from 4th & 1 on the opponent's 7th yardline
plus
Scoring a fieldgoal OR touchdown starting from your own 40

vs.

B. Scoring a fieldgoal starting from 4th & 1 on the opponent's 7th yardline
plus
Scoring a touchdown starting from your own 40

Barnwell is arguing that the total probability of A is greater than B. You may disagree, but IMO the fact that "a miss here would end it" shouldn't weigh too heavily in your decision.

Tried doing that in post #39

 

[BradyFTW!]

This is the benefit of hindsight. Obviously, if they had known that they'd have 4th and 7 from the 10 on their subsequent drive, Smith would have made a different decision on the 4th and 1.

That's not the point: I'm not advocating decisionmaking by hindsight. I'm pointout that their lack of foresight ended up nailing them exactly as one could have predicted that it was likely to.

The point is that had they exercised foresight they would have realized that taking the FG now will most likely require them to climb a steeper hill for the touchdown than "converting 4th and 1 on the 7"

 

[Oswlek]

A bunch of people in this thread who are in favor of kicking have said "if you miss the 4th-conversion, the game is over." I think that psychologically, that's enormously powerful. You want to feel that there's still a chance.

But presumably we can all agree that the question "How likely is it that we'll lose this game" is more important than "How likely is it that we'll lose this game on this play." The goal is to maximize your chance of winning, period.

So let's ask which pair of events is likelier overall:

A. Scoring a touchdown starting from 4th & 1 on the opponent's 7th yardline
plus
Scoring a fieldgoal OR touchdown starting from your own 40

vs.

B. Scoring a fieldgoal starting from 4th & 1 on the opponent's 7th yardline
plus
Scoring a touchdown starting from your own 40

Barnwell is arguing that the total probability of A is greater than B. You may disagree, but IMO the fact that "a miss here would end it" shouldn't weigh too heavily in your decision.

:rocker::woohoo::woot::clap2::hail:

 

[patchick]

Tried doing that in post #39

LOL! Yep, but it didn't take, so I tried simplifying. None of those pesky numbers.

 

[Demosthenes]

A bunch of people in this thread who are in favor of kicking have said "if you miss the 4th-conversion, the game is over." I think that psychologically, that's enormously powerful. You want to feel that there's still a chance.

But presumably we can all agree that the question "How likely is it that we'll lose this game" is more important than "How likely is it that we'll lose this game on this play." The goal is to maximize your chance of winning, period.

So let's ask which pair of events is likelier overall:

A. Scoring a touchdown starting from 4th & 1 on the opponent's 7th yardline
plus
Scoring a fieldgoal OR touchdown starting from your own 40

vs.

B. Scoring a fieldgoal starting from 4th & 1 on the opponent's 7th yardline
plus
Scoring a touchdown starting from your own 40

Barnwell is arguing that the total probability of A is greater than B. You may disagree, but IMO the fact that "a miss here would end it" shouldn't weigh too heavily in your decision.

If I had to have at least 10 pts and I had Julio Jones, Tony Gonzalez and Roddy White as receivers, I'd take option B over option A every day of the week.

Why ? Because on the 2nd possession, I have 4 downs to score a TD OR make 10 yards and get another set of downs. Then I'd have another 4 downs with which to score a TD or gain another 10 yards. Rinse/repeat.

 

[Deus Irae]

A bunch of people in this thread who are in favor of kicking have said "if you miss the 4th-conversion, the game is over." I think that psychologically, that's enormously powerful. You want to feel that there's still a chance.

But presumably we can all agree that the question "How likely is it that we'll lose this game" is more important than "How likely is it that we'll lose this game on this play." The goal is to maximize your chance of winning, period.

So let's ask which pair of events is likelier overall:

A. Scoring a touchdown starting from 4th & 1 on the opponent's 7th yardline
plus
Scoring a fieldgoal OR touchdown starting from your own 40

vs.

B. Scoring a fieldgoal starting from 4th & 1 on the opponent's 7th yardline
plus
Scoring a touchdown starting from your own 40

Barnwell is arguing that the total probability of A is greater than B. You may disagree, but IMO the fact that "a miss here would end it" shouldn't weigh too heavily in your decision.

Here's Advanced NFL Stats on that, although their data is incomplete because it ignores drives where time runs out:



Advanced NFL Stats: Drive Results

 

[patchick]

If I had to have at least 10 pts and I had Julio Jones, Tony Gonzalez and Roddy White as receivers, I'd take option B over option A every day of the week.

Why ? Because on the 2nd possession, I have 4 downs to score a TD OR make 10 yards and get another set of downs. Then I'd have another 4 downs with which to score a TD or gain another 10 yards. Rinse/repeat.

A very reasonable response. BUT -- the 1st down "rinse/repeat" approach over 60 yards takes a lot more time as the game runs down.

 

[Demosthenes]

That's not the point: I'm not advocating decisionmaking by hindsight. I'm pointout that their lack of foresight ended up nailing them exactly as one could have predicted that it was likely to.

The point is that had they exercised foresight they would have realized that taking the FG now will most likely require them to climb a steeper hill for the touchdown than "converting 4th and 1 on the 7"

That "steeper hill" was having the ball 1st and 10 on our 13 yard line.


What killed the Falcons last night wasn't the strategy, it was lack of execution. They had 4 chances to get a TD from our 13 yard line, or get the ball to our 3 yard line, and they failed.

 

[Demosthenes]

A very reasonable response. BUT -- the 1st down "rinse/repeat" approach over 60 yards takes a lot more time as the game runs down.

They had 1:50 in which to go 60 yds. That's plenty of time, especially given their offensive weaponry.

EDIT: Addtionally, there was 2:55 or more on the clock when they tried the onside kick.

 

[Deus Irae]

A very reasonable response. BUT -- the 1st down "rinse/repeat" approach over 60 yards takes a lot more time as the game runs down.

They had 3 minutes left, and all their timeouts, after the field goal. They ended up with a 1st and 10 from the 13, with 59 seconds left in the game, and they still had 2 timeouts left.

 

[patchick]

Here's Advanced NFL Stats on that, although their data is incomplete because it ignores drives where time runs out:



Advanced NFL Stats: Drive Results

Worse yet, they assume a full set of downs and don't take into account whether field goals were missed or just not attempted (e.g. because a td was scored).

But I think the chances come out similar for both situations: a little under 20% success rate either way. Which suggests that there may be no clear right and wrong on this one.

One difference, though, is that going for it yields a greater chance of winning outright rather than just sending the game to overtime.

 

[Deus Irae]

Worse yet, they assume a full set of downs and don't take into account whether field goals were missed or just not attempted (e.g. because a td was scored).

But I think the chances come out similar for both situations: a little under 20% success rate either way. Which suggests that there may be no clear right and wrong on this one.

One difference, though, is that going for it yields a greater chance of winning outright rather than just sending the game to overtime.

If I'm understanging you, you're omitting the difference between the success rates of scoring the initial field goal versus scoring the initial TD.

Using this data, the same data someone else used earlier in the thread, we see that kicking the field goal gives the team the better chance. The FG is roughly a 95% chance, followed by a TD drive with about the same chance of success as a FG drive would have following the TD, assuming the TD actually happened.


Applying it to the game itself, we see that the Falcons had 1st and 10 from the 16 and failed to get the TD, but we also see that they later had a first and 10 from the 13 and failed to score the TD. That helps to demonstrate that even making the initial 4th-and-1 from the 7 would not have definitely led to a TD.

 

[pencilneckgeek]

But I think the chances come out similar for both situations: a little under 20% success rate either way. Which suggests that there may be no clear right and wrong on this one.

Actually, it was a 9% (try for a TD then FG) versus 3% (go for a FG then TD) success (win probability) rate. There is a clear right and wrong. It's just both choices are lousy. That doesn't mean a coach shouldn't man-up and make the hard decision to try to win.

In fairness, the win probability dataset does not consider the timeout situation. Having 2.5 minutes and 3 timouts is very different from having 2.5 minutes and 0 or 1 timeouts. In the latter situation, you quite simply will not have time to drive 60 yards and need to go for a TD NOW with hopes of making a quick strike into FG range later. Given that the Falcons had all 3 timeouts, I suspect the win probability is somewhat skewed (say to 10% and 5%), but not so much that the right decision is decidedly not the conventional wisdom of taking the sure points and hoping to make the big play(s) later.