Green Bay kicking the field goal: a different perspective

[brdmaverick]

Hi everyone, so I'm sure there has already been some good chatter about the Packers' decision to kick the field goal down by 8 late in the NFCC game.

They never saw the ball again and it's clear to everyone they should have gone for it.

I, too, believe they should have gone for it. When you NEED a TD to tie the game, you take every opportunity to GET THAT TD!

But does the 8 points vs 7 points play into this at all?

I just want to remind everyone that the Patriots were in a similar scenario in the 2015 AFC Championship Game.

They had drives down the field in the fourth quarter that ended with failed fourth down attempts. On the Patriots' final drive they got the TD they needed but failed on the 2 point conversion. Many here looked back at those 'other fourth quarter drives' and said 'if we kick the field goal there, we win the game!'

WOuld they have said that about the Packers if the Packers failed on 4th down, got the ball back, scored the TD but failed on teh 2 pt try?

They were pretty close to getting the ball back (3rd down penalty). The coach is villified now, but would have been a hero if the Packers got the ball back and scored the game winning (instead of potential game tying) touchdown.

Again, I would haved liked to have seen them go for it on fourth down, but just providing a different perspective that I think makes it less egregious.

 

[Calhoun44]

No.
If they failed from the 8 yard line. TB is backed up to their own end zone and when/if they punt the field position is better (most likely). Also TB would be playing a lot tighter that close to their own end zone and sometimes funny things happen when "nerves" are involved.

 

[Doctor DDS]

It was not the worst decision in the world as they were at the 8 yard line but it was asking a lot from a defense that had not really shut down TB all day (outside of some poorly thrown balls) If there was 3 minutes left I think it was fine but with just over 2 I don't like it.

If the Pats had kicked a FG earlier the entire play sequence for both teams would have changed so it does not necessarily mean they win the game.

 

[brdmaverick]

It was not the worst decision in the world as they were at the 8 yard line but it was asking a lot from a defense that had not really shut down TB all day (outside of some poorly thrown balls) If there was 3 minutes left I think it was fine but with just over 2 I don't like it.

If the Pats had kicked a FG earlier the entire play sequence for both teams would have changed so it does not necessarily mean they win the game.

They actually did shut them down for the majority of the second half.

After being setup for an easy TD at hte beginning of the half, the Bucs only managed 3 points for the entirety of the second half. Also, the run game wasn't effective which definitely put some pressrue on TB's play-calling as they looked to run out the clock.

One decision I WILL NEVER understand though, is why did TB 'down themselves' with a slide right after the GB FG? Were they THAT afraid of the guy fumbling that they gifted the Packers an additional time out? If GB won, THIS would ahve been the controversial play that everyone woudl be talking about.

 

[Doctor DDS]

They were shut down due to the INTs. I do not believe they had punted all half and the prior drive was a FG. I do not think kicking the FG was crazy - just not something I would have done. GB was stupid not to kick it into the EZ and the returner was stupid not to take 2 more seconds.

 

[Pape]

situational football ... time remaining is key

2:09 left when the kicked the field goal... it just didnt make sense... they were on the 8 yard line... it was the only time they made it into bucs territory in the 4th quarter

 

[jah]

People keep bringing up the hypothetical 8 vs 7 point deficit thing and I don't really see why it matters here. The lead was 8 points, and the same decision would have been correct in either case. When the argument is "well, it's less wrong of a decision than it would have been if they were down 7", you know you're splitting hairs.

 

[brdmaverick]

People keep bringing up the hypothetical 8 vs 7 point deficit thing and I don't really see why it matters here. The lead was 8 points, and the same decision would have been correct in either case. When the argument is "well, it's less wrong of a decision than it would have been if they were down 7", you know you're splitting hairs.

I'm sure there is some article somewhere with a breakdown of the win probability once they went for the field goal instead of TD. I'd be curious to see that assessment.

 

[archstanton543]

No.
If they failed from the 8 yard line. TB is backed up to their own end zone and when/if they punt the field position is better (most likely). Also TB would be playing a lot tighter that close to their own end zone and sometimes funny things happen when "nerves" are involved.

Yeah. Remember that time Tom Brady had an intentional grounding penalty that turned into a safety in the Super Bowl?

 

[Hyped]

I didn't like nor hate the decision to go for the FG. They had 3 TO's and it was outside the 2 minute warning....but yeah...I think I go for the TD in that situation with a screen pass....and at worst set up the Bucs on their 4 yard line.

Additionally, the 3 Brady interceptions were basically punts......I think the Bucs would have scored even more if they had tried to methodically move the ball vs. trying to hit home runs.

 

[Joker]

will someone please get God on the phone and have HIM replay this sequence so that the precious Discount Double Dork "weeeeeeee-uns!!!!" the game and silences these constantly moaning, crying, "can't believe my hero lost" pinheads? Thanx in advance...

 

[Guts]

The thing is even if they tied the game, there was no guarantee they would have won since Tom would've had enough time to do what he does best kill the hopes and dreams of other fans

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I saw an analytics breakdown and kicking/going for it was almost exactly the same victory probability.

Of course the 8 point vs 7 point makes a huge difference. At 8 points you take a big risk to convert and still have only 50% odds of tying the game. And even if you tie the game, Tampa has the ball anyway. The field goal makes it 5 points, so a touchdown then wins the game (don’t have to worry about two point conversion.)

Long story short: 8 points makes the potential touchdown less valuable and the field goal more valuable.

As it was about the same percentages with either decision, here are the factors:

• You have Aaron Rodgers and one of the best offenses in the league.
• But you also just failed to convert on three prior downs, so the matchup doesn’t seem as favorable.
• Packers had just intercepted Brady three times.
• You might lure Arians into a conservative running strategy to kill the clock.

 

[Sicilian]

I saw an analytics breakdown and kicking/going for it was almost exactly the same victory probability.

Of course the 8 point vs 7 point makes a huge difference. At 8 points you take a big risk to convert and still have only 50% odds of tying the game. And even if you tie the game, Tampa has the ball anyway. The field goal makes it 5 points, so a touchdown then wins the game (don’t have to worry about two point conversion.)

Long story short: 8 points makes the potential touchdown less valuable and the field goal more valuable.

As it was about the same percentages with either decision, here are the factors:

• You have Aaron Rodgers and one of the best offenses in the league.
• But you also just failed to convert on three prior downs, so the matchup doesn’t seem as favorable.
• Packers had just intercepted Brady three times.
• You might lure Arians into a conservative running strategy to kill the clock.

Good breakdown. The only thing I would consider is that we already saw Arians and Brady be aggressive at the end of the first half, going for it on 4th and 3 at the 50, then taking a deep shot (that should never have been allowed to be open, but still). So you have to figure they weren't going to just the run the ball into a stacked front 3 times and punt.

I can kind of understand the situation, because you have to figure the 2 point conversion is not guaranteed. So at least with the FG you know you just need a touchdown to win (not just possibly tie). I just think there was too little time left. Tom only needed one first down to essentially end the game, and I can't get behind a strategy that relies him not doing that.

 

[The Brandon Five]

Yeah. Remember that time Tom Brady had an intentional grounding penalty that turned into a safety in the Super Bowl?

Was a bull$H!t call

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Good breakdown. The only thing I would consider is that we already saw Arians and Brady be aggressive at the end of the first half, going for it on 4th and 3 at the 50, then taking a deep shot (that should never have been allowed to be open, but still). So you have to figure they weren't going to just the run the ball into a stacked front 3 times and punt.

I can kind of understand the situation, because you have to figure the 2 point conversion is not guaranteed. So at least with the FG you know you just need a touchdown to win (not just possibly tie). I just think there was too little time left. Tom only needed one first down to essentially end the game, and I can't get behind a strategy that relies him not doing that.

I agree. In the end, both decisions led to a really low probability of victory. When the Packers failed to move the ball further, that fourth down gave them only a 30% chance of scoring a TD, and a 15% chance of scoring a TD and converting for 2.

Overall victory probability was around 10% with either going for it or kicking a field goal.

You do have Rodgers, who had an outlier season, and this is where you’d favor your franchise’s 40M investment. Which I think is reason enough to go for it. Put the game in the hands of your best player as much as you can.

But the decision by LaFleur did not put them into that bind. They had already gotten into it themselves. That’s why the media is mistaken and trying to build a false narrative by exaggerating the decision and calling it “the worst call ever!!” As usual Rodgers has a scapegoat, even though his failures in the fourth quarter are the reason they were in 10% territory to begin with.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

We should have kicked the fg with 5 or 6 minutes left. We were right to go for it at 2 minutes.

 

[lancerman]

People keep bringing up the hypothetical 8 vs 7 point deficit thing and I don't really see why it matters here. The lead was 8 points, and the same decision would have been correct in either case. When the argument is "well, it's less wrong of a decision than it would have been if they were down 7", you know you're splitting hairs.

Because if it was 7 points, then you score and absolutely don't need a second possession. If it's 8 points you are now gambling the game on a situation where you will possibly need a second possession anyways. At that point the risk reward comes into play and you are thinking "well maybe I just cut the lead because it's more likely than not we need the ball back, so we might as well make it easier on ourselves than possibly be in a position where you the extra points are immaterial.

 

[lancerman]

The thing is even if they tied the game, there was no guarantee they would have won since Tom would've had enough time to do what he does best kill the hopes and dreams of other fans

Yup. This part is also ignored. They were going to need to stop Brady in some form or fashion anyways.

 

[brdmaverick]

I saw an analytics breakdown and kicking/going for it was almost exactly the same victory probability.

Of course the 8 point vs 7 point makes a huge difference. At 8 points you take a big risk to convert and still have only 50% odds of tying the game. And even if you tie the game, Tampa has the ball anyway. The field goal makes it 5 points, so a touchdown then wins the game (don’t have to worry about two point conversion.)

Long story short: 8 points makes the potential touchdown less valuable and the field goal more valuable.

As it was about the same percentages with either decision, here are the factors:

• You have Aaron Rodgers and one of the best offenses in the league.
• But you also just failed to convert on three prior downs, so the matchup doesn’t seem as favorable.
• Packers had just intercepted Brady three times.
• You might lure Arians into a conservative running strategy to kill the clock.

yes, I do find the TB offensive strategy with the ball to be a very fascinating scenario.

You have Tom FRIGGIN Brady, so you say you MUSt throw the ball, but the situation calls for runs (and the running game hadn't been very effective at that point). It's not like they had Derrek Henry where it would be a 'no brainer' to run it on the three striaght plays and see what happens.

Really useful breakdown you provided though.