How does the Saints decision to kick a FG on 1 down compare to...

[stavros27]

Please stop trying to defend BB's horrible call by comparing it calling for your kicker to kick a chipshot FG in overtime for the win.

 

[WhiZa]

Considering they just played a full game, why make your team take extra hits so your kicker will have a couple extra yards? If he is going to make the kick at 25 yards he'll probably also make it at 29 yards. I don't think his kick would have went in at 1 yard.

 

[Synovia]

It was a 20-something yard field goal. A decent kicker makes that 99 times out of 100..

The problem right now, is that Hartley ISNT a decent kicker. He's been shanking kicks left and right.


I would have atleast run it once to center the ball.

 

[Synovia]

Please stop trying to defend BB's horrible call by comparing it calling for your kicker to kick a chipshot FG in overtime for the win.

There was nothing horrible about BB's call. Going for it there had a higher probability of converting than of the patriots actually stopping the colts at that point.

 

[Nikolai]

Re: how does the saints decision to kick a FG on 1 down compare to.........

I would definately disagree there. Getting long snap -> hold -> kick to work is much harder than snap -> handoff -> secure ball....

I like this post.

However, if one has a 60% chance of scoring after three plays with an 8% chance of a turnover, then you're still looking at the same 90% chance on the field goal on fourth down without the benefit of a redux in the event that something other than accuracy affects the kick. In essence, by running those three plays and introducing the admittedly paltry 8% risk of a turnover, you lower your overall potential to score.

I prefer the compromise of kicking on third down.

 

[unoriginal]

Re: how does the saints decision to kick a FG on 1 down compare to.........

I prefer the compromise of kicking on third down.

I do too, I just didn't know the stats for Red Zone touchdowns on two downs.

 

[unoriginal]

Re: how does the saints decision to kick a FG on 1 down compare to.........

advancedfootballstats.com is an awesome (and free) site. Here is their distribution.

Nice graph. It appears to indicate the raw chances for making a 29 yard field goal is actually only 90%, while a 39 yard field goal is 79%. I'd guessed 93% and 80%.

Nota bene to avoid confusion: the x axis is the yardage from where the ball is snapped (obviously since it starts at 1 yard) not where the ball is held or how long the field goal is. You add between 17 and 18 yards to get the field goal distance.

 

[Wolfpack]

Re: how does the saints decision to kick a FG on 1 down compare to.........

But the overall chance of failure is reduced. Every play you run the chance of scoring is higher than the chance of turnover. That's the basic principle everyone would agree with, the stats are just to estimate exactly what those chances are.

Yes, but there is a risk/reward thing you're missing. There is no reward in scoring a TD over a FG, so there's no reason to run the risk.

It's correct math. Weather would not be a factor for such a short kick, only technique (excepting late season games in Buffalo... and nobody kicks in that weather anyway so its not in the stats).

Bullcrap. Kicking FGs inside is easier than kicking FGs outside in bad weather. Don't say "weather is not a factor" just because it is under 30 yards.

97% is of course the average for a range between 20 and 29 yards so in order to find the average for 29 yards exactly you have to extrapolate. I used an exponential function with a dummy variable for each yard you went out from the median yardage (25) that also hit the average for 30-39 at 35 yards. Thus I got a miss percentage between 6% and 7% as reported.

To that I simply guessed that pressure, both psychological and defensive would push the percentage up at least 3-4%. Most field goals are done against no real rush.

So in other words you just completely made a whole bunch of crap up to get to your 10+% chance of missing statistic.

Fact is your fudging statistics (not to mention pulling them out of completely thin air) to try and make your point. You're adding a made up number to represent "pressure" to increase the chance of the FG being missed, but conveniently not adding any such made-up factor to the chances of turning the ball over.
97% is of course the average for a range The difference between a team trying harder than usual for a turnover is less than the difference between FG block and FG safe. Second, you can mitigate that risk with two hands on the ball and three step drops.[/quote]Fair enough, but when you do all that crap, you significantly decrease the chances of scoring a touchdown. It tough for a RB to turn the corner when he has both arms on the ball.

Sorry, but I just ain't buying what you're selling. You're making up statistics, talking about how much pressure it is for a team to kick a FG, but refusing to say there would be pressure on the offense to score a TD, etc.

 

[PatsDeb]

Kicking a chip shot figgie in overtime is understandable. Going for it on 4th and 1 against the Colts when we are ahead in our end of the field was the dumbest and lamest call I have ever seen BB make. No comparison, in my mind.

 

[unoriginal]

Re: how does the saints decision to kick a FG on 1 down compare to.........

Yes, but there is a risk/reward thing you're missing. There is no reward in scoring a TD over a FG, so there's no reason to run the risk.

But a team can't try a field goal repeatedly like they can try for a TD, right? If, starting on first down, you could take four shots at kicking a field goal, of course you'd start shooting for the uprights. But you can't, so in order to maximize your chance to score, you go for the end zone.

Bullcrap. Kicking FGs inside is easier than kicking FGs outside in bad weather. Don't say "weather is not a factor" just because it is under 30 yards.

I don't feel that cold weather or a stiff breeze would significantly effect field goal success under 30 yards. If it's rain and a bad hold you're worried about, dropped holds are not counted as field goal misses.

So in other words you just completely made a whole bunch of crap up to get to your 10+% chance of missing statistic.

But is my estimation unreasonable? No it is not. In fact, Ice_Ice_Brady posted a graph indicating I was being too conservative. I was only estimating based on one year.

Fact is your fudging statistics (not to mention pulling them out of completely thin air) to try and make your point. You're adding a made up number to represent "pressure" to increase the chance of the FG being missed, but conveniently not adding any such made-up factor to the chances of turning the ball over.

I don't feel there is any significant chance an average offensive team, or especially one lead by Drew Brees, would be statistically more unsafe with the ball in overtime, in the red zone, then they would be in, say, the second quarter. But I do think a field goal unit would be under much greater pressure to succeed, because taking three points off the board then isn't often game-changing, whereas missing the field goal takes a W off the board.

If you have evidence against that assumption, please post it. I considered the risk but couldn't find anything to contradict that.

Fair enough, but when you do all that crap, you significantly decrease the chances of scoring a touchdown. It tough for a RB to turn the corner when he has both arms on the ball.

Sorry, but I just ain't buying what you're selling. You're making up statistics, talking about how much pressure it is for a team to kick a FG, but refusing to say there would be pressure on the offense to score a TD, etc.

You have a point about a team playing safe with the ball would be less likely to score than the league average. But the red zone TD rate is ~ 60%. So far, and including three end-of-game/overtime Hartley field goal attempts, the Saints are 5 for 10 in the red zone. Subtract the three automatic red zone field goal attempts, and you have 5 for 7 in "real" red zone possessions. There is no way you could legitimately reduce that rate to wash out with even a doubling of the Saints nominal turnover rate.

 

[Wolfpack]

Re: how does the saints decision to kick a FG on 1 down compare to.........

I don't feel that cold weather or a stiff breeze would significantly effect field goal success under 30 yards. If it's rain and a bad hold you're worried about, dropped holds are not counted as field goal misses.

Well there's no doubt that on average FG's are easier indoors than outside, so I would bet that that statistic holds up across the board from the short length ones to the longer ones. Even when weather conditions are perfect, it is tougher to kick a FG off grass than off artificial turf.

I don't feel there is any significant chance an average offensive team, or especially one lead by Drew Brees, would be statistically more unsafe with the ball in overtime, in the red zone, then they would be in, say, the second quarter. But I do think a field goal unit would be under much greater pressure to succeed, because taking three points off the board then isn't often game-changing, whereas missing the field goal takes a W off the board.

See this right here is your weakest link. You want to say it is tougher to kick a FG under game ending pressure, but then you refuse to apply the same standard to the QB or the RB.

If you have evidence against that assumption, please post it. I considered the risk but couldn't find anything to contradict that.

You're the one pulling the assumption out of thin air, so you're the one that has to support it. You can't make up anything you want and then say "if you have evidence to the contrary, please post it."

You have a point about a team playing safe with the ball would be less likely to score than the league average. But the red zone TD rate is ~ 60%. So far, and including three end-of-game/overtime Hartley field goal attempts, the Saints are 5 for 10 in the red zone. Subtract the three automatic red zone field goal attempts, and you have 5 for 7 in "real" red zone possessions. There is no way you could legitimately reduce that rate to wash out with even a doubling of the Saints nominal turnover rate.

Well let's say the chances of hitting the FG are 90%. So they win the game 90% of the time.

Then let's say, using your numbers, the chances of a TD are 60% - which I think is ridiculous considering how by your own admission the team would have to be more ball-conscious. I think a 10% total chance of a turnover somewhere in those 3 plays is perfectly reasonable - Brees already had 2 INTs that game and you know every single Falcon would be looking to smack the ball out of a runner's hands and doing everything they can to jump routes. And in the other 30% of instances, they're back to kicking a FG with a 90% success rate. Well now they're only winning the game 87% of the time. So even using your own numbers, which I still think are overly optimstic, you've hurt your chances of winning the game by 3%.

 

[pherein]

compare to .........what BB did last year against the colts on 4th and 1?
today there was a lot of praise for sean peytons decision to kick a fg in OVERTIME......
and last year for some reason nobody was in support of BB's decision ....
i do not proclaim to be a nfl expert
but i felt the decision made by the saints was as risky/dumb as the pats decision not to punt last year (if "DUMB" is what the media calls it)......

i understand before the FG brees' knee was pretty banged up,
their running game wasnt as good

but the pats had a similar situation at that time, they simply did not want to give the ball back to peyton with a few minutes remaining

Heres my 2 cents. BB was actually taking a risk against fear. From his prospective PM was not going to be stopped by his DC, and that had been well proven. It was the right call because he knew his offense was his greatest strength and it gave him the best chance to win. The play rolled out to the weak side of the Colts, and it didn't work. It was the right call and the right thing to do. You can coach, but not play. Seriously, what has not been said more, is how many teams are going to stop Brady from making that play? Not many and even thats 60/40, hes frinkin Brady for a reason.

Payton played it safe. 97% kicks made from the 11 yl are completed, and the last one missed was in 2005.
Falcons could not stop us in the red zone, it was 1st and goal on the 11. Brees was 74%, 30/38, 365 yrds, 3 TDs. They could not stop us. PT had a bad ankle, and Ivory fumbled once.

The point Im making is BB played to win, for the first time, and maybe this explains alot, SP was playing not to lose. This would explain allot of our games. SP made a mistake because the chances of them stoping us was pretty slim. BB made the right one. Playing to win is football.

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

Saints kicker hooked a 29yd FG from the right hash past the left upright...that's an epic shank. To hook it that much in such a short distance is incredible.

Sean Payton doesn't deserve one iota of doubt.

Regards,
Chris

 

[unoriginal]

Re: how does the saints decision to kick a FG on 1 down compare to.........

See this right here is your weakest link. You want to say it is tougher to kick a FG under game ending pressure, but then you refuse to apply the same standard to the QB or the RB.

I would apply the same standard to QBs and RBs on an end-of-possession down, i.e. a fourth down or the last timed play of a half/game. But that is not what we are talking about here, so I don't.

You're the one pulling the assumption out of thin air, so you're the one that has to support it. You can't make up anything you want and then say "if you have evidence to the contrary, please post it."

I think a 10% total chance of a turnover somewhere in those 3 plays is perfectly reasonable - Brees already had 2 INTs that game and you know every single Falcon would be looking to smack the ball out of a runner's hands and doing everything they can to jump routes.

Uh, okay...

I went back over the drive charts of the Saints from 2009 and 2010 so far and counted red zone plays in the fourth quarter and overtime where the Saints were either down, tied, or ahead by one score. There were 61 scrimmage plays (I discounted field goals [obviously] and the entire week 17 rest-your-starters game) in those situations, and they resulted in 16 scores, 4 failed scores (3 missed field goals and an unsuccessful fake) and zero turnovers.

Here are the games I looked at:

Week		Plays		Scores		TO		NO POINTS
4		3		1
7		10		3
8		5		1
9		4		1
13		7		2
14		8		1				1
15		5		2
16		0						1
NFCCG		3		1		
SB		4		1

1		3						1
2		8		2
3		1		1				1

Tot		61		16		0		4

Now obviously is a small sample size, comprising approximately 5% of all plays the Saints ran in the qualifying range of games. But there is nothing here to suggest that there is something dangerous about taking shots at the end zone in this situation.

There does seem to be something dangerous about letting Garrett Hartley kick field goals, however.