Unpopular Opinion: I think Reich made the right call.

[Nunchucks]

I have no problem with the call, it was fine. 24 seconds left on the clock and at mid-field. Even with a turnover on downs, it isn't a terribly likely scenario that the Texans score. Oh well, that is life. No need to kill the guy for taking a risk and believing in his team.

Vrbel basically made the same call twice in the game. Nobody is killing him.

 

[Ras-IR Dowling]

I have another situational question for you guys. The Titans won yesterday on a 3rd and 10 at their 11. They were also down by 3 in OT. If they had not completed that pass and it was 4th down, what do you feel they should have done?

Much different situation in that case. The chances of winning would have been greater, as the end zone was only 10 yards away. But a FG also would be nearly certain in that situation.

That would have been an interesting decision.

They punt the ball.

 

[lancerman]

You’re at war with the other team for 70 minutes and it ends in a tie? I don’t think players like ties.

I hated ties when I played sports. It’s different in soccer though. Different setup. There’s no ties in the other 3 major American sports

In baseball you play a legitimate extra inning until a winner is decided at the conclusion of one. In basketball you play an extra period until a winner is decided at the conclusion of one.

In football you play a bastardized quarter with a convoluted sudden death rule

 

[SammyBlueCat]

I think Ray was either being facetious (in which case, it was a funny remark) or had a few too many adult beverages watching the NFL all day and celebrating the Pats win (in which case, he is excused and hopefully got a good night's sleep).

Or he simply did not know all of the facts. Not a crime.

 

[Crazy Patriot Guy]

I get not wanting to play for the tie. But as others have said, the odds of winning if you convert are still lower than the odds of losing if you don't. I didn't like the call.

But again, if you simply can't stomach the thought of a tie, where does that feeling end? If there's 1 minute left in OT, and you're facing 4th and 17 from your own 20 yard line, do you still go for it? At what point do you say you would rather tie than lose?

 

[A Defiant Goose]

The decision was indefensible. A tie preserves your ability to win a divisional head to head tiebreaker since you play two games, whereas a loss does not. The decision may have been more defensible later in the year or in a different game situation, but at this point it made sense to cut losses. And I think NFL coaches trend too conservative.

And a win ensures you won't need to rely on a tiebreaker against such opponent. It goes both (or all 3) ways

 

[primetime]

I have another situational question for you guys. The Titans won yesterday on a 3rd and 10 at their 11. They were also down by 3 in OT. If they had not completed that pass and it was 4th down, what do you feel they should have done?

Much different situation in that case. The chances of winning would have been greater, as the end zone was only 10 yards away. But a FG also would be nearly certain in that situation.

That would have been an interesting decision.

Important word missing here, they were at their opponent's 11.

You have to calculate the expected schedule points in that situation. Let's say a tie is worth 0.5 schedule points (the NFL rulebook specifies that a tie is worth half of a win, so 0-0-16 is equivalent to 8-8 before tiebreakers) and a win is worth 1. This isn't perfect because against divisional opponents in the first game (or in the second if you won the first game), then a tie gives you the ability to still win the head-to-head and divisional tiebreakers so playing conservatively here may actually have a slightly higher weight, but it's not really that important.

Succop has missed one 20-29 yard field goal in his career, so let's say he has about a 95% success rate from there (it's likely higher, but let's account for the pressure of the situation and the possibility of a botched snap by adjusting it downwards a bit).

Kicking the field goal gives you an expected 0.475 schedule points. In other words, you'd need about a 47.5% chance of scoring a touchdown to make it worth it. The odds of scoring a touchdown from the opponent's 11 on a single play is 11.7%. The only distance where the odds of scoring a touchdown on a single play exceed 47.5% is from the 1 yard line. In other words, unless you absolutely need a win in that situation (meaning it's likely later in the year), you should kick the field goal unless you are on your opponent's 1 yard line. For a better quarterback, you might fudge it a bit and say from the 2 or 3, but you'd still be laying against the odds.

 

[primetime]

And a win ensures you won't need to rely on a tiebreaker against such opponent. It goes both (or all 3) ways

The probability of winning for the Colts was very low, though, in that situation. The probability of tying was much higher. The marginal value of the win wasn't worth it if you play the odds. The problem with NFL coaches is that they're often irrationally conservative, relative to the odds of success and the result of that success on any given play; hence my confusion when teams, like the Patriots yesterday, kick a field goal on 4th and goal at their opponent's 1 yard line.

In this case, Reich was irrationally aggressive. I guess there's an irrational bias against ties that both coaches and fans seem to share, in part because they were extremely rare until recently.

 

[PatsDeb]

You're right - it's unpopular. If the chance of making the 1st down was better (like, 4th and inches), I'd say okay, but there was a high probability they wouldn't make it, and failing to make it pretty much handed your opponent the win. Dumb.

Edit - I also thought BB's 4th and 2 call was the dumbest coaching decision he ever made, until the coaching decision he made in the 2nd half of the Super Bowl, but that's in another thread.

 

[Joey007]

They punt the ball.

The OPPONENTS 11 is what I was referring to.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Let's break down the reasonable odds.

At your own 43 you can punt and it is almost certain that you tie. Say 95%.

If you go for it, 4th and 4, chances are probably less than 50-50 that you make it. Say 40%.

If you go for it, make it and get a 1st down, you still have two timeouts so your chance of making another 20 yards then kicking a field goal to win isn't great, but it is possible. Say there's 25% chance of a win in that scenario, 75% chance of a tie (don't get enough yards, run out of time, miss the FG, etc.).

If you go for it, don't make it and don't get a 1st down, your opponent still has one TO and only needs 10 yards to kick a FG and win. Say there's 60% chance you lose, 40% chance you tie (opponent doesn't get enough yards, run out of time, miss the FG, etc.)..

Let's assume my percentages are right:

Going for it:
chance to win: 0.4 x 0.25 = 10%
chance to lose: 0.6 x 0.6 = 36%
chance to tie: 54%

Not going for it:
chance to tie: 95%
chance to win or lose, due to punt return, block, fumble, etc: 5%

Reich's choice had about a 10% chance for complete success, meaning to result in a win.

Contrast it to Belichick's 4th and 2 decision, when if they made the first down, game over. A 4th and 2 play has better odds than a 4th and 4 play, and it's maybe a coin flip. Thus (assuming the odds are right) Belichick's decision had a 50% chance for complete success, meaning to result in a win.

So... what do we have? Reich's choice was pretty bold, risky, and a lot more "out there" than was Belichick's. You can say that both were warranted, but you can't say that Reich's was wise and Belichick's was stupid.

 

[RayClay]

They were already in OT.

Thanks. Didn't see the game. Different scenario when all you are playing for is a tie. Better than losing, though. Used to be ties in the old days. Nobody likes them. Like kissing your sister, the saying goes.

 

[primetime]

Let's break down the reasonable odds.

At your own 43 you can punt and it is almost certain that you tie. Say 95%.

If you go for it, 4th and 4, chances are probably less than 50-50 that you make it. Say 40%.

If you go for it, make it and get a 1st down, you still have two timeouts so your chance of making another 20 yards then kicking a field goal to win isn't great, but it is possible. Say there's 25% chance of a win in that scenario, 75% chance of a tie (don't get enough yards, run out of time, miss the FG, etc.).

If you go for it, don't make it and don't get a 1st down, your opponent still has one TO and only needs 10 yards to kick a FG and win. Say there's 60% chance you lose, 40% chance you tie (opponent doesn't get enough yards, run out of time, miss the FG, etc.)..

Let's assume my percentages are right:

Going for it:
chance to win: 0.4 x 0.25 = 10%
chance to lose: 0.6 x 0.6 = 36%
chance to tie: 54%

Not going for it:
chance to tie: 95%
chance to win or lose, due to punt return, block, fumble, etc: 5%

Reich's choice had about a 10% chance for complete success, meaning to result in a win.

Contrast it to Belichick's 4th and 2 decision, when if they made the first down, game over. 4th and 2 has better odds than 4th and 4, maybe a coin flip. Thus Belichick's decision had a 50% chance for complete success, meaning to result in a win.

So... what do we have? Reich's choice was pretty bold, risky, and a lot more "out there" than was Belichick's. You can say that both were warranted, but you can't say that Reich's was wise and Belichick's was stupid.

I think your guesstimate of odds at 25% of kicking a field goal when you have 4th and 4 at your own 40 or whatever is very high. The odds of converting that play was probably at or around 33% - the odds decrease from there, meaning your odds of losing are at least 70% and the remainder is split between tying and winning. Your point still stands, but it's an even worse decision.

4th and 2 has higher odds of conversion and there remained some chance that the Colts would screw up and fail to score even if the Patriots failed to convert. There's no requirement to do anything but kneel the ball after converting, so a conversion wins the game for all intents and purposes. So perhaps a 40% chance to convert, let's say (I'm just making these numbers up), and a 20% chance the Colts fail to win even if you do convert. You're looking at win odds around 45-50%; this is probably higher than punting the ball in that situation. Again, I'm just spitballing here.

 

[Nunchucks]

Let's break down the reasonable odds.

At your own 43 you can punt and it is almost certain that you tie. Say 95%.

If you go for it, 4th and 4, chances are probably less than 50-50 that you make it. Say 40%.

If you go for it, make it and get a 1st down, you still have two timeouts so your chance of making another 20 yards then kicking a field goal to win isn't great, but it is possible. Say there's 25% chance of a win in that scenario, 75% chance of a tie (don't get enough yards, run out of time, miss the FG, etc.).

If you go for it, don't make it and don't get a 1st down, your opponent still has one TO and only needs 10 yards to kick a FG and win. Say there's 60% chance you lose, 40% chance you tie (opponent doesn't get enough yards, run out of time, miss the FG, etc.)..

Let's assume my percentages are right:

Going for it:
chance to win: 0.4 x 0.25 = 10%
chance to lose: 0.6 x 0.6 = 36%
chance to tie: 54%

Not going for it:
chance to tie: 95%
chance to win or lose, due to punt return, block, fumble, etc: 5%

Reich's choice had about a 10% chance for complete success, meaning to result in a win.

Contrast it to Belichick's 4th and 2 decision, when if they made the first down, game over. A 4th and 2 play has better odds than a 4th and 4 play, and it's maybe a coin flip. Thus (assuming the odds are right) Belichick's decision had a 50% chance for complete success, meaning to result in a win.

So... what do we have? Reich's choice was pretty bold, risky, and a lot more "out there" than was Belichick's. You can say that both were warranted, but you can't say that Reich's was wise and Belichick's was stupid.

You are using stats but really, they are imaginary.

You have Andrew Luck as your QB. I would be pretty confident that he could get 4 yards and furthermore, I would be confident that he could move the ball 20 yards with two timeouts.

Also, I am pretty sure the Texans had no timeouts left. The Texans threw the ball in the middle of the field, ran down and spiked the ball and then kicked the field goal. Colts called timeout right before the kick and he missed....but made the re-kick.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

I think your guesstimate of odds at 25% of kicking a field goal when you have 4th and 4 at your own 40 or whatever is very high.

Please check what I said. 25% was my estimate of the odds of winning, once you have made the first down, which itself is only a 40% proposition. So overall I put it at 10% (0.4 x 0.25).

These numbers could be shored up with some research on NFL historical odds for 4th and 4, for gaining 20 yards in the time left, with 2 TOs, etc, but that was way more work than I wanted to do.

 

[Nunchucks]

Please check what I said. 25% was my estimate of the odds of winning, once you have made the first down, which itself is only a 40% proposition. So overall I put it at 10% (0.4 x 0.25).

You can apply stats to the aggregate to make decisions, but really in football there are way too many variables on a situation by situation basis to be able to use statistics to make any informed decisions.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

You can apply stats to the aggregate to make decisions, but really in football there are way too many variables on a situation by situation basis to be able to use statistics to make any informed decisions.

I agree that it is in no way exact, but.... I can't see scenarios in which the odds of losing aren't elevated a whole lot more than the odds of winning, by making that decision.

 

[RayClay]

I think Ray was either being facetious (in which case, it was a funny remark) or had a few too many adult beverages watching the NFL all day and celebrating the Pats win (in which case, he is excused and hopefully got a good night's sleep).

No, just posted when I hadn't watched the game.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

No, just posted when I hadn't watched the game.

Just kidding anyway. Have a good week!

 

[Ras-IR Dowling]

The OPPONENTS 11 is what I was referring to.

Well then I kick the fg. If it’s 4th and 10