Would/should BB have gone for it on 4th down?

[PatsFaninAZ]

You're the coach. If BJGE doesn't score on 3d and goal with 2:00 left, do you go for it or kick the field goal.

If he had been obviously short, the clock would have continued to run and we would have had to kick the field goal or have run a 4th down play with about 1:15 on the clock. However, since the play was called a TD, and the clock stopped, if review had reversed it, the play clock would only have been reset to 25 and started on the ready for play, so the Patriots would have had to run a 4th down play around 1:30.

Let's suppose the play had been reversed on review. 4th and goal from the 1 foot line. Go or kick?

If you try to kick the FG, the reward is a 6-point lead. They probably get the ball at the 20 to 30 with about 1:20 and no time outs. The risk is the possibility of a blocked FG and a susbtantial return. Plus the risk of only being up 6 and giving your opponent 1:20 to go for the win.

If you go for it, the reward is winning the game. The risk is losing the 3 extra points. Instead, you give them ball with about 1:25, needing to go about 64 yards for an attempt to tie.

I'd go for it. My guess is that pretty much everyone here would too. The tie breaker for me is that possibility of a big return on the kick off if they only kick the FG.

But the reason I ask the question is that part of my answer turns on whether I feel more comfortable with a 3 point or a 4-6 point lead late. If they kick the field goal, it puts losing the game much more in the forefront of my mind. Even though a TD is unlikely from the 20 yard line in 1:20, it's not that that much more unlikely than a team driving 65 yards in the same amount of time for a game-tying field goal. The difference of course is that a TD wins the game, but an FG just sends it to overtime.

(I didn't take into account the thought of a missed FG in the risks of kicking, because in my mind that's virtually a wash -- a missed FG is pretty much the same risk of running the play on 4th down and not converting except you give them an extra 7 yards.)

 

[FreeTedWilliams]

The difference between a team needing a FG and a touchdown is ENORMOUS, he would have called timeout with one second left on the play clock and kicked the field goal. Keep in mind the Pats were kicking with the wind, so the Ghost would have easily knocked the KO out of the endzone (and hopefully not out of bounds again).

 

[letekro]

I would make Tarvaris get into the end zone.

 

[JackBauer]

I would make Tarvaris get into the end zone.

I think this was the plan all along. Waste time on 1st and 2nd downs, then try and punch it in on 3rd and 4th down. Worst case, you turn the ball over on the ~1 yard line, then make Tavaris drive down the field for a tying field goal.

A risk, yes, but characteristic of BB. Also a vote of confidence in the young defense.

 

[Patsrock]

I think he would have and should have gone for it if needed. My reasoning is if he was stopped on the 1, time left would have around 1:08 to 1:12. 99 yards for the win with no timeouts or 70 yards for a 47 yd FG into the wind with no timeouts left. That would be a lot to ask of a QB who had thrown 1 pass up till that point.

 

[xmarkd400x]

I would probably go for it. If you make it, you pretty much guarantee that you win the game. The Pats are 3/6 on 4th down this year, so let's call it a 50% chance of winning outright on that play. Now, on the 50% chance that you don't make it, the Vikes are down 3 with ~1:20 left on the clock with no timeouts and Brett Favre out of the game. They would need to go roughly 70 yards to attempt a tying field goal, and roughly 100 yards for the winning score.

With the ensuing drive, the Vikings have one of 3 outcomes, FG attempt, TD, or change of possession. You can all but guarantee that every play would be a pass. That would end up taking the Vikings best offensive player, Peterson, effectively out of the game.

Let's not forget that after the 4th and goal stop by the Pats, Childress didn't make a single 'gutsy' call for the rest of the game. I doubt he was about to do anything risky now.

The Pats would have gone into prevent, allowing the Vikings to complete 3-4 yard passes with little YAC all day, and they would have killed themselves doing it. Tavaris Jackson would be happy to just complete passes, and Childress would .... do whatever it is that Childress does when he pretends to be coaching.

I would be much in favor of going for it on 4th down. I just don't see Minnesota scoring points on the next drive.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

The difference between a team needing a FG and a touchdown is ENORMOUS

Is it really? What yardline in the wind do you think is a makeable field goal? Let's say the 27 is your target. That means if we go for it, you need to go 73 yards.

Let's say it's a touchback on the kick off. Now you need to go 80 yards. Not a huge difference to me. I agree that you need to add in some adjustment for the fact that the closer to the end zone the more compressed the field. But to me that's easily outweighed by the fact that a FG only ties the game. A TD wins it. And even if they get to the 27, they might miss a FG.

It's also possible that in 1:30, they go 99 yards and win with a TD. But that seems virtually impossible to me. I think they play it for the FG and the only way they score a TD is on a broken play.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

You're asking if a HC who had his QB essentially run off clock on 1st and 2nd and goal would have taken the three points or continued to manage the clock and field position by going for it when the worst case scenario was he's still up by 3 and Tavaris Jackson is pinned inside the goal line with no time outs and upwards of 70+ yards to go just to try a kick into the wind for a tie??...

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

or continued to manage the clock QUOTE]

Well, there was no clock management left. Whether you go for it or kick a field goal, you're going to let the same amount of time run off the clock before 4th down. If you kick, it takes about 4 seconds and then the clock stops. If you run and don't convert, it takes about the same.

But I agree that it's a pretty easy call.

 

[emoney_33]

Kicking the FG is a NO brainer. Only way BB goes for it there is if his kicker is hurt/terrible and/or maybe if his special teams is atrocious (neither are the case).

Of course I want to kick whoever decided to run the 2 QB-sneaks and force us into 3rd down!

 

[PatsDeb]

Tough question, particularly because I think (and said in another thread) that the Vikings failure to kick a chip-shot figgie at the end of the first half (which would have given them the lead AND the ball to start the 2nd half), and then get stuffed for the TD caused a huge momentum swing and ultimately cost them the game.

But, I guess you have to go with the Law of the Football Gods - kick early, go for it late (which would also apply to the above situation). Sitting here as an arm chair QB, I guess I would have gone for it (BB surely would have), and hopefully get the TD. If not, then the Vikes have to drive the entire length of the field, then either score, or kick with a pretty strong wind going. But, there is a lot to be said for kicking the figgie, ensuring they have to score a TD in order to win. Tough call, but I believe BB would have gone for it, and probably still won the game, either way.

 

[emoney_33]

Is it really? What yardline in the wind do you think is a makeable field goal? Let's say the 27 is your target. That means if we go for it, you need to go 73 yards.

Let's say it's a touchback on the kick off. Now you need to go 80 yards. Not a huge difference to me. I agree that you need to add in some adjustment for the fact that the closer to the end zone the more compressed the field. But to me that's easily outweighed by the fact that a FG only ties the game. A TD wins it. And even if they get to the 27, they might miss a FG.

It's also possible that in 1:30, they go 99 yards and win with a TD. But that seems virtually impossible to me. I think they play it for the FG and the only way they score a TD is on a broken play.

The redzone yards are the hardest yards to get. The last 20-30 yards of the drive are incredibly more difficult than the first 20-30. The 20-30 to get within FG range are also much easier than the 20-30 to get into the endzone.

 

[Patsrock]

The redzone yards are the hardest yards to get. The last 20-30 yards of the drive are incredibly more difficult than the first 20-30. The 20-30 to get within FG range are also much easier than the 20-30 to get into the endzone.

Okay, but if the failed on 4th down. Minny starts at 1 yards line and needs to get to the 25 yard line for a decent FG chance of 42 yards into the wind. With 1:08 left on the clock and ZERO timeouts. I would not have kicked the FG on 4th and would have gone for it.

 

[alvinnf]

No brainer for me. Go for it on forth down and avoid kicking it to Harvin.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Just curious -- those who say kick, did you think BB should have gone for it last week on the 50 against the Chargers?

Seems to me it would be pretty tough to defend one but not the other.

While I agree that go 80 yards for a TD is harder than 75 for an FG, I really think people are missing the part of the equation where the TD causes you to lose. A FG only ties. If the Patriots had gone for it, it's very very hard to see how they lose in regulation. Possible, but extremely unlikely. If they kick, I think you bring many more losing scenarios into play.

 

[Keegs]

Some people are saying "no brainer, of course you kick the FG".

But i don't think it is that simple. The reason is b/c of the strange playcalling on 1st and 2nd down with Brady basically snapping the ball and falling foward to make the Viking call timeouts.

Is it likely that they called 2 QB sneaks so they would only have 1 chance to punch it in on 3rd down and then kick a FG on 4th down?

I think it's much more likely that BB was always going to go for it on 4th down and figured he had 2 plays to bunch it in with BJGE.

Otherwise, it just doesn't make much sense.

 

[emoney_33]

Okay, but if the failed on 4th down. Minny starts at 1 yards line and needs to get to the 25 yard line for a decent FG chance of 42 yards into the wind. With 1:08 left on the clock and ZERO timeouts. I would not have kicked the FG on 4th and would have gone for it.

And if you kick the FG they get the ball at the 20-30 yard line and have to get into the endzone in 1:00 with ZERO timeouts...

I'm not saying defending at the 1 with a 3 point lead is a BAD situation, just not the -better- situation.

 

[emoney_33]

Just curious -- those who say kick, did you think BB should have gone for it last week on the 50 against the Chargers?

Seems to me it would be pretty tough to defend one but not the other.

It's not tough at all. They are 2 different situations, there was no going from being up 3 to being up 6 at the 50 against the Chargers. BTW I thought they should have punted at the time, but based on how much the defense was on the field prior to that (something like 2 minute rest in the last 10 minutes) I understood it.

 

[patchick]

When Brady made the 2 fake QB sneaks, I assumed that meant they would go for it on fourth down if necessary. They left themselves two shots at the end zone, and worst case the Vikings get the ball on the one foot line.

 

[emoney_33]

When Brady made the 2 fake QB sneaks, I assumed that meant they would go for it on fourth down if necessary. They left themselves two shots at the end zone, and worst case the Vikings get the ball on the one foot line.

Possibly but not necessarily. They could have been planning for the 6 point lead and no timeouts to get a TD for the Vikes. We'll never know, but I'll take back my "no brainer" comment, there are valid points on both sides.