Also, if you've scored 2 late TD's like that, your clutch ability is probably really high, which means you have like, I dunno, a 95% chance at converting.

Most likely the center snapped the ball early to get the penalty and no one on the team was prepared to run the play.

DISCLAIMER: Not actually a stupid coaching decision, but this seemed like a reasonable thread for this anyway.

In the Chargers-Colts game last night when SD kicked the field goal on 4th and 2, I was wondering how often they need to convert the 4th down to make going for it the right play. I was making up some numbers off the top of my head which seemed a little optimistic for SD - 10% chance of loss immediately by missing the field goal (probably should be higher), 25% chance of making the field goal but having the Colts score a field goal (should this be higher as well?), 50% chance of winning in overtime (McNabb will be happy to note that we are neglecting ties) - and get that they have about a 1 in 3 chance of winning the game if they kick it there.

If they go for a 1st down, then there is a considerably higher chance of immediate loss. But this could potentially be offset by: eating more clock to basically eliminate possibility of Colts scoring if you have to settle for a field goal; some possibility of scoring a touchdown to win outright instead of flipping in overtime; increased field goal %. Especially when they originally measured 4th and 1, I thought that was a pretty interesting spot where it might actually be correct to go for it.

It's not about utility. It's about forcing the other team to actually try for first downs. Which sometimes results in throwing the ball, which can stop the clock or lead to an interception. If the other team has the ball, and knows you need two scores with 4 minutes left, there is no incentive to do anything risky.

I would feel a little better if you would at least acknowledge this concept, then say it's not enough of a reason and give some arguments as to why. As it is, I'm not sure you're even getting the idea, because none of you ever address it. You just repeat the thing about knowing you need two scores.

both sides make good points.

thanks for the insight at least im not the only one that thought they shoulda gone for 2, but i certainly see suzzers point.

does it change given they went for the onside kick anyway?

I hadn't considered this tbh and I guess this is a valid reason. It would depend on the other coach I would think. Some would pass anyway up 9 with 4 minutes and some would run ever play no matter what if up 8 with 4 minutes to do.

Your posts just brought up another thing in my head. Surely there are tons of situations where teams should be passing at least sometimes and they never do. I think ahead and just trying to kill the clock, you'll often kill off more time in expectation by making a short pass. I'm thinking of something like 2nd and 9 or so after you got stuffed running up the middle. The other team still overwhelmingly will be trying to stop the run so running play action and a short pass would both be very likely to work and be very likely to get you the first down or close. I think in this spot you can run more time off on average by passing. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's always optimal but I suspect if somebody took a good look at it teams should be passing a lot more with the lead when their opponents are all out to stop the run.

If this is the case then it may make it even better to go for 2 now since the other team is more likely to act suboptimally by only running the ball. Like I said, I think it depends on the other coach.

Rod Marinelli. Everything.

who the hell kicked the FG on first down from the 25 with like 45 seconds left to be down 8? I think it was ARI...

Wisenhunt is exempt from all criticism for his totally awesome end of the first half fair catch free kick FG attempt. Too bad Rackers botched it so badly.

Yes, AZ. I don't think it was that bad. They needed two scores. Everyone goes the the TD first and the FG second. But it doesn't matter which order you get them.
That kick was crap. I would assume that Rackers rarely practices it, though.

Eh but that misses a couple of key points. First, yeah you need two scores, but 2 TD's wins it, TD + FG only ties it. Second, you need the 2 pt conversion which is a 50/50 proposition, whereas if you get the TD and miss the first time you know you need a TD the second time. It probably doesn't make a huge difference, you're likely to lose anyway, but it's not quite that simple.

man kicking it on first down is so bad I can't even explain it

what? its a FG with no linemen out there. Its exactly how every NFL kicker practices constantly.

It wasn't a normal kick. A normal FG is 3 steps.

His attempt, because it was much longer, was basically a kickoff, but without a tee. The lack of tee is what hurt him. I've seen him kick through the uprights on a normal kickoff. Granted, it was in high-altitude Mexico City, though.

I doubt anyone can kick it from that distance with a normal, 3-step kick. He thought he could with an extended run. He was obviously wrong. I doubt they'll try this again. (Unless it's within 60 yards and he can take a normal approach).

It wasn't the best decision. But it wasn't "obviously stupid" like many of the entries in this thread.

It was a 68 yard FG with no snap, and a much longer approach than he's used to. It was closer to a kickoff technique, but with no tee. Shouldn't be too surprising that he skulled it.

I'd predict that it cost them at least 2% chance of winning the game

I've often thought about this, too. It's one of those decisions where coaches seem more worried about the consequences (and public backlash) of failure than the EV of the call.

In the vast majority of cases though, I think running is best. It's easy to say "they'll be selling out out against the run, play action would be money here", but certain run blitzes can still blow it up, and the execution rate is lower than you're giving credit IMO (you often see even the safest of passes get botched in one way or another). Plus, all it takes is one suspicious defender with the right hunch to make things go way way bad.

It's obviously extremely situation-dependent (score, time, opposing team's timeouts, their offense's hurry-up ability, etc.), and the occasional pass also has some meta-game value, but I think it's usually -EV in late game spots like that.

And even when the defense does know the run is coming, you'll still see the RB bust one through a lot of the time.

A couple seconds maybe. Not significant enough to sway the decision in all but the rarest of spots.

I'm pretty sure I just disagree. When the clock is ticking, the trailing team doesn't have any timeouts, their defense is tired, the coaches are already trying to calculate whether they'll get the ball back with 50 seconds or a minute inside their own 30 IF they can stop the run 3 straight times, I bet they'd LOVE the team with the ball to try a pass with 2:20 on the clock.

Was Rackers as surprised as the fans, when asked to attempt a 68-yard field goal?

With regard to the fair catch kick yesterday: First, I'm glad they tried just because I have never seen one attempted before. Obviously if time had expired on the punt it would be a no brainer to attempt this as there is nothing to loose (you are allowed to attempt a fair catch kick even after time expires). However, in this case, there were still 5 seconds left, so I think trying a hail mary would probably be better. The fair catch kick needs to have chance of being good that is (roughly) 7/3 greater than the chance of converting a hail mary, and from 68 yards, I don't think it does (even with no rush and an extended run up).

Surely Andy Reid's hokey-pokey with Donovan McNabb (in then out then in) has to rank as one of the worst coaching decisions of the week? I'd push it well past anything that Ken Weisenhunt did.

Going for 2 up 22 with 9 minutes left...obviously very unlikely to matter but still.

Don't mind it at all. Especially when you're completely dominating the opposing defense.

They are killing them in the passing game, but that doesn't translate very well to the 2 yard line when you have no running game.