Reid not challenging the INT was also really bad. I thought it hit the ground (announcers also mentioned it) and ATL got the ball with really good field position as a result. Plus they had the entire change of possession time to check but didn't challenge it.

facing 4th and 28, though? clearly the rams were way less than 1% to win that game. i imagine 4 scores down in the 4th quarter that the odds are similar.

Yeah that was pretty odd. I guess his line of thinking was, gg we lost no more injuries plskthx.

I'm also wondering why they stopped using the hurry up offense, seemed to work fairly well but maybe they can't go it full time/aren't in supersupershape themselves.

Even if that's true...take a knee, less injury risk imo.

I'd like to see the relevel and a fake punt just tossing it to a backup receiver on some route that has a chance to make a first down on a catch and run.

How many times do you see a defensive player get called for some tacky penalty that results in an automatic 1st down in some of these and long situations though? I mean have guys run some routes and throw a jump ball to somebody the way they officiate the db's now you're not drawing anywhere near dead.

I'm kind of with you guys too though. There are times where it's just like "lets kick it and try to do something right even if it's just covering a kick and maybe tackling somebody" and I don't think that's always very wrong.

That punt is absolutely indefensible, Lol @ anyone even attempting to rationalize it.

And there is no way these guys are thinking "lets not get anyone hurt". Coaches leave their starting qb in all the time down 35-10 with a minute left so they can pick up that garbage score.

LOL I'm glad to see other people noticed last night's WTF punt at the end of the game.

not often. and you not only have to get the 1st down, then you have to score a TD, kick an on sides kick, and score another touchdown. with 0 timeouts and 1:12 on the clock. it would be one of the most improbable victories in NFL history, if not the most improbable.

he gave up. if he kneels, that will be a headline. if he punts, only 2p2 people who are like lollllls +EV +EV will be talking about it.

I suppose you could factor in the possibility of a starter getting injured and somehow conclude punting is long-term +EV.

VERY rough attempt at the numbers:

Scoring a touchdown from the 4th and 28: Maybe 1 in 40 times?

Recovering onside kick: When the opponents are expecting one, it's about 1 in 5.

Scoring a touchdown after recovering the onside kick: Given the Rams success earlier with a hurry-up offense and how bad the Giants secondary was, I would make this maybe 1 in 6?

That would make the odds of winning 1 in 1,200. Whatever guesses you make at the numbers, the EV difference between punting or not is going to be tiny. As was pointed out earlier, punting at 4th and 3 or whatever it was was literally like 50 or 100 times worse.

It's the old obvious mistake/bad mistake thing that crops up in poker too. People like to lol at obvious mistakes ("lol you called preflop with 74 suited? lmao fish") even if they aren't bad mistakes, i.e. they cost barely anything.

People are also critical because it's a mistake which is infinitely bad; i.e. it reduces your chances of winning from "something" to "nothing".

Recovering expected onside kick is more like 10%.

Not if you think there's a decent chance they'll try to field the punt (which they did). Odds of a muffed punt (with the additional saved time) could be better than converting and driving down. Now say you think there's a 50/50 chance they'll try to field. Odds still might be better than going for it.

We can probably do the math on this. Does anyone know the % punts that are muffed and recovered by the kicking team?

Bill Barnwell gives Tony Sparano the "Timeout of the Week" award

edit: Should have finished reading the article because he piles on the Dolphins some more

suzzer: there's almost no way that was the calculus on spagnuolo's part.

I agree. I think he just gave up. But I also think it would be interesting to run the numbers. It's possible he considered muffed punt to be his only chance.

Which is why fielding the punt is an even stupider mistake.

Agree. You really shouldn't even have anybody back there or block for a return. Forget muffed punts by the returner I'm more worried about the bouncing ball that seems to always find a way to hit a blocker's leg and become live.

hi guys relative newbie to nfl.

anyway can some explain in very simple terms why going for 2 when scoring a td to go down 9 is correct and how much it improves your winning chances depending on time left. I get the idea but I don't fully understand why it is such a leak to go for one

thanks

a few quick reasons:

You will need a 2pc either now or later. If you assume that your chances of making it now or later are roughly equal, it is better to have the information now on whether you will make it or not.

EXAMPLE: You score a TD to cut it to 27-18. 4:00 left. If you go for 2 and miss, now you know you need two more scores, so you can use timeouts/onside kicks accordingly. Most coaches kick the XP then treat it as a 'one score game' despite the fact that over 50% of the time, it will be a two score game. So they get the ball back, feel OK using all the clock, score with 7 seconds left, miss the 2pc and lose 27-25.

Also, going for 2 on the first TD is the only way to win in regulation with 2 TDs. Usually if u get the 2pc and then score another TD, you would kick the XP and go to OT, but you may have a good reason to go for 2 and the win (you have a prominent defensive starter out and his replacement is being exploited by the other team; you picked up on a tendency in their goal line package that you think you can score the 2pc on a high frequency, etc)

The more time that is left, the more inclined you should be to kick, obv depending on factors such as your kicker's accuracy, your red zone offense strength, their red zone defense strength blah blah meow chow

It works the opposite way as well. If the opposing team knows you need two scores, they can play much more conservatively.

thank you

has anyone quantified how much you increase your match equity say with 4 mins to go?

this is true but I would say the delta between 'strategy up 8 with 4:00 to go' and 'strategy up 9 with 4:00 to go' is MUUUUUUUUUCH smaller than that between 'strategy down 9 with 4:00 to go' and 'strategy down 7 with 4:00 to go'

I think with the right timing though, you can put the odds of getting 2 more scores at almost nil. Therefore kicking the XP is better because it makes them play more risky/honest on offense.

IE - there's 2:15 minutes left and you have 2 TOs - when you score a TD to go down by 9. Now let's say you go for 2 and miss. The odds of you getting an onside kick, scoring, then getting another onside kick or a stop are almost nil.

So you really just have to assume you're going to make your one attempt at a 2pt. conversion, and play accordingly.

Which means you're better off kicking the XP to go down by 8, then kicking off. Now there is pressure on them to maybe try something dumb like throw the ball on 3rd down, etc. - which could get you the ball back with an extra TO or even an interception. The pressure on them with an 8 pt. lead vs. a 7 pt. lead is going to be very similar. A 9 pt. lead is almost zero pressure on them.

You would seriously kick the ball off being down with 2:15 left instead of onside kick?