without doing any math, i assumed, at the time, that kicking the FG was right. 4th and 11 is very hard to convert and 3 pts is not worthless. it does 2 things -
1. gives you a chance in the event the other team gets a FG before time runs out. clearly, you are unlikely to have a significant amount of time left if the other team gets 3 - but it's not impossible. for instance you might give up a big kick return or running play.
1b. also, the cost of trying an onside kick and failing is lower when you're down 4 - because you are quite likely to lose 3 pts to your opponent and get the ball back with like 1.5min when you do.
2. if you get the ball back without giving back pts and score you win instead of tie.

i could be wrong that these factors make kicking a FG right, but i don't think it's obvious that kicking was wrong. what are you - like 20% to convert on 4th?

From the SOSH board, Bill Simmons arguing the other side:

"One of the great quarterbacks of all time is on fire, just marched down the field for a touchdown in 1:49 and the crowd is feeling it. Are you going to tell me that he won't find a way to score with two minutes left and one timeout? Really?!?! REALLY?!?! Damn right I went all caps for Manning. This guy has done it to the Pats before and he just knows how to go for the win when the team is down. I know stats will tell you that no teams have had three TD drives in the fourth quarter, but stats don't matter when one of the greats is feeling it. Larry Bird made 42% of his three-point attempts in 1986, so does that mean a team should let him shoot the three with the game on the line because statistics say he will miss 58% of the time? The great ones step up and Peyton gets the Colts a TD just like Bird hits a three with the game on the line."

fyp.

although he's not a crybaby.

sorry but your friend isnt very smart.

Reasonable minds can differ on this, and you give a reasoned explanation about why the FG is good. (Advanced NFL Stats says FG/go for it is a coin flip and the big mistake was not doing an on-side kick).

My complaint was mainly that the response was so cut and dried with no analysis. It was literally, "if you turn the ball over on downs, the game is over." Without realizing that what he's worried about is:

1) fail to convert: opponent has ball at own 30 with 4 minutes left and a 7 point lead.

But the actual scenario was this:

2) make a FG and kick off: opponent has ball at own 30 with 4 minutes left and a 4 point lead.

How is the game "over" in situation 1 but not in situation 2?

Also:
Going for 2 solves that problem, but that's worth a thread of its own (and I'm sure it has a thread of its own somewhere here).

What astounds me more is the sportswriters who were critical of the Jaguars kneel-down, which is even more lopsided and simpler to analyze than any of the 4th-down ones. Of course since the result came out better the Jags coach was saved from the enormous s-storm that came down on Belichick.

the fact that they actually converted wouldnt make his point of it being a big dog to happen wrong (although they may have in fact been a big dog)

oh i agree with you totally that this guy's logic makes no sense. the game is NOT over if you turn it over - if it were, kicking the FG would be suicidal.

i don't think it solves the problem at all. even if you were 50% to convert the 2 pts (which i think is generous) you are still effectively "tied" once you score the TD. i.e. you are about 50% to win.

incidentally, it's failing at this type of simple abstraction that caused so many analysts to be wrong about the jaguars kneeling.

the idea that "you should never refuse a touchdown when you are behind" does not really apply because they weren't behind. they had fewer points, but they were HUGE favorites...they were winning.

No, he is very smart. He's just not smart at this for some reason (probably due to lack of actually thinking about things this way). I'm pretty sure he's capable of understanding it, just ignorant.

I think I found the flaw in his thinking. He is thinking that this decision comes down to low-risk, low reward vs. high-risk, high reward.

Unfortunately, while that is correct when referring to strategies for maximizing scoring EV vs. playing conservative, coaches need to always be maximizing their win% at every point in the game. Unless margin of victory matters, of course.

A problem with ANFLS W(P) model is that it doesn't properly account for timeouts. In this case since Reid has 0 timeouts there was effectively a lot less time on the clock, which made it a lot worse.

A huge problem is that the FG was > 50 yards and Akers' chances of making that FG weren't all that much greater than the Eagles converting that 4th down. He's 50% for his career, but over the last 4 years (actually 3, he didn't even attempt a 50 yarder in 2006) he's 4 for 11, 3 for 10 going into the kick.

"Put it this way: The Colts weren't exactly on fire. Admittedly, I am terrified of Manning and have written as much. But Indy had already started and completed two long touchdown drives in the fourth quarter against a good defense. Had the Patriots punted, Indy would have had to pull off a third long touchdown drive to win the game. I asked Peter Newmann to research the number of times a team started and completed three touchdown drives in the fourth quarter to erase a double-digit deficit and win an NFL game since 2005. Here's how the list looked before that fourth-and-2 call.

2005: 1
2006: 2
2007: 0
2008: 1
2009: 0

In 78 weeks of football dating back to 2005, it happened a whopping four times. Four! If you're playing the statistics card, why not play that one? By punting, the Patriots would have been asking Peyton Manning to pull off something THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN EVEN ONCE EVERY EFFING SEASON. You're damned right I just went all caps. Hold on, I have to repeatedly bang my head against my desk again."



Just wow at anyone that can write this. I'm a ****ing idiot and even I realize how dumb this is

couldn't finish it. skimmed most of it. facepalmed when he started talking about Durant and Tim Thomas. Skimmed some more. Basically seems like he's covering his ears and shouting "lah lah lah I can't hear you".

I'm still trying to figure out the 34% and 3-1 bet part. Was that intentional or not?

the "disrespecting the D" part is the worst. It's the ultimate respect for the D. "We're gonna lock this up now but if not you guys can keep them out of the endzone." they proceeded to get carved up in a few plays.

it can be looked at either way, which is to say that it's neither respecting nor disrespecting the defense.

I mentioned the Milloy thing several pages ago (remember it well since it's the only Bills brightspot this decade). It is extremely results-oriented imo to say that:
A) There would be long-term benefits
B) The short-term negatives would cease as early as Week 2 when they spanked the Eagles.

If those guys got over a respected veteran leader being unceremoniously cut, I doubt criticism from Trent Dilfers are going to bother this team.

Despite some athletes diva like attitudes off the filed, I don't think their on-field egos are anywhere near as fragile as most writers seem to think.

That's pretty solid. I imagine he doesn't take the time to read the line-by-line stuff.

He also argues against himself when he downplays the chance of the Colts scoring after a punt with a bunch of semi-plausible reasons about how the Pats D was rested and how their problem was against the run and etc. etc.

Like a paragraph away he has his bookie hypothetical showing that the Colts were locks to go 30 yards.

Simmons is a HUGE results oriented/narrative fallacy moron. Anybody remember when the Giants and Eagles played before a World Series game? Simmons decided to make a rare prediction about the future about how those games were interrelated because of karma or whatever and, of course, different teams won. Because things are almost all independent events.

His blackjack stories are great, though. When people like Bill Simmons start thinking like sharps gambling will disappear as a pasttime.

What is even more moronic is the BS was talking about disrespecting the COLTS defense. Like the Colts D needed any additional motivation to try to stop the Pats on that one play.

And I love how he framed his argument: "well, obv Manning was gonna score from the Pats 30, cuz he's awesome, but he had almost no chance to score from his own 30, cuz he had struggled in the second half and the Pats D was rested". It must hurt to mentally contort yourself like that.

Blackjack is a good analogy, but not the hand he used - more like A7 vs a 6.

just read this and im so tilted

Best Post of the thread, IMO