Dan Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 The correct call was to go for it in that situation...too many bad things can happen on a FG attempt or a kickoff and there is no reason to chance it at that point...if you go for it there and at worst Tampa gets the ball at their own 2 down 10...assuming they make the FG it only puts the Bills up 13, not 14 or even 17 which if it would have it would be the right call to kick it but to only go up 13 when you risk the chance of a freak play that could cut the lead to 6 with plenty of time left, you go for it on 4th down there i thought for sure with the penalty DJ would have brought the offense back out but for some reason he loves kicking FGs...someone pointed out in the gameday thread that maybe he has Lindell on his fantasy team Absolutely incorrect. A short FG is usually considered sure points. Running a play is where you have fumbles, interceptions, injured players, changes in momentum, etc. Yes, bad things can happen on a FG attempt, but the odds are far more likely that a short FG is going to result in 3pts. I had no problem with the decision. Get off the field with a positive drive that ended in points. Stretch the lead to 2 touchdowns. All positive things. Go for it and don't make it... its a touchdown and FG game and their getting momentum. All negative things.
Pete Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 I bet the Bills -4.5 so I am pumped they kicked the FG!
Fezmid Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 I read the posts, I just disagree. I would rather be up 13 over up 10 late in the game. JMO though. I agree with you, and it's what I was saying in the chat room. Up 10 -- they get a fluke TD, kick onsides, and are practically in FG range. Up 13 -- they get a fluke TD, kick onsides, and need ANOTHER TD. Much more difficult. And if we would have gone for it, failed, and somehow lost, the same people saying it's stupid to kick would be saying he was stupid for not kicking the FG and that EVERYONE knows you should go up by 13, but Jauron sucks, blah blah blah.
Alphadawg7 Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 Umm the difference is they need two TDs to win as opposed to a TD and a FG to tie. What am I missing? ding ding ding, we have a winner. FG = 2 TD to lose game Going for it and not getting it = 1 TD and a FG to tie and adds in the risk of a turnover fighting for a tough yard. The smart move based on the amount of time left on the clock is to take the FG. If we dont and they get a big play TD (see Oakland last year against us late in the game) then all they need is a FG if they recover the onside which means they only need 20 yards or so. If they happen to score after we make the FG, then they still need to recover an onside and march 50+ yards for a TD with hardly no time. IF there was a couple more minutes on the clock, you go for it, but at that exact moment in time, the safest choice is to kick the FG and make the uphill climb even harder for the Bucs.
Wooderson Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 ding ding ding, we have a winner. FG = 2 TD to lose game Going for it and not getting it = 1 TD and a FG to tie and adds in the risk of a turnover fighting for a tough yard. The smart move based on the amount of time left on the clock is to take the FG. If we dont and they get a big play TD (see Oakland last year against us late in the game) then all they need is a FG if they recover the onside which means they only need 20 yards or so. If they happen to score after we make the FG, then they still need to recover an onside and march 50+ yards for a TD with hardly no time. IF there was a couple more minutes on the clock, you go for it, but at that exact moment in time, the safest choice is to kick the FG and make the uphill climb even harder for the Bucs. Agreed. I think it was the perfect call for the time and situation.
MRM33064 Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 In terms of raw expected value (EV), at the time the decision was made, kicking the FG was in the 2.8 range. The EV of going for it was likely almost twice that, if not more. Close to 5.5-6.0. It was really worth more than that though, because in an overall game sense, going for it and succeeding meant the game was over. Keep in mind that getting the first down (just one of 2 possible good results from going for it), was by far the most likely outcome. NFL teams succeeed on 4th-and-1 attempts close to 70% of the time. Hoodie knows these things. On the other hand, the only upside of a (successful) FG is forcing their hand to beat us or lose (we don't even give them the option of, say, scoring a TD, getting deep into our territory again and settling for the tie/overtime). Of course, the extra field position they need to get for a (winning) TD just happens to be, say, about the same field position we could expect to concede to them in a post FG kickoff.
Fezmid Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 In terms of raw expected value (EV), at the time the decision was made, kicking the FG was in the 2.8 range. The EV of going for it was likely almost twice that, if not more. Close to 5.5-6.0. It was really worth more than that though, because in an overall game sense, going for it and succeeding meant the game was over. Keep in mind that getting the first down (just one of 2 possible good results from going for it), was by far the most likely outcome. NFL teams succeeed on 4th-and-1 attempts close to 70% of the time. Hoodie knows these things. On the other hand, the only upside of a (successful) FG is forcing their hand to beat us or lose (we don't even give them the option of, say, scoring a TD, getting deep into our territory again and settling for the tie/overtime). Of course, the extra field position they need to get for a (winning) TD just happens to be, say, about the same field position we could expect to concede to them in a post FG kickoff. You keep trying to sound smart, m'kay?
SouthGeorgiaBillsFan Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 I know its moot because the game was won anyway, but I believe the Bills should have gone for it on that 4th and 1 play at the end of the game. Best case scenario: Touchdown....game over Second best case scenario: First down.....run out the clock.....game over. Worst case scenario: Turnover on downs....Bucs take over inside the 5 down 2 scores, with no timeouts. To me it was a no-brainer to go for it there.......imagine if the Bucs returned the ensuing kickoff after the FG for a TD, or scored real quickly.....the Bills would have been staring down an onside kick in a 1 score game. I know it doesn't matter now, but what do you guys think? I would have went for it. That being said, the only way going for it is more advantageous is if you have zero faith in your defense's ability to prevent two touchdowns. The only reason I say go for it there is because I am a Bills fan and have watched them blow seemingly insurmountable leads when it seemed impossible. The technically correct call there IMO is to kick the field goal, as that makes them have to score two touchdowns and recover the onside kick. Only the Bills would be in danger of that happening.
Beerball Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 At the time I was in the go for it camp. I was wrong though. The correct move was to kick the FG and remove any possibility of a tie (TD & FG).
JÂy RÛßeÒ Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 Umm the difference is they need two TDs to win as opposed to a TD and a FG to tie. What am I missing? You're missing the urge to find anything to blame our coach for, which many here seem to have. I'm fine with the FG call in that specific situation.
Dan Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 In terms of raw expected value (EV), at the time the decision was made, kicking the FG was in the 2.8 range. The EV of going for it was likely almost twice that, if not more. Close to 5.5-6.0. It was really worth more than that though, because in an overall game sense, going for it and succeeding meant the game was over. Keep in mind that getting the first down (just one of 2 possible good results from going for it), was by far the most likely outcome. NFL teams succeeed on 4th-and-1 attempts close to 70% of the time. Hoodie knows these things. On the other hand, the only upside of a (successful) FG is forcing their hand to beat us or lose (we don't even give them the option of, say, scoring a TD, getting deep into our territory again and settling for the tie/overtime). Of course, the extra field position they need to get for a (winning) TD just happens to be, say, about the same field position we could expect to concede to them in a post FG kickoff. Source: the Internets
Fezmid Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 Source: the Internets I was thinking his nether-regions, but yours is more polite.
MRM33064 Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 I was thinking his nether-regions, but yours is more polite. LOL. I can take it. Actually, if you really would like to learn a little something about the correct decision making process in these situations, there are some good websites and papers to read ... and you CAN read them on "the Internets"! A few: www.footballcommentary.com, www.advancednflstats.com, Carroll, Palmer, and Thorn's "Hidden Game of Football (1988, 1998)", Professor David Romer's Do Firms Maximize? (2005). The Romer work (http://www.econ.berkeley.edu/~dromer/papers/PAPER_NFL_JULY05_FORWEB_CORRECTED.pdf) is a fairly sophisticated read, but the conclusions are straight-forward, and the analysis is similar to what is required to get this answer correct. It's objective, data-driven analysis. It's not just about subjective concepts of being "aggressive" or having "gut feelings" or "a football sense". Anyway, flame on.
Fezmid Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 LOL. I can take it. Actually, if you really would like to learn a little something about the correct decision making process in these situations, there are some good websites and papers to read ... and you CAN read them on "the Internets"! A few: www.footballcommentary.com, www.advancednflstats.com, Carroll, Palmer, and Thorn's "Hidden Game of Football (1988, 1998)", Professor David Romer's Do Firms Maximize? (2005). The Romer work (http://www.econ.berkeley.edu/~dromer/papers/PAPER_NFL_JULY05_FORWEB_CORRECTED.pdf) is a fairly sophisticated read, but the conclusions are straight-forward, and the analysis is similar to what is required to get this answer correct. It's objective, data-driven analysis. It's not just about subjective concepts of being "aggressive" or having "gut feelings" or "a football sense". Anyway, flame on. But you're missing the point -- if football were 100% analytical, then you wouldn't need a coach, you'd just have a computer on the sideline. There are things to take into account, such as momentum and the tema's psyche? Did you notice how flat we looked for quite awhile after Jackson's fumble? You can't account for that in a formula. Just like poker is not 100% about odds and statistics, neither is football.
Ramius Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 Plain and simple, you kick the FG to extend the lead to 13 and force TB to score 2 TDs. If you want to see how much more difficult it is to score a TD as opposed to get in FG range with little time remaining and no timeouts, ask GB. (Just don't ask the drunk packer fan at our Bills bar who was screaming for them to call a timeout when his friends had been trying to tell him for 4 consecutive plays that GB was out of timeouts)
BobChalmers Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 I think we need a mathematics expert here, but my sense is that the correct decision is to go for it and that it's not even close - even without regard to several of the actual circumstances around the decision. Given the offensive field position, the expected value (EV) of kicking the FG was somewhere close to 3. However, going for it there has an EV of close to 6/7 - it's the EV of gaining 1 yard (yielding 4 more downs, each of which would then in turn have a high EV given the field position) + the EV of scoring a TD on the 4th down play itself, also high. Factoring in the time in the game, the defensive field position in the case of failure, the deficiency of TB timeouts, and the existing 10 point (2 score) lead, I'm not sure attempting a FG is even remotely justifiable. A successful FG still leaves the score differential at 2, and likely concedes 20+ yards of field position on the subsequent kickoff. I'd like someone better at this than I am to give a definitive answer, because even though we did win the game, this is the precise kind of decision that a head coach needs to get right every time. EDIT: There is a very good discussion on this at www.advancednflstats.com, under the "4th Down Study" tab. Link to graph, "Point Values of 4th Down Decisions", below. Although I am a math expert of sorts - that's not really necessary and your logic is spot-on. The goal is to win the game. The chances of getting the TD, or a first-down, both of which lock up the game - were extremely high, and the chance of losing anything meaningful (trading yards for 3 points) was minimal. For those who are afraid of a fumble or INT being taken back - fine - don't run the play to the outside. The odds of losing a fumble off a dive play and having it returned any distance are ridiculously small.
Koufax Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 As a football fan I always like going for it. And if we make it it is a dagger in their hearts. But the smart choice in improving our chances of winning is kicking. They had just stuffed us, and while if we get a 1st we win, we probably win if we kick it anyway. Their best chance of winning the game is stopping us on 4th, getting that momentum, and realizing that they need just one big TD drive and a field goal. So keeping them away from that best chance to win in my mind is the best thing to do. Going for it and failing is a little worse than people are saying here.
bills_fan_in_raleigh Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 After alot of thought while it was being debating during the game I like the FG and here is why. We are currently up by 10 the FG puts us up 13 meaning they have to score 2 TDs to win not one TD, and a FG to tie. If I was the coach however I might have gone for it.
MRM33064 Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 FWIW, how about Zorn's decision yesterday ... late in the game, in a similar field position but with only a 2 point lead, he went for the 4th down even though by doing so and failing, St. Louis had a chance to WIN the game with just a FG. The alternative was to attempt a FG, go up by 5 if it was good, and kick off. Similar, but not identical, analysis applies. (The full analysis is here: http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/09/ji...4th-down.html.) It's worth a read if trying to break down and analyze these decisions is interesting to you.
rockpile Posted September 23, 2009 Posted September 23, 2009 Didn't they get stuffed on an run just before that for -2 andf then got a penalty to get that back? If so no way was I running it. I seem to recall they blew up 3rd down. I wanted to see a third down pass, and still an easy FG if that does not work. The FG was the correct call and if you disagree you are a stupid-head!
Recommended Posts