Estonian wood is certainly good, especially when it costs only $6 per bundle at my local Wegman's in Buffalo. It is probably the same aromatic kiln-dried birch Mr. Easterbrook can pick up in DC for $8-$9 per bundle. It is amazing that that wood can be shipped to inland cities right across from Canada and its 1,000,000 square miles of boreal forest. to sell for $6 for 20 lbs. retail.
Let me first say that I agree that the NFL is the most conservative league in sport. The coaches, the commentators … if I have to hear Phil Simms or one of the other announcers say “no choice but to punt/kick a field goal there” …
However, the one issue that the author of the piece ignores is that it is not just the probability that is important, but what is a particular scoring play worth - you need to employ game theory.. Clearly, if teams are converting 2-pt conversions at a 48% clip, and PAT’s at a 94% rate, by expected value theory, teams should always go for two. But sometimes, certain scoring has more value, which game theory better addresses.
The easiest way to look at this is that if the 2-pt conversion rate was 30%, the proper move according to EV theory would be to always kick the PAT. But, if you were down 2 pts. with 3 seconds left, you would go for two because the 2 pts have value - a PAT is worthless.
So, the smart move for the Packers was the PAT. Going for two meant you have a greater than even chance of losing. The point gets you to OT, where the chances of winning should be even.
However, the one issue that the author of the piece ignores is that it is not just the probability that is important, but what is a particular scoring play worth - you need to employ game theory.. Clearly, if teams are converting 2-pt conversions at a 48% clip, and PAT’s at a 94% rate, by expected value theory, teams should always go for two. But sometimes, certain scoring has more value, which game theory better addresses.
The easiest way to look at this is that if the 2-pt conversion rate was 30%, the proper move according to EV theory would be to always kick the PAT. But, if you were down 2 pts. with 3 seconds left, you would go for two because the 2 pts have value - a PAT is worthless.
So, the smart move for the Packers was the PAT. Going for two meant you have a greater than even chance of losing. The point gets you to OT, where the chances of winning should be even.
Disagree. For various reasons that greGG noted, the "should be even" chance your post entertains is less than even (to what degree unknown?). So, without going math crazy here, basically you have a 94% chance of having a slightly less than 50% chance of winning. Therefore game theory might in fact dictate that although more brutal and harsh outcomes are certainly likely, so is winning, and the most mathematically win producing choice would be to go for 2 points. For instance, if the reasons GB was less than 50% to win in OT noted by greGG amount to a 48% chance then with the PAT factored in they have a 45% chance of winning. That's less than 48%!
A coach owes it to his players not to throw away the work of an entire season on a 48-52 shot. He also owes it to his players to make sure one of the greatest receivers in football isn't left all by himself on one side of the field.
Thanks for bringing up the two point try to win the game rather than kicking for the tie at the end. I do not admire Herm Edwards, but his famous rant was technically correct: you play to win the game! Is it easier to cover two yards or win a coin toss and cover 80 or score after stopping the other team? Why, as an owner, would you fire a guy for trying to win the game?
I have not watched the video, but did Marshawn Lynch run the correct pattern?
Wilson thought he would be going the other way.
Keep beating the drum against youth football. It saddens me every time I do physicals to allow children to play full pads football. It shouldn't be an option, and I wish there was a way I could no and not get in trouble.
I have not watched the video, but did Marshawn Lynch run the correct pattern?
Wilson thought he would be going the other way.
Keep beating the drum against youth football. It saddens me every time I do physicals to allow children to play full pads football. It shouldn't be an option, and I wish there was a way I could no and not get in trouble.
1
TMQ has the right conclusion, but for entirely the wrong reasons. Football stats should be viewed in context of the players and opponents. Normally, anyone would take Aaron Rodgers over Carson Palmer in pressure situations, especially after that amazing performance to tie the game. But Rodgers has been particularly cursed in OT. Going into the Arizona game he was 0-6-1 in all OT games and 0-2 in OT playoff games.
Even so, the only thing Rodgers did wrong was call "tails" at the start of overtime. If he had called heads and the team marched down and scored, there'd be no column. Which really makes the second-guessing in this case rather uninspired writing. C'mon TMQ, go bold!
Even so, the only thing Rodgers did wrong was call "tails" at the start of overtime. If he had called heads and the team marched down and scored, there'd be no column. Which really makes the second-guessing in this case rather uninspired writing. C'mon TMQ, go bold!
Do coaches get a bonus for getting a game, or at least a close game, into overtime, thereby allowing for more TV commercials?
The Packers were downright awful ALL YEAR at 3rd and short and 4th and short situations. The playcalling just wasnt there. Lacy looked a step slow, Starks looked a bit fumbly, and Rodgers (while a great scrambling QB) is sub-par on QB sneaks. I think they made the right call with Crosby.
The real question Packers fans should be asking is why they're paying Shields all that money. He had arguably his worst game/season as a packer. Dropping one sure INT, another possible INT, and methinks he was the main culprit on the blown coverage of Fitz (not to mention missing a tackle on him downfield on the same overtime play).
The real question Packers fans should be asking is why they're paying Shields all that money. He had arguably his worst game/season as a packer. Dropping one sure INT, another possible INT, and methinks he was the main culprit on the blown coverage of Fitz (not to mention missing a tackle on him downfield on the same overtime play).
Green Bay can still go for two: a new general manager, and a new head coach. If they don't, we'll see the same sorry end next season that we saw these last two.
This is a pretty dumb argument.
Look, going with the most basic statistics, the Packers' likelihood of winning if they kick the PAT and go into overtime is .94x.5= 47%. If instead they go with the 2 point conversion, it's 48%. Only an ignoramus would count those odds as appreciably different on a one-off play like this, in which the season was at stake. If one is looking for a reason to go with the PAT and overtime, it would be that the Packers would certainly seem to have major momentum going on their side.
By any rational reckoning, whatever went wrong for the Packers went wrong in overtime itself.
Why try to turn a decision that couldn't have been more obviously 6 of one and a half dozen of the other into some stupendous mistake?
Again, only an ignoramus would try to do that.
Look, going with the most basic statistics, the Packers' likelihood of winning if they kick the PAT and go into overtime is .94x.5= 47%. If instead they go with the 2 point conversion, it's 48%. Only an ignoramus would count those odds as appreciably different on a one-off play like this, in which the season was at stake. If one is looking for a reason to go with the PAT and overtime, it would be that the Packers would certainly seem to have major momentum going on their side.
By any rational reckoning, whatever went wrong for the Packers went wrong in overtime itself.
Why try to turn a decision that couldn't have been more obviously 6 of one and a half dozen of the other into some stupendous mistake?
Again, only an ignoramus would try to do that.
2
Except it's not multiplied by .5 as you posit since road teams win only .45 of OT's historically. And factoring in the fact that the league wide average of 48% for 2 pt. conversions is sampled from mostly bad teams that are playing from behind (winning record teams have an average 2 pt. conversion rate over 50%) the difference is closer to an 8% overall difference. Maybe still small but by no means worthy of ignoramus name calling. If a coach can easily improve his teams chance of winning by over 8% that's not peanuts and should not be ignored. And quibble if you will whether its 8% or 6% but it's not 1%. There is something to home field advantage across all sports and that counts in OT too.
They should have gone for the win, that's obvious now.-
2
In a similar vein, shouldn't Seattle have begun going for two-point conversions as soon as they scored their first touchdown of the second half against Carolina?
2
I too thought the Packers should go for 2, but I anticipated that the conservative McCarthy would not.
Conservative coaching to shift blame from coach to player is a non-negligible contributor to the dominance of the Patriots over the past 15 years. No coach, in my memory, is less afraid to take the public blame for a loss. Perhaps only Patriots fans can distinguish the difference between a poor decision and a poor result, but I suspect lots of fans throughout the country are capable of understanding the concept too.
That said, I'd like to see the Patriots pass more in run-out-the-clock situations. The Patriots aren't a great rushing team, even when it comes as a surprise. In expected run situations, they're even worse. Passing is more likely to keep the clock running more than 3 downs.
Conservative coaching to shift blame from coach to player is a non-negligible contributor to the dominance of the Patriots over the past 15 years. No coach, in my memory, is less afraid to take the public blame for a loss. Perhaps only Patriots fans can distinguish the difference between a poor decision and a poor result, but I suspect lots of fans throughout the country are capable of understanding the concept too.
That said, I'd like to see the Patriots pass more in run-out-the-clock situations. The Patriots aren't a great rushing team, even when it comes as a surprise. In expected run situations, they're even worse. Passing is more likely to keep the clock running more than 3 downs.
I look forward to a careful look at Phil Simms' "analysis." He must surely be the least informative " analyst " covering the NFL.
2
I commented to my wife during the last few minutes of the Chiefs-Pats game that there seemed to be no "urgency" to the Chiefs as the clock ticked down, eerily similar to the aforementioned Super Bowl with Andy Reid as Eagles' coach.
I recently read Messr. Easterbrook's new book about pro football and his observation about too much punting on fourth down. In addition to poor clock management Andy Reid was certainly too timid on fourth down by punting in NE territory. One would think Reid, with a long, successful coaching pedigree, would be a bit bolder on fourth down.
One final note in the Pats game...the Chiefs finally went for it on fourth down in their final possession (they had no choice at that point) and Smith's fourth down pass was "intercepted" way downfield at the Pats' 15-yard line. Of course, the pass should never have been intercepted as it cost the Pats over 30 yards in the change of possession. But the Pats were "saved" upon further review when the defensive back was ruled to have been out of bounds. Those 30 yards could have made a huge difference.
I recently read Messr. Easterbrook's new book about pro football and his observation about too much punting on fourth down. In addition to poor clock management Andy Reid was certainly too timid on fourth down by punting in NE territory. One would think Reid, with a long, successful coaching pedigree, would be a bit bolder on fourth down.
One final note in the Pats game...the Chiefs finally went for it on fourth down in their final possession (they had no choice at that point) and Smith's fourth down pass was "intercepted" way downfield at the Pats' 15-yard line. Of course, the pass should never have been intercepted as it cost the Pats over 30 yards in the change of possession. But the Pats were "saved" upon further review when the defensive back was ruled to have been out of bounds. Those 30 yards could have made a huge difference.
1
Go for the 2-point conversion? Among the most glaring of many baffling shortcomings that bedeviled the Packers' offense this year was a consistent failure to convert do-or-die short-yardage situations. Excuse my French but, "Es tu for?"
1
Fans want to see football. What not let them see both teams (their team and the other team) on offense in OT, especially playoff OT? Why cut it short of that? If both teams get a chance on offense, or at least a chance to field a kickoff to them, the coin toss is then much less important. And the game should be more important than a lame, childish flip of a coin.
But definitely no college OT system. That is not much better than penalty kick endings in soccer. Let's have punts and kickoffs in OT. Let's have real football decide the contest.
But definitely no college OT system. That is not much better than penalty kick endings in soccer. Let's have punts and kickoffs in OT. Let's have real football decide the contest.
Agreed ... but, of course, the NFL can't do any rule simply. Why they came up with the convoluted OT rules they did, I can't figure out. All they had to do was say "both teams must each possess the ball once. If still tied after that, it's sudden death - first team the scores, wins."
To all those who think kicking for the tie was "correct" - I guarantee you that every coach and player on Arizona's sideline, and every fan in the stands that day, were happier than you can possibly imagine when they saw Green Bay send out the kicking unit.
Also - Arians is also getting a free pass for stopping the clock before the two minute warning - that gave Green Bay an extra 45 seconds to tie the game....the whole issue of going for one or two is moot if Arians does the smart thing and just runs the ball.
Also - Arians is also getting a free pass for stopping the clock before the two minute warning - that gave Green Bay an extra 45 seconds to tie the game....the whole issue of going for one or two is moot if Arians does the smart thing and just runs the ball.
5
Until the day comes when your team goes for 2, doesn't make it, and lose and then you holler why did they do that?
The 2 point conversion is one where the defense for once, has an advantage. You do realize that they can commit a penalty with little consequence - what's the worst that is going to happen? Move the ball a few inches? There have been situations of blatant holding which the refs have missed - the defense will rush the passer making him throw fast and if the receiver doesn't react quickly or the defense jumps it(see Seattle Vs NE Jan 2015), you lose those points. The NE CB jumped the route because he had little to lose, most expected Seattle to score any way, but that was for the Super Bowl - imagine the defense taking a risk over one or two points - of course, every defense will jump the pass or commit a penalty
The 2 point conversion is one where the defense for once, has an advantage. You do realize that they can commit a penalty with little consequence - what's the worst that is going to happen? Move the ball a few inches? There have been situations of blatant holding which the refs have missed - the defense will rush the passer making him throw fast and if the receiver doesn't react quickly or the defense jumps it(see Seattle Vs NE Jan 2015), you lose those points. The NE CB jumped the route because he had little to lose, most expected Seattle to score any way, but that was for the Super Bowl - imagine the defense taking a risk over one or two points - of course, every defense will jump the pass or commit a penalty
There is so much that McCarthy knows about the health of his players and the pace of the game that probably inform his conservative decision. The momentum of that long pass reception, miraculously giving them a shot at overtime probably made him not want to push his luck. I say both teams should touch the ball in overtime. That would be fair. The current OT rule cheats the fans and the players.
8
Might I add to your list of dumb things coaches do? Why do they only rush three when it is third and long? In the NFL, almost any qb can complete a pass when given the time, and any receiver, also given the time, can find an opening.
1
How'd rushing six men work out for the Cardinals on the last play of regulation? Overrated "All-Pro" CB Patrick Peterson got smoked by a third string bench jockey.
It's not that simple.
It's not that simple.
2
"Defenders are more likely than receivers to drop passes in the first place."
Well, yeah. If corners were adept at catching, they'd be playing wide receiver. Their skillsets are otherwise identical.
Other than that, I 100% agree with your call that Green Bay should have gone for two. They had no guarantee of touching the ball again (and they didn't). If you can potentially be put in the position of not having possession again (as overtime rules dictate), you should absolutely go for two, particularly when playing an offense like the Cardinals, for whom Carson Palmer has been playing lights out (sans Week 17).
A lot of commenters here are saying that the PAT was the right call, but that's demonstrably false. Green Bay never took the field on offense again, and there was a coin flip's probability that they could be put in that position. Given the choice, I challenge my team to win, not let a coin flip decide.
Well, yeah. If corners were adept at catching, they'd be playing wide receiver. Their skillsets are otherwise identical.
Other than that, I 100% agree with your call that Green Bay should have gone for two. They had no guarantee of touching the ball again (and they didn't). If you can potentially be put in the position of not having possession again (as overtime rules dictate), you should absolutely go for two, particularly when playing an offense like the Cardinals, for whom Carson Palmer has been playing lights out (sans Week 17).
A lot of commenters here are saying that the PAT was the right call, but that's demonstrably false. Green Bay never took the field on offense again, and there was a coin flip's probability that they could be put in that position. Given the choice, I challenge my team to win, not let a coin flip decide.
5
Agree that going for two was a good risk. Disagree that it is demonstrably false that the PAT was the right call. At the time of the decision, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle dictates that it was both the correct call and the wrong call equally.
3
The same Palmer who threw a pick in the end zone? Really? That was a fluke play and it worked out for them - it happens - as they say hindsight is 20-20 - easy to say they should have done this or that after the play and justify it
After Aaron Rodger's Hail Mary touch down pass, you would have thought that his coach would have had the confidence in his QB to score again, on a two point conversion play? As a Cardinal fan, the play reminded me of Rothelsberg's last second pass against the Cards in the Superbowl. After the Rodger's Hail Mary I was sure that again, in the last seconds, my team would loose. But, wonders of wonders Green Bay left Superman Larry Fitzgerald wide open for his 75 yard run. Then Coach Ariens went back in time for an olf fashioned shovel pass to Fitzgerald to win the game! Roll on Sunday. By the way the state of the Carolina field was a disgrace, don't you think?
1
Keep in mind that, despite completing two Hail Mary's on the final drive, the offense was down to 3 playable receivers: 1 an average TE (Richard Rodgers) and 2 (Janis and Abby) with less than 10 receptions combined over the past 17 games.
Seemed like a big risk to put it all on one play, especially when the defense was playing so well. That 75yrd play was a fluke.
Seemed like a big risk to put it all on one play, especially when the defense was playing so well. That 75yrd play was a fluke.
3
Beg to differ on the GB last-second "deuce" try: It would have been far more effective in OT to either: 1.) wrap up the plodding Carson Palmer for a sack, setting a long third down conversion; 2.) actually covering the great Larry Fitzgerald on the play and perhaps intercepting a "dangerous cross-[field]" lob that likely would have been a Pick 6; 3.) Julius Peppers staying "home" and not vacating his position to leave Fitzgerald wide open; or 4.) eliminate one of three defensive "whiffs" as Fitzgerald romped down field. Your pro-deuce advocacy benefits from hindsight. Botched coin flip and stupid OT rules notwithstanding, GB had a decent chance of winning in OT, certainly better than making a sudden-death, make-it-or-go-home deuce try.
3
If you watched the play you would see that that cross field lob was hardly "dangerous" - there was nobody within 15 yards of Fitzgerald. As far as hindsight - I said before the Hail Mary pass was thrown that if Green Bay scores they should go for two. Green Bay's chances of winning in OT are exactly identical to their chances of scoring a two point conversion...in fact, scoring the deuce might have been a bit higher. Add to the fact that there's also a 5% chance they miss the kick to tie the game and going for two is a very easy decision. Especially against a defense that is exhausted and just gave up a 98 yard touchdown drive. There is no hindsight - I will say it now, in the last second of play, when choosing between going for two, or kicking to go to OT, going for two is the correct decision ALWAYS.
4
Green Bay's defense is prone to the giving up the big play; they have been for a few years now. Fitzgerald's romp reminded me of their inability to corral Colin Kaepernick in previous playoff games. Everyone in the stadium knew Kaepernick would be running save for the boys in green and gold and their hapless defensive coordinator.
Great to see the critique of cued applause in the State of the Union address. I know it has nothing to do with football, but I haven't seen it in op-ed columns, so thanks for sneaking it in.
5
I don't understand calling out Marshawn Lynch. It looked to me like the ball was well behind him, and Kuechly was off running the other way before Lynch knew what was happening.
I enjoy the column though.
I enjoy the column though.
2
You're right about that. Lynch was just starting to turn around when Kuechly caught the pass. There was no way he could have tackled Kuechly, his momentum was carrying him up-field. I too like Easterbrook but he got this one wrong.
2
I just watched it again; you are completely correct. Lynch was moving in the exact opposite direction (away from the endzone), and, by the time he could have reacted, they were 10 yards apart, with Kuechly heading full speed toward the touchdown. There was nothing Lynch could have done.
2
KC should have gone for two when they scored after being down by 24. They had to score 3 TDs in any case. If they have a 50% chance of converting a two-point conversion, their chance of catching up with 3 TDs was 1/8; their chance of scoring 22 and needing a FG to win was 3/8; and their chance of needing to score a 4th TD was 50%.
But this ignores the time factor. Kicking extra points means they need 3 TDs + a FG. And, as it turned out, they didn't have enough time for the 4th score.
But this ignores the time factor. Kicking extra points means they need 3 TDs + a FG. And, as it turned out, they didn't have enough time for the 4th score.
Unless, of course, they went for two and didn't make it, at which point we'd be calling for McCarthy's head.
Sudden death should not be part of professional sports when offenses don't have equal access to the ball or puck. Let's focus on that reason for losing instead of the "what if" Tuesday morning quarterbacking.
Sudden death should not be part of professional sports when offenses don't have equal access to the ball or puck. Let's focus on that reason for losing instead of the "what if" Tuesday morning quarterbacking.
2
Criticizing a column called "Tuesday Morning Quarterback" for Tuesday morning quarterbacking?
Interesting strategy.
Interesting strategy.
6
That's the point. If McCarthy had gone for two and lost, he would have been blamed. And NFL coaches will do anything to not be blamed. If he had sent out the kicker to tie, and the kicker missed, the kicker would be blamed. And as it is, Green Bay lost, and McCarthy escapes blame, the focus shifting to blown coverage...and in a small degree, the coin flip (or lack of flip).
But the end result is the same...Green Bay lost. The correct move is going for two. And until coaches get not only brave, but unapologetic in their strategic and tactical decision making you will continue to see coaches get this wrong. In the last second of a game, going for two for the win is the correct decision EVERY SINGLE TIME. Playing for Overtime is the wrong decision EVERY SINGLE TIME.
But the end result is the same...Green Bay lost. The correct move is going for two. And until coaches get not only brave, but unapologetic in their strategic and tactical decision making you will continue to see coaches get this wrong. In the last second of a game, going for two for the win is the correct decision EVERY SINGLE TIME. Playing for Overtime is the wrong decision EVERY SINGLE TIME.
1
Everything Mr. Easterbrook says about Marshawn Lynch is true…except the main thing. Watch the video, friends: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DNa06_OVXo. Lynch didn’t stand there doing nothing - he slipped. Remember, it had snowed the night before, and the turf was not in good condition. Just as Lynch hooked left on his pattern, the ball came in behind him. When he tried to reverse direction, his right foot went out from under him, making it physically impossible to reach Luke Kuechly. The only reason Kuechly didn’t slip was because he was coming straight at the ball.
8
Gregg writes a great column, and his steady hammering of dull coaches and announcers makes me clap like a seal, but singling out Marshawn Lynch for the worst play of the season isn't just wildly wrong, it's depressing. Didn't see the game, but called up the play with a few keystrokes. If Lynch were Pete Rose, and Pete Rose were as fast as Usain Bolt, he might have raced into the distant edge of a picture of Kuechly a few seconds into his touchdown celebration, but somehow I don't think that would have made Lynch any new fans. Gregg's willful blindness puts him in the company of a lot of dull-normal sportswriters.
8
I checked the YouTube video. This is correct. Lynch happened to be losing balance, almost falling backwards, in the wrong direction to give chase, as Kuechly passed him. He would not have come within five yards of tackling him.
2
Tying the score to live another day, or quarter, was the correct move in the GB game.
The Cards do not have a playoff caliber QB and Palmer was in big trouble on the play to Fitz before he launched the ball. Fortunately for the Cards he launched it to a future Hall of Fame receiver.
Football is a game with totally separate offenses and defenses, unlike any other major sport where players perform both functions to one degree or another. Heck, even hockey goalies get an occasional point for an assist. You can win a game with defense. Especially a play off game.
I am not sure what can be done to "fix" football's over time rules. I think making it more difficult to kick field goals would help the sport over all. I do not think narrowing the space between the goal posts is the answer; that would affect PATs.
Perhaps shortening the distance between scrimmage and the kicker would add some excitement as more FGs would be blocked.
In one regular season game (don't remember the teams) in OT the team winning the toss kicked a FG. The other team got the ball, a snap from center was muffed by the QB, the defense recovered, the game was over.
Huh? I get it, but that's not how a game should end. Football's OT issue needs to be fixed.
The Cards do not have a playoff caliber QB and Palmer was in big trouble on the play to Fitz before he launched the ball. Fortunately for the Cards he launched it to a future Hall of Fame receiver.
Football is a game with totally separate offenses and defenses, unlike any other major sport where players perform both functions to one degree or another. Heck, even hockey goalies get an occasional point for an assist. You can win a game with defense. Especially a play off game.
I am not sure what can be done to "fix" football's over time rules. I think making it more difficult to kick field goals would help the sport over all. I do not think narrowing the space between the goal posts is the answer; that would affect PATs.
Perhaps shortening the distance between scrimmage and the kicker would add some excitement as more FGs would be blocked.
In one regular season game (don't remember the teams) in OT the team winning the toss kicked a FG. The other team got the ball, a snap from center was muffed by the QB, the defense recovered, the game was over.
Huh? I get it, but that's not how a game should end. Football's OT issue needs to be fixed.
2
Going for the tie is the wrong decision, on many levels for many reasons:
1. Going for two is effectively 50/50 (Green Bay has been above 50% the past two years)
2. Overtime is effectively 50/50 - so, it's a wash, win/lose now or win/lose in OT
3. You will miss 5-6% of your extra point attempts - that alone should push you into the "go for two" column
4. Historically, the home team has the (slight) advantage in OT
5. Historically, the favorite has the (slight) advantage in OT
6. Green Bay was the road underdog - not a clincher on its own, but can't be ignored (like I said, "effectively" 50/50)
7. Green Bay just marched the ball 98 yards to score a last second TD - the defense is not only exhausted, but shocked - and you have one of the greatest QB's to ever play the game with the opportunity to move the ball two yards for the win
I guarantee you that every player on Arizona's sideline, and every hometown fan in the stands, said a prayer of thanks when Green Bay chose to just kick the single.
OT doesn't need to be fixed. Coaches need to make smarter decisions at the end of regulation.
1. Going for two is effectively 50/50 (Green Bay has been above 50% the past two years)
2. Overtime is effectively 50/50 - so, it's a wash, win/lose now or win/lose in OT
3. You will miss 5-6% of your extra point attempts - that alone should push you into the "go for two" column
4. Historically, the home team has the (slight) advantage in OT
5. Historically, the favorite has the (slight) advantage in OT
6. Green Bay was the road underdog - not a clincher on its own, but can't be ignored (like I said, "effectively" 50/50)
7. Green Bay just marched the ball 98 yards to score a last second TD - the defense is not only exhausted, but shocked - and you have one of the greatest QB's to ever play the game with the opportunity to move the ball two yards for the win
I guarantee you that every player on Arizona's sideline, and every hometown fan in the stands, said a prayer of thanks when Green Bay chose to just kick the single.
OT doesn't need to be fixed. Coaches need to make smarter decisions at the end of regulation.
6
Watching from the other side of the planet in steamy heat it wasa thoroughly entertaining game - I can understand "one in the hand is worth two in the bush" so take the Point and live to fight another day (few minutes) - but I can not understand how NFL can set up a curiously arbitrary rule that doesn't give the other side an even chance with the ball... how bizarre kind of like penalty kicks in soccer but even less fair.
2
Not like soccer at all. In soccer, teams play two overtimes, an extra thirty minutes, before penalty kicks in which both teams get an equal number of chances. Penalty kicks might be a lousy a way to end a match, but they're fair to both sides.
Why do I have to Google Greg's column to find it? Surely the times could give it a bit more prominence on the sport page so I could just link to it from the Times?
16
By the way, when was the last time you saw a quick kick on 3 rd down in the NFL? What a lot of this column proves is that the idea of watching film to determine patters for either defensive or offensive performance really doesn't happen, otherwise much of what you point out would not have happened. Or maybe in the heat of the moment coaches and players forget what they were supposed to remember.
Mr. Manning wasn't the only famous quarterback to struggle with inaccuracy these last couple weekends!
Anyway, the mention of low prices for Estonian firewood and South American flowers delivered in the U.S. reminds me of the astonishment Egyptians expressed (when I was living there) about the cheapness of digital watches from China: at wholesale they were sold by the kilo.
Anyway, the mention of low prices for Estonian firewood and South American flowers delivered in the U.S. reminds me of the astonishment Egyptians expressed (when I was living there) about the cheapness of digital watches from China: at wholesale they were sold by the kilo.
1
Mr. Easterbrook - you seem to be a good candidate for my pet peeve in commonly accepted strategy. Maybe your readers can explain to me why I'm mistaken here - but I don't think so.
When a team is trailing late by 15 points and then scores a touchdown, they invariably kick the P.A.T. to keep it a "once score deficit" with a 6 + 2 still possible to force a tie. Wrong strategy!! The time to go for two is on the first touchdown.
There are two things that can happen on a two-point conversion. It can succeed or it can fail. If it succeeds, your team is down 7 - in good shape to tie the game (or attempt another two-point try if they're feeling lucky, but probably not with so much momentum favoring them having caught up late).
If the two-point attempt fails using the traditional strategy, that team has little or no chance to win. The game is usually in its final moments.
If the two-point attempt fails using my strategy, that team is down by 9 BUT still with time left in the game to score twice. It's not a great position to be in but it beats the situation when the two-point try fails in the waning seconds.
When a team is trailing late by 15 points and then scores a touchdown, they invariably kick the P.A.T. to keep it a "once score deficit" with a 6 + 2 still possible to force a tie. Wrong strategy!! The time to go for two is on the first touchdown.
There are two things that can happen on a two-point conversion. It can succeed or it can fail. If it succeeds, your team is down 7 - in good shape to tie the game (or attempt another two-point try if they're feeling lucky, but probably not with so much momentum favoring them having caught up late).
If the two-point attempt fails using the traditional strategy, that team has little or no chance to win. The game is usually in its final moments.
If the two-point attempt fails using my strategy, that team is down by 9 BUT still with time left in the game to score twice. It's not a great position to be in but it beats the situation when the two-point try fails in the waning seconds.
4
Exactly - if you miss the first two point attempt then you KNOW you need to score twice and set your strategy accordingly. Also, everyone seems to forget that singles are not as automatic as they once were. I'll even go one further...go for two on the first, and if you make it, go for two on the second. Go for the win and forget about OT. But frankly, I would go for two every single time.
3
The notion that local teams win more often at this stage makes sense -- after all, by definition, they have a better record than the visiting team.
For non-fans of either team, an interesting question is how often do the visitors cover the spread?
For non-fans of either team, an interesting question is how often do the visitors cover the spread?
The Lynch criticism on the interception is unfair - his momentum pushed him in the opposite direction (you can see him keep himself from falling forward as the ball is picked off). By the time he recovered, Kuechly was almost in the end zone. It takes much more time than most realize to change direction.
6
I thought the same thing. Lynch didn't look for the pass until it was in Keuchly's hands and by then Lynch didn't even know what happened.
2
So very true about the Packers finish. The two point conversion was the way to go and the two of us hearing it on the radio were agreeing - do it now. Put a button on a great game.
6
These two point percentages are bogus. Go back and look at when the Packers had success (and failure for that matter) during the season and the circumstances were either when they were far ahead or far behind, never under the do-or-die circumstances of the Cardinal game. There's no doubt that the NFL coaches are too conservative and it would be fun to see more risk taking, but this postgame claptrap is just that.
2
I agree with gjaul of Green Bay that the two point percentages are specious. In addition the quantitative aspect, there are the qualitative aspects to when a two point conversion is tried. Some two-point timing makes it easier than others.
Larry Fitzgerald's shovel pass touchdown was just about equivalent to a two
-point conversion as a play from scrimmage. Coach Bruce Arians had that in his back pocket. It was a quasi-trick play that he had great confidence in.
I have great admiration for Mike McCarthy as a coach and a person. If he had one of those, he should have used it. But only if he was positive he had it. Arizona's shovel was good in that it was 1) atypical, and 2) quick-hitting. NFL defenses are too fast for most trickery.
Larry Fitzgerald's shovel pass touchdown was just about equivalent to a two
-point conversion as a play from scrimmage. Coach Bruce Arians had that in his back pocket. It was a quasi-trick play that he had great confidence in.
I have great admiration for Mike McCarthy as a coach and a person. If he had one of those, he should have used it. But only if he was positive he had it. Arizona's shovel was good in that it was 1) atypical, and 2) quick-hitting. NFL defenses are too fast for most trickery.
1
Seattle had a short field goal attempt they could have made before the end of the first half but choose to go for it on forth down and failed! If they had taken that 3 points at the end of the game they would have been driving for the tie only 7 points down but instead they were 10 points behind which proved to much to over come. Tuesday morning QB so easy to condemn
1
This excepts the Seahawks' recent history of doing the same thing and succeeding. Pete Carroll had to stop the Seahawks' freefall, and he challenged his team by going for it on fourth down instead of kicking the field goal. While it didn't work (though whatever speech he gave at halftime certainly helped), it signaled to his team that he was challenging them to win.
Seattle's attitude in games is due in no small part to Carroll's philosophy, and it's a big part of why they were in the last two Super Bowls.
Seattle's attitude in games is due in no small part to Carroll's philosophy, and it's a big part of why they were in the last two Super Bowls.
1
Doing the "safe" "normal" thing -- which in football means not taking any chances whatsoever, ever -- keeps coaches employed. Take a chance and lose, and you've got some 'splaining to do. Play it safe and lose, well, that's just how the cookie crumbles! You're correct that announcers are just as steeped in this tradition as are the coaches. I recently heard one play-by-play guy, with seeming reluctance in his voice, say that, well, they might have to think about going for it on fourth down and short, late in the game, at midfield, behind in the score. "Might have to think about it!" He seemed to be sorry for even mentioning the dreaded prospect of not punting. --- On another and perhaps even more annoying issue: what's with the incessant rampant use of the word "football"??? There are no longer games, or players, or fields, or teams -- there are only "football games," and "football players," and "football fields," and "football teams." It is utterly ridiculous AND THEY ALL DO IT. Once one of these usage tropes catches on it spreads like wildfire....
4
What about on golf broadcasts where they say "That was a fabulous golf shot!".
And we shouldn't forget the now-ubiquitous "if I'm" formulation -- as in, "If I'm the Steelers I punt this football". As opposed to the way that a normal human being would would put it: "The Steelers ought to punt."
1
When you talk about Andy Reid and the Tom Coughlin School Of Crisis/Clock Management be informed of this. My Son and me were texting each other during the end of the Chiefs game and we remembered the Super Bowl. We were pretty successful in calling all of Reid's next plays. I can only imagine how much Belicheat was giggling to himself?
1
It's always gonna look like cheating when the competition is so consistently dumb.
2
Thank you. I was watching the game with a friend and before the Hail Mary pass I said "If he makes the touchdown he should go for two". You are 50/50 to get the two pointer, and you're 50/50 to win overtime, so that's a wash. Then factor in the fact that 5% of the time you will miss the PAT. I wish one of the other three losers had scored a last second TD to see what they would have done.
Also, the supposed genius Arians gave Green Bay an extra 45 seconds by stopping the clock before the two minute warning.
And Andy Reid is an idiot on clock management. NFL coaches simply seem to struggle on pressure-cooked decision making.
Also, the supposed genius Arians gave Green Bay an extra 45 seconds by stopping the clock before the two minute warning.
And Andy Reid is an idiot on clock management. NFL coaches simply seem to struggle on pressure-cooked decision making.
4
KC should have considered going for 2 when they scored with 1:13 to go. The math favors going for 2 more in this situation than the end of game decision facing GB. Since KC needed to recover an onside kick and score another TD to have a chance regardless of their decision on the point after, we can mathematically ignore those odds (they appear on both sides of the equation). Even if Santos was 100% to make the PAT and KC had a 50% chance in OT, the break even point for going for 2 would be 40.4% (1.5 minus the square root of 5 fourths). At 95% for the PAT and 45% chance in OT, Reid should elect to go for two if his chances are greater than 34.5%.
I'm surprised Gregg didn't mention Arizona's choice to attempt a 2nd down pass to Fitzgerald from the Green Bay 22 yard line with 2:34 remaining, rather than run and kill the clock. Even had the pass been completed, the play was an out(ish)-pattern which probably would have pushed Fitzgerald out of bounds to kill the clock anyway. Arizona would go on to score the bonus field goal on the drive to extend their lead from 4 to 7 points. Had they simply rushed up the middle three times then kicked the field goal, the time remaining for Green Bay's miraculous comeback would have been reduced by at least 30 seconds, maybe more.... a lifetime in the end game.
6