Take the Points or End the Game with the Ball?

[Tsailand]

1 hour ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

Two scenarios:

 

Down 1 with 5 seconds left and kicking a 20-yard FG

Up 5 with 1:45 left and defending

 

I would assume option 1 is closer to 100% than option 2.  

 

Sorry man, you should just give up, this concept is too complicated.

[petey hodge]

4 hours ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

I didn't mean you could re-kick...simply that you could make up for a bad snap or hold. 

But there's never a bad snap.... what, too soon? LOL!!

[Voice_of_Reason]

Any chance you have to not let Joe Barry screw your out of a win, you take it.

[RandyHolt]

Our offense is not polished enough to score only after milking all the time off the clock, like a NE tries to do at the end of halves to double up possessions. We were losing, CT did the right thing trying to score there. It's an unnatural thing to even try to do, halt at the 1 foot line. Suddenly, the likelihood of a fumble on it and on subsequent plays, need to be factored in.

 

We would likely commit a penalty, the inevitable kneel play to center the ball avoiding a butt fumble would push us back even farther, and chips shots are anything but even without the ice. Not to mention the flash mobs leaping over the LS is now en vogue (and soon to be banned IMO).  Overall, haven't the Barry defenses rather quietly done very well in the 2nd half of games; maybe better than our RZ offense in any part of games. Yes, we will never forget Detroit nor let Barry live that down. But don't pretty much all but the top defenses give up a late back breaker TD every year?

 

The bigger discussion here and going forward is, when will defenses clearly start conceding the FG will happen and let us score, get the ball back sooner, and pocket those timeouts to boot.  Maybe they let Thompson score, has anyone thrown out that theory, as we were all dancing for joy?

 

We have randomly heard it mentioned by an announcer half laughing as he says it over the decades, and only seen it happen but a few times. You know, ha ha, they may want to think about letting them score.  Coaches have become a lot more aggressive and wiser IMHO. We now see teams going for it on 4th down all over the field and it many situations, out of no where. With the league rule changes favoring passing, it seems a wise move to get the ball back asap.

 

Let 'em score is a play call I want in our DCs playbook.

[skinfan2k]

Cooley just mentioned on the radio that Kirk was told to tell his players to stay in bounds and not score the TD but he didnt communicate that to Chris Thompson.

[KDawg]

The right answer, as with most of these hypotheticals in this sport, is: It depends.

 

Flow of the game is a major factor. Has the defense been good? Lots of injuries to one team where doing one thing or the other is advantageous? There's just too many little things to factor in to answer this question.

 

As a general blanket statement, though, you never turn down points.  Ever.

 

Thats the type of thing that when your kicker misses the game winning field goal you wind up looking like an idiot. Score when you can, especially if the score gives you the lead.

 

Buts that's a very general statement. If I'm up 7 with two mins to go versus being down 2 or 3 or 4, my plan my change.

[50yrSKINSfan]

Just now, skinfan2k said:

Cooley just mentioned on the radio that Kirk was told to tell his players to stay in bounds and not score the TD but he didnt communicate that to Chris Thompson.

imo the Eagles LET US SCORE A TD when we did as it would be the only way they were getting the ball back. As I watched the play develop I felt getting that many yards at that time of the game was too easy. Now our coaches did not know this before the snap so they could not tell Chris what to do. As a running back he did what he is supposed to do and that is score. Still a tall order to go 75 yards for the Eagles in a little over 1 min. Much easier to go 1/2 way and kick a field goal.

[RFK Lives]

17 minutes ago, skinfan2k said:

Cooley just mentioned on the radio that Kirk was told to tell his players to stay in bounds and not score the TD but he didnt communicate that to Chris Thompson.

If this is true, it makes me question Gruden/McVay a bit.  Yes, stay inbounds but football is an aggressive game.  You take the points.  If your defense is so bad you cannot trust them to defend a long field, with a 5 point lead, well, your team is not going anywhere and you should pack it in.  Seriously, you go for the throat...always. 

3 minutes ago, 50yrSKINSfan said:

imo the Eagles LET US SCORE

Very possible...couldn't blame them if they did but again, what a motivator for the defense.  If I am a coach, I am up in their face saying "they don't respect you...and if you let them win this game, they were right"

[Audible_Red40]

This situation kind of happen earlier this year in London when taking on the Bengals.  It's overtime, so you might as well consider it the same situation as the FG would end the game.

 

Kirk Cousins takes a knee to set up for the field goal attempt from 34 yards out.  The team played "the safe" way by kneeling and kick.  It was 2nd a 4 from the 13.  Obviously they did not want to turn the ball over........

 

So the team send out the FG unit on 3rd down for the win.  We all know what happened.  There was no win and we kind of escaped with a tie.  That tie may certainly com back and bite us in the ass.

 

You play to win the game!  Unfortunately you just can't trust kickers.  Just ask the Vikings and Gary Anderson in 1998. 

 

I've got no problem with Thompson scoring in that situation.  If your defense can not hold any team, let alone a rookie QB led team from scoring a TD in that situation, then you don't deserve to win.  Obviously as many hole as the defense had, IMO it was the right thing to do.

[moondog]

Situational dependent. If a TD plus the extra point puts you up by 8 it's no question. 7 I think you still take it but it's not a guarantee. Personally with our defense anything less than 7 I say take the field goal. But that is dependent too at this point I'd say field goal has to be inside 35 yards. 

 

In an absolutely perfect world I'd say Thompson goes down at the one and then you let as much time tick off as possible then still try to pound it in with Rob. If a couple runs don't work you kick the field goal with no time left. But at least in this scenario you take another 35 seconds away or force a timeout even if Rob scores on the very next play. 

 

It's a tough call but the truth is that it is always situation deoendent.

[purbeast]

To me they should take the TD 100 out of 100 times.  You don't just give up points like that.  Had the defense made the Eagles go 3 and out this thread wouldn't even exist.

 

What I think is a good question is - should they have just kicked the PAT instead of going for 2?  Remember, Eagles long snapper was hurt and they already had botched a field goal.  Had the Skins just kicked the PAT and they are up by 6, had the Eagles scored a TD the game very well could have gone to OT with a missed PAT or missed 2PT conversion try by Philly.

[skinfan2k]

the issue is not really about kicking.  it's about eliminating the possiblity of having the other team be able to score.  This situation happened last week in Arizona. They scored a TD to go up 8 when a first down would have eliminated the chances of us getting the ball back

[Sekhmet187]

You score the TD. Too much can happen on every play to just assume you could make it to a 3rd down FG. Something I feel lost in the conversation is that if they get the 2 pt conversion its a 7 pt lead and barring an incredibly ballsy decision, at worst you head to OT if the eagles drive for a TD. 

 

Its never a good idea to forgo a TD and rely on a FG where anything can go wrong when the kicker is feeling the pressure of a game winner.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

27 minutes ago, skinfan2k said:

the issue is not really about kicking.  it's about eliminating the possiblity of having the other team be able to score.  This situation happened last week in Arizona. They scored a TD to go up 8 when a first down would have eliminated the chances of us getting the ball back

 

Good post. Those stating that the FG isn't 100% are missing the point. Nothing is 100% in that moment. The two scenarios are that you go up 5 and give the Eagles a shot to win the game with the ball or you stay down 1 and ensure that you end the game on your terms. 

 

To me, it's about as simple as determining which phase of the game I trust the more. I would rank that pretty definitively as: 

 

Offense

Special Teams

Defense

 

So, I'd prefer to end the game with my offense/special teams attempting to take the lead over my defense attempting to preserve the lead. 

[Dan T.]

Thompson gives himself up at the one foot line.  The clock continues to run, or Philly is forced to use its final time out.  Then you can drain the clock while running one or two plays for the touchdown and, failing that, kick a chip shot field goal.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

9 minutes ago, Sekhmet187 said:

You score the TD. Too much can happen on every play to just assume you could make it to a 3rd down FG. Something I feel lost in the conversation is that if they get the 2 pt conversion its a 7 pt lead and barring an incredibly ballsy decision, at worst you head to OT if the eagles drive for a TD. 

 

Its never a good idea to forgo a TD and rely on a FG where anything can go wrong when the kicker is feeling the pressure of a game winner.

 

This is a good point. I certainly would have felt a whole lot better had we gotten the 2-pointer. But, to me, that all plays into the calculation. The 2-pointer isn't guaranteed so there's a decent chance when you score that you'll have less than a TD lead. 

[Bang]

You SCORE to take the lead. You demand your defense stop an inferior team with a ragged OL and a rookie QB.

it's crazy to think anything else...  you need to win. You take the lead. you don't bet on our horrible goal line offense,, you don't bank on a kicker who is no longer reliable, you take the points and absolutely DEMAND your defense keep them from going 75 yards.

it's not even a question.

 

as to the Eagles allowing uis to score so they could have the ball with a rag-ass OL and a rookie QB with 1 timeout and under 2 minutes to go (with their most explosive player seeing stars on the bench)..    a coach should be fired before he hits the tunnel to allow a team to take the lead in that situation.

 

Granted, the Redskins defense is not good, but holy **** if they can't keep the EAGLES from driving 75 yards, they do not deserve to win.

 

~Bang

[TD_washingtonredskins]

In short, I am just having issues with those who don't believe this isn't even a conversation. To the "100 times out of 100 you score" or "always take the points" it shows a lack of understanding of the ultimate goal of the game. To me, that feels a little too "FOOTBALL CULTURE" of an answer. 

 

Every circumstance has a win-percentage attached to it. I don't necessarily know where to find those, but I'm pretty confident that scenario 1 below would be the higher-percentage chance of a win: 

 

1) Down 1, with the ball and kicking a 22-yard FG as time expires

2) Up 5, on defense with the opponent at the 25 with 1 timeout and 1:45 left

 

To me, moving past the tough-guy culture, it's always the best play to put yourself in the most advantageous of positions. Maximize your win-percentage in all circumstances and you should come out ahead more often than not. It's not "playing it safe" or "playing not to lose". 

[KDawg]

If we are talking about this game in particular, then scoring was the absolute correct call.

 

Down 1 with a kicker who has been cold as of late. We took that chance in London and it backfired.

 

If you're down, you need to be smart with the clock but attempt to put the ball in the endzone. Suggesting we try to milk the clock, with Philly still having a timeout, &/ opening a giant can of worms that we don't need to open.

 

For starters, how do you propose we gain the first down to keep the clock churning? Pass? Incompletions or poor judgement and players getting out of bounds stops the clock... An advantage for Philly. Run? No guarantee that we get that first down and keep the offense on the field.

 

And even then, you're putting the game on the back of a kicker who has been cold. And we didn't have a lead. We were down. A missed FG ends the game. A made one without milking the clock puts Philly on offense down 24-22 where a FG can win the game. 

 

In this scenario, Thompson scoring was without a doubt the best move. A defense needs to be able to stop an offense from going ~80 yards in ~2 minutes. Beyond that, the touchdown put the Skins up 5. That meant Philly needed a touchdown to win. That puts more pressure on a rookie QB and is an extra 30+ yards the opposing O needs to gain.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

2 minutes ago, Bang said:

You SCORE to take the lead. You demand your defense stop an inferior team with a ragged OL and a rookie QB.

it's crazy to think anything else...  you need to win. You take the lead. you don't bet on our horrible goal line offense,, you don't bank on a kicker who is no longer reliable, you take the points and absolutely DEMAND your defense keep them from going 75 yards.

it's not even a question.

 

as to the Eagles allowing uis to score so they could have the ball with a rag-ass OL and a rookie QB with 1 timeout and under 2 minutes to go (with their most explosive player seeing stars on the bench)..    a coach should be fired before he hits the tunnel to allow a team to take the lead in that situation.

 

Granted, the Redskins defense is not good, but holy **** if they can't keep the EAGLES from driving 75 yards, they do not deserve to win.

 

~Bang

 

So again I'll ask you directly (both because I respect your opinion and I expect it'll be framed in an entertaining way)...

 

Would you have been more or less optimistic if Hopkins was lining up for a 22-yard FG with 4 seconds to go (still down 22-21) than you were as Wentz was easily completing pass after pass move the Eagles to about our 15 with still 25 seconds left to play? I still would have expected Hopkins to drill a point-blank FG, even despite his recent struggles. It's not like anyone is claiming that the Skins should have started taking a knee at the 25. 

3 minutes ago, KDawg said:

If we are talking about this game in particular, then scoring was the absolute correct call.

 

Down 1 with a kicker who has been cold as of late. We took that chance in London and it backfired.

 

If you're down, you need to be smart with the clock but attempt to put the ball in the endzone. Suggesting we try to milk the clock, with Philly still having a timeout, &/ opening a giant can of worms that we don't need to open.

 

For starters, how do you propose we gain the first down to keep the clock churning? Pass? Incompletions or poor judgement and players getting out of bounds stops the clock... An advantage for Philly. Run? No guarantee that we get that first down and keep the offense on the field.

 

And even then, you're putting the game on the back of a kicker who has been cold. And we didn't have a lead. We were down. A missed FG ends the game. A made one without milking the clock puts Philly on offense down 24-22 where a FG can win the game. 

 

In this scenario, Thompson scoring was without a doubt the best move. A defense needs to be able to stop an offense from going ~80 yards in ~2 minutes. Beyond that, the touchdown put the Skins up 5. That meant Philly needed a touchdown to win. That puts more pressure on a rookie QB and is an extra 30+ yards the opposing O needs to gain.

We'd have a first down inside the 5 with 1:45 to go. If they use their final timeout there, we could take two knees to get under 30 seconds. Then you can run a play to try to score or attempt the FG on third down. Either way, the most time Philly would have is 20-25 seconds from their own 25 with no timeouts. 

[skinfan2k]

the more i think about it. if the score was tied, then i think going for the FG is the right thing to do.  but since we were losing the best thing to do in this situation is to score and take the points that you can get.

[KDawg]

8 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

 

We'd have a first down inside the 5 with 1:45 to go. If they use their final timeout there, we could take two knees to get under 30 seconds. Then you can run a play to try to score or attempt the FG on third down. Either way, the most time Philly would have is 20-25 seconds from their own 25 with no timeouts. 

 

Youre assuming no botched snaps, no bad hand offs, no linemen stepping on the QB as he fades to hand off, and no ball security problems as well.

 

I speak from experience here. And others may disagree and I'm okay with that... But leavinf points on the board in that scenario is something that can certainly bite you in the ass hard. And to assume that those fundamental mistakes won't happen is bad coaching. 

 

Coaches need to be prepared for any scenario, and in that case scoring eliminates the chance of any of that.

 

Probability wise, I'd rather leave the game in the hands of the D with a very long field only needing to not surrender a TD than chance the game on a field goal where we purposely passed up touchdowns.

[NewCliche21]

17 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

Would you have been more or less optimistic if Hopkins was lining up for a 22-yard FG with 4 seconds to go (still down 22-21) than you were as Wentz was easily completing pass after pass move the Eagles to about our 15 with still 25 seconds left to play? I still would have expected Hopkins to drill a point-blank FG, even despite his recent struggles. It's not like anyone is claiming that the Skins should have started taking a knee at the 25. 

We'd have a first down inside the 5 with 1:45 to go. If they use their final timeout there, we could take two knees to get under 30 seconds. Then you can run a play to try to score or attempt the FG on third down. Either way, the most time Philly would have is 20-25 seconds from their own 25 with no timeouts. 

 

I think this is being grossly over-assumed.  Remember Vernon Davis's 15-yarder after the touchdown?  We kicked short because of the penalty and it cost us a touchdown in return.  For whatever reason, Hopkins had kicked short all day, and Sproles had a touchdown called back on a punt return.  Our return game is no guarantee.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

6 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

Youre assuming no botched snaps, no bad hand offs, no linemen stepping on the QB as he fades to hand off, and no ball security problems as well.

 

I speak from experience here. And others may disagree and I'm okay with that... But leavinf points on the board in that scenario is something that can certainly bite you in the ass hard. And to assume that those fundamental mistakes won't happen is bad coaching. 

 

Coaches need to be prepared for any scenario, and in that case scoring eliminates the chance of any of that.

 

Probability wise, I'd rather leave the game in the hands of the D with a very long field only needing to not surrender a TD than chance the game on a field goal where we purposely passed up touchdowns.

But I'm not really assuming no disasters...it's all factored into the percentages. All of those rare outcomes are a part of the win probability. Without them, it'd be 100%. 

 

Leaving points on the board CAN bite you in the ass. No disagreement. I just think it's LESS LIKELY to bite you in the ass than turning the game over to our D and asking them to hold an opponent for almost 2 minutes (plus a timeout). 

2 minutes ago, NewCliche21 said:

 

I think this is being grossly over-assumed.  Remember Vernon Davis's 15-yarder after the touchdown?  We kicked short because of the penalty and it cost us a touchdown in return.  For whatever reason, Hopkins had kicked short all day, and Sproles had a touchdown called back on a punt return.  Our return game is no guarantee.

Well, to me it's a push. You were going to kick back to Philly in either scenario...Hopkins drilled it through the end zone after Thompson's TD, so I assume he could have done the same with 20-30 seconds remaining in the game. 

[Bang]

15 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

So again I'll ask you directly (both because I respect your opinion and I expect it'll be framed in an entertaining way)...

 

Would you have been more or less optimistic if Hopkins was lining up for a 22-yard FG with 4 seconds to go (still down 22-21) than you were as Wentz was easily completing pass after pass move the Eagles to about our 15 with still 25 seconds left to play?

 

Too many things can go wrong. for one, Hopkins gets iced way too easily. As far as I'm concerned, he is no a chip shot.. i think it's in his head, and I am not going to rely on that.

i can't remember which coach it was,, may have been Lombardi, said it best. "That ****ing KICKER! Get me my damn shotgun, Jerry!"

 

i would rather trust the kicker to boot it out of the end zone and put 75 yards of grass behind the defense for them to hold.

 

Playing the odds for me in that situation is to trust even a bad defense. They did step up, and as down a i am on the coordinator, that can't be ignored. 

 

Play it the opposite, for those who think Philly my have let us score figuring they could easily go back down in 1:50 or so with one timeout and a rookie QB behind a meatbag line. The chances of a bad play throwing off their plan is high, and it happened. 
On our side,, a fumble on third down, a bad snap, a choke kick... too many intangibles. Score and defend.

 

~Bang