Take the Points or End the Game with the Ball?

[sportjunkie07]

I'm not against burning the clock out in certain scenarios but im not sure there was a major statistical reason to do so in that specific scenario. 

 

Hence I was ok with the score, though worried about the time left. 

[NoVaSkins21]

Even though both have been shaky, I go with Hopkins and the FG.  Not this defense, not this year.  

[returnofthefunbunch]

I say score the TD.  Too many things can go wrong...My beef was with the 2 point conversion.  Had we hit the PAT there, we would have been up by 6.  I may be wrong, but I can't recall making a 2 point conversion all year.  The Eagles had just recruited a long snapper 20 minutes earlier and a PAT for them would definitely not be a given.  By only being up by 5, a TD at the end would have given the Eagles a win without the PAT. 

[KDawg]

28 minutes ago, returnofthefunbunch said:

I say score the TD.  Too many things can go wrong...My beef was with the 2 point conversion.  Had we hit the PAT there, we would have been up by 6.  I may be wrong, but I can't recall making a 2 point conversion all year.  The Eagles had just recruited a long snapper 20 minutes earlier and a PAT for them would definitely not be a given.  By only being up by 5, a TD at the end would have given the Eagles a win without the PAT. 

Agreed completely. 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

31 minutes ago, returnofthefunbunch said:

I say score the TD.  Too many things can go wrong...My beef was with the 2 point conversion.  Had we hit the PAT there, we would have been up by 6.  I may be wrong, but I can't recall making a 2 point conversion all year.  The Eagles had just recruited a long snapper 20 minutes earlier and a PAT for them would definitely not be a given.  By only being up by 5, a TD at the end would have given the Eagles a win without the PAT. 

Interesting - I hadn't really considered that. I think that I still like the opportunity to go up by 7, but given how Philly was playing desperate all day they may have gone for 2 if they scored anyway. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

I think it's more football philosophy vs football reality, imo...

 

At any rate, my football philosophy is if you're behind with less than 2 minutes to go, you never refuse points that will put you in the lead for the hope of getting points later.  Besides, knowing our luck we'd end up with something like this anyway lol...

 

 

 

I mean, seriously...can you imagine the fallout if something like that had happened against the Eagles? Redskins have a EASY TD, I mean wide open touchdown, no questions asked, but chose NOT to take the automatic points because they don't have enough faith in their defense to hold Wentz and the Eagles out of the end zone with less than 2 minutes to go? The defensive players would probably be livid...I would imagine their mindset would have been "Let us do our job, dammit!!...Take the points and Let. Us. Do. Our. Job."...No way they'd be thinking "We probably wouldn't have stopped them anyway, we're not that good" lol...And while, yes, could easily find video of defenses around the league allowing a game-winning drive in the last minute or so of the game, the difference is at least by scoring a TD to take the lead you didn't end up losing the game because you tried removing part of your team from the equation. I can't help but think that would have ramifications beyond the loss.

[bigkobe81]

This is actually a great topic. What happened with the packers against the bears is a perfect example. They scored but they left too much time for a QB like Rodgers to give them a heartbreaking loss

[Sekhmet187]

On 12/17/2016 at 1:18 AM, TheItalianStallion said:

 

You don't lose 2 yards per kneel down, and false starts or holds on FGs are very rare, as are high snaps.

 

Now imagine our D allowing our opponent to rapidly move down the field and get into scoring position...wait, no need to imagine. It actually happened.

 

If what people say is true that Gruden wanted Kirk to communicate to the players not to score if given the chance, the more I think about it, the more I think he was right and that Kirk made a big mistake in not conveying Gruden's message. We dodged a bullet and nearly lost the game over that. You can't count on your borderline pro bowl pass rusher being matched up against the backup of a backup very often.

 

I think TD is right: the probability of something going wrong on a series of kneel downs starting at the 1 and a subsequent 20ish yard FG is much lower than the odds of our D giving up a long TD drive in a short amount of time. In fact it nearly happened.

But it didn't happen and the defense proved it is still capable of making enough plays. They wouldn't have a winning record if they didn't make enough plays in most of their games.

 

Besides if Gruden sends the message he has no faith in the defense, do you really think the players would be behind that? There are too many potential negatives to just forgo a TD when you're not tied or leading.

[TSO]

This doesn't have to do with this discussion, but I do like the fact that, with the way it went, the defense had to come through and they did. They needed something like that considering the way it's went the last few weeks. 

 

I liked reading this as well: 

 

Quote

Players said the message in the huddle late in the Eagles game was about personal responsibility. The already-depleted defense was missing linebackers Will Compton (knee) and Su'a Cravens (elbow) and safety Will Blackmon (concussion), who could be out again Monday against Carolina.

Cornerback Josh Norman, who was an All-Pro last year with the Panthers, wants the Redskins to display an edge in late-game situations.

"At the end of the day you just got to have that 'want to' in you," Norman said. "When a guy crosses your face and you tell him that, 'You're not going to beat me' and if he does, there's going to be a problem. If you do get a penalty for being aggressive, at least it was an aggressive penalty. It wasn't like they don't run over you. No, smack them in the mouth."

http://www.dnronline.com/associated_press/virginia/redskins-beleaguered-defense-stands-up-in-vital-situations/article_4af5a40e-26b8-58e3-8e42-7427970c43fa.html

 

As far as I'm concerned, the bolded above is what has been missing from the defense. Too many players failing at their jobs and simply not making plays when they're right there for the taking. OLBs not finishing a sack after they beat their guy. ILBs not bringing down a guy they got their arms wrapped around. DBs in perfect position to break up a pass and just missing the ball, or worse, not coming down with an easy INT that's right there for the taking.

 

I'm glad that was the message among the players themselves. And that, even though they let them go right down the field, they then forced Wentz to hold onto the ball just long enough and Kerrigan not only got the sack, but forced a fumble that Murphy picked up to finish it. 

[petey hodge]

I prefer to end the game with Kirk kneeling it out (Victory Formation)...

 

(just not like last year's Eagle's game though)

 

[Tsailand]

5 hours ago, bigkobe81 said:

This is actually a great topic. What happened with the packers against the bears is a perfect example. They scored but they left too much time for a QB like Rodgers to give them a heartbreaking loss

 

Yeah the third down incompletion down at the goal line really hurt them.  If they'd run it and failed, Rodgers would have gotten the ball back with 33 seconds left instead of 73.  And if they'd run it in, at least they'd be up by 4 points instead of being tied.

[bigkobe81]

I think it just depends on the team being played. If we are playing an elite qb or a good offensive team then i would rather we milk as much time as possible. If not then, taking the points is the way to go. So many factors come into play 

[TheItalianStallion]

On ‎12‎/‎17‎/‎2016 at 11:11 AM, KDawg said:

And we nearly beat the Bengals in OT on a field goal attempt.

 

Nearly only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. 

 

That's not what's being discussed. The fact that it worked out doesn't mitigate my argument that the probability of victory would've been greater had we knelt at the 1. Pointing out that things could've gone wrong on kneel downs and/or a FG attempt does nothing to mitigate my argument: although there was a small chance of something going wrong in such a scenario, the odds of our D giving up a TD at the end was LESS small. Given how close the Eagles' lackluster O came to scoring, I think my position is correct.

 

The FG attempt vs the Bengals was over 10 yards longer than this one would've been, so it's not the same. The missed FGs in that ARI/SEA game earlier this  year were from much closer, but that and the MIN/SEA playoff FG last year might be the only times I can think of where something went wrong on FGs of comparable length to the one we would've attempted last weekend. OTOH teams, even ones with lackluster offenses, actually do score TDs with nearly 2 mins to go sometimes. In fact it probably happens about once a week in the NFL. Botching FGs from around 20 yards out is much more rare.

 

 

20 hours ago, Sekhmet187 said:

But it didn't happen and the defense proved it is still capable of making enough plays. They wouldn't have a winning record if they didn't make enough plays in most of their games.

 

Besides if Gruden sends the message he has no faith in the defense, do you really think the players would be behind that? There are too many potential negatives to just forgo a TD when you're not tied or leading.

 

Of course things can go wrong. The issue is which scenario has a higher probability of something going wrong.

[KDawg]

It's 100% within the discussion.

 

It's a total guessing game as to which decision is better. I happen to feel better with the defense on the field than giving away points. You don't. To each their own.

[KDawg]

I realize it's not the same situation or distance as it would have been last week. Fully comprehend that. 

 

But that missed XP is why I didn't want the game in Hopkins hands after purposely not scoring.

[TheItalianStallion]

It's not a guessing game. It's a probability game.

 

That XP was over 10 yards further than what a 20 yarder would've been. Even if you ignore that, he made 3 other kicks, for a 75% rate, and it's almost certainly 100% if they're all from 20 yards out. But let's stay with 75% for now. Does our D have a 75% chance of stopping Philly on that last drive? I don't think so. We stopped them on far fewer than 75% of their drives that game.

[slaga]

3 hours ago, TheItalianStallion said:

It's not a guessing game. It's a probability game.

 

That XP was over 10 yards further than what a 20 yarder would've been. Even if you ignore that, he made 3 other kicks, for a 75% rate, and it's almost certainly 100% if they're all from 20 yards out. But let's stay with 75% for now. Does our D have a 75% chance of stopping Philly on that last drive? I don't think so. We stopped them on far fewer than 75% of their drives that game.

The Eagles had 9 drives in the game and the offense scored 1 TD. Taking the points meant the Eagles had to score a TD to win. The Eagles scored a TD on 12.5% of their drives. Going strictly by the numbers as you suggested means the defense was 87.5% likely to stop a TD vs. Hopkins 75% likely to make the field goal. The numbers from the game do not support your argument. 

[KDawg]

@slaga beautifully written.

 

 

[slaga]

From the OP's post:

On 12/12/2016 at 2:27 PM, TD_washingtonredskins said:

*For the record, this is a philosophical coaching question...I'm in no way stating that Thompson, in the moment, should have made a decision on the fly. This is assuming the coaches could prepare the players for this circumstance. 

 

 

5 hours ago, TheItalianStallion said:

It's not a guessing game. It's a probability game.

One side of the argument wants the discussion to devolve into mathematical probabilities when the probabilities of taking the points and leaning on your defense in this game's specific circumstances cannot be calculated with any certainty. The OP made it clear in the very beginning that the question at hand was a philosophical coaching decision. I am sure the mathematical probabilities is a major portion of the coaches philosophical decision making process but it is not the only thing the coach considers. The discussion is more than just probability.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

8 minutes ago, slaga said:

From the OP's post:

 

One side of the argument wants the discussion to devolve into mathematical probabilities when the probabilities of taking the points and leaning on your defense in this game's specific circumstances cannot be calculated with any certainty. The OP made it clear in the very beginning that the question at hand was a philosophical coaching decision. I am sure the mathematical probabilities is a major portion of the coaches philosophical decision making process but it is not the only thing the coach considers. The discussion is more than just probability.

 

As the OP, I would agree that this thread was created to generate discussion. Otherwise, I'd have popped an equation into the first post and patted myself on the back like A Beautiful Mind.

 

However, the largest input into the discussion is the probability...and that aspect of the discussion really isn't up for debate. Having said that, I really don't have any idea where to find those numbers. I would just be shocked if we had a better chance to win with 1:45 and the defense on the field up by 5 rather than lining up for a 22-yard FG down by 1 and 3 seconds left. 

 

Oh well, at this point I miss the days of nit-picking how we won a key divisional road game...

[slaga]

If you can look at the success rate of a 20ish yard field goal in the vacuum of 1) ignoring a slumping kicking game 2) ignoring the vast majority of those kicks were in a less stressful situation, as in the game was not on the line 3) ignoring the fact that the field goal would have been kicked from the hash mark or the offense would have to run at least 1 play to center the field goal and the potential for issues arising from that 1 play, etc. to come up with the success rate for Chris Thompson kneeling at the 1. The Eagles have had 20 offensive drives against the Redskins this season and scored 1 TD. The success rate of the defense is in the 95 percentile at keeping the Eagles offense from scoring a TD this season. Yes I am ignoring that very few of those 20 drives were 4-down drives where the offense would have went for it on 4th down to win the game just like the vacuum statement above. The difference between the statistical probability (actual numbers) of the Redskins being successful in winning the game by kicking the field goal or by putting their defense out to defend a TD is much smaller than you seem to imply. Adding to that, the Eagles defense has scored 2 TDs against the Redskins in 21 offensive drives this season. That means that the Eagles defense is twice as likely (probability based solely on performance this season) to score a TD against the Redskins than the Eagles offense is, and yet you suggest keeping the Eagles defense on the field instead of the offense.

 

All of that said, stats lie and can be manipulated (see my post above). I know the data set I threw out there is too small to make a true statistical analysis, but still. There is evidence that the Redskins defense was quite successful against Eagles offense and a coach's decision making process involves more than just statistical probabilities.

[TheItalianStallion]

4 hours ago, slaga said:

The Eagles had 9 drives in the game and the offense scored 1 TD. Taking the points meant the Eagles had to score a TD to win. The Eagles scored a TD on 12.5% of their drives. Going strictly by the numbers as you suggested means the defense was 87.5% likely to stop a TD vs. Hopkins 75% likely to make the field goal. The numbers from the game do not support your argument. 

 

Fair point, but mine still stands. There was greater than an 87.5% chance of nothing going wrong on a 20ish yard FG.

 

2 hours ago, slaga said:

From the OP's post:

 

One side of the argument wants the discussion to devolve into mathematical probabilities when the probabilities of taking the points and leaning on your defense in this game's specific circumstances cannot be calculated with any certainty. The OP made it clear in the very beginning that the question at hand was a philosophical coaching decision. I am sure the mathematical probabilities is a major portion of the coaches philosophical decision making process but it is not the only thing the coach considers. The discussion is more than just probability.

 

KDawg said it was a guessing game. Take it up with him.

[KDawg]

I swear you may be the most purposely dense poster I've run across on this forum.

 

Even when you take all these little fancy mathematical approaches to the sport of football, stuff will go wrong. If all that mattered was math, why aren't more math majors head football coaches? They should be, given your position.

 

In reality, math is just a small part of the picture. There is so much more to making a decision than that.

 

I'm not sure why you have such a hard-on for me, but it's growing tiresome. 

 

In fact, I'm not even sure how your last point about me bringing up that it's a guessing game is even slightly relevant to @slaga and his point of view posted above.

 

It is, in fact, a guessing game. Play the percentages all you want. They will betray you. More often than you care the admit. 

 

You leave a lot out of the equation with your posts, which frankly tells me you've never been in position to actually make these kinds of decisions on a football field.

[slaga]

1 hour ago, TheItalianStallion said:

Fair point, but mine still stands. There was greater than an 87.5% chance of nothing going wrong on a 20ish yard FG.

Your point does not stand... You said:

9 hours ago, TheItalianStallion said:

It's not a guessing game. It's a probability game.

 

That XP was over 10 yards further than what a 20 yarder would've been. Even if you ignore that, he made 3 other kicks, for a 75% rate, and it's almost certainly 100% if they're all from 20 yards out. But let's stay with 75% for now. Does our D have a 75% chance of stopping Philly on that last drive? I don't think so. We stopped them on far fewer than 75% of their drives that game.

I was pointing out that the bolded part is completely incorrect. The Redskins defense was better, percentage wise, at preventing the Eagles offense from scoring a touch down per offensive drive than Hopkins' 75% field goal percentage for the game. It was comparison you incorrectly made.

 

 

1 hour ago, TheItalianStallion said:

KDawg said it was a guessing game. Take it up with him.

I seem to agree with @KDawg in that a coach's philosophical decision making process involves more than just statistical probabilities. I do not know why I would have to take anything up with him when you are the one I do not entirely agree with.

[TheItalianStallion]

25 minutes ago, slaga said:

Your point does not stand... You said:

I was pointing out that the bolded part is completely incorrect. The Redskins defense was better, percentage wise, at preventing the Eagles offense from scoring a touch down per offensive drive than Hopkins' 75% field goal percentage for the game. It was comparison you incorrectly made.

 

 

I seem to agree with @KDawg in that a coach's philosophical decision making process involves more than just statistical probabilities. I do not know why I would have to take anything up with him when you are the one I do not entirely agree with.

 

1) I conceded that one aspect, but the overall point stands, unless you dispute that the odds of something not going wrong on a 20ish yard FG is less than 87.5%.

 

2) That's not what he said. He said it was a "guessing game." I took issue with that particular aspect.