Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?

[Fonkey123]

I guess I just remember the times it succeeds, but it seems as though teams get decents looks on field goals in this situation.

1. High Teens %
2. Mid to High 30's
3. Very rarely like 3-5% I guess

[MicroBob]

no idea what you're driving at here.

I was thinking of a different math-football thing and will mention it here instead of in a new thread:

Team is up by 7. 2nd and 1 on the opposing 10 with 1:40 left.
Team that is trailing has no time-outs left.

It's my contention that the team that is losing should allow the winning team to score a TD right now if they will take it.
If winning team gets a 1st down they can run the clock out.
If losing team is able to stop them on 2nd and 1 and 3rd and 1 then the winning team will kick a FG to take a 10 point lead and the trailing team will get the ball back with about 10 or 15 seconds I think.

Trying to score 10 points in 15 seconds has to be more difficult than trying to score 14 points in almost 1:40. Both are really unlikely of course but the 2nd one is at least somewhat possible.

Of course, if the attacking team was especially smart then the runner would get the first down and then would fall down shy of the end-zone while the other team is trying to let him score.

[MicroBob]

similar ideas of 'not wanting to score too quickly' have been tossed around before but I'm not sure a team has actually intentionally allowed a team to score to get the ball back.

This probably might become more interesting if the team with the ball is trailing by 1 instead.
Again, it's 2nd and 1 on the 10 with 1:40 left and the defending team has no time-outs.

If you let him score a TD right now then you get the ball back with about 1:30 left trailing by either 5 or 7.
If you stop them from getting a FG then you will get the ball back with about :15 left trailing by 2.

Has to be better chances with the first option.

[stakman1011]

[ QUOTE ]
similar ideas of 'not wanting to score too quickly' have been tossed around before but I'm not sure a team has actually intentionally allowed a team to score to get the ball back.




[/ QUOTE ]

Packers/Bronco's Superbowl?

[pwnsall]

[ QUOTE ]
similar ideas of 'not wanting to score too quickly' have been tossed around before but I'm not sure a team has actually intentionally allowed a team to score to get the ball back.

This probably might become more interesting if the team with the ball is trailing by 1 instead.
Again, it's 2nd and 1 on the 10 with 1:40 left and the defending team has no time-outs.

If you let him score a TD right now then you get the ball back with about 1:30 left trailing by either 5 or 7.
If you stop them from getting a FG then you will get the ball back with about :15 left trailing by 2.

Has to be better chances with the first option.

[/ QUOTE ]
GB Denver SB but that was tied and probably the right decision tho I don't remember specifics.
I'd guess
19%
39%
1%
have to be stats about this somewhere.

[MicroBob]

part 3 has to be more than 1% I would think.
There's 2:30 to go AND 2 time-outs left for crying out loud. Very easy for some team to score a TD with 1:00 left or something.

[CieloAzor]

2 and a half minutes is a lot of time and teams can do awfully well when using all 4 downs

40%
60%
10%

I thought the point he was driving at was that a team trailing by 1 should be content to stop short of the goal line and set up a chip shot FG as time expires, rather than scoring a TD and leaving the other team time to march the other way.

Regarding the Redskins/Eagles game, the Redskins did admit after the game that they had let Westbrook score, and Westbrook responded that if he'd known they were letting him score, he would have kneeled at the 1. All players should be instructed NOT to score unnecessary TDs in spots such as that.

[Victor]

20
40
2.5

[Bremen]

[ QUOTE ]
Regarding the Redskins/Eagles game, the Redskins did admit after the game that they had let Westbrook score, and Westbrook responded that if he'd known they were letting him score, he would have kneeled at the 1.

[/ QUOTE ]
He should kneel whether they're intentionally letting him score or not. I can't really fault someone for not kneeling though. Besides even if he tried to stop and kneel it would be very easy to hit him from behind and knock him into the end zone. That would be something hilarious to watch; almost as good as Reid challenging to take an INT away from his cornerback (I forget which one it was).

[.Alex.]

[ QUOTE ]
no idea what you're driving at here.

I was thinking of a different math-football thing and will mention it here instead of in a new thread:

Team is up by 7. 2nd and 1 on the opposing 10 with 1:40 left.
Team that is trailing has no time-outs left.

It's my contention that the team that is losing should allow the winning team to score a TD right now if they will take it.
If winning team gets a 1st down they can run the clock out.
If losing team is able to stop them on 2nd and 1 and 3rd and 1 then the winning team will kick a FG to take a 10 point lead and the trailing team will get the ball back with about 10 or 15 seconds I think.

Trying to score 10 points in 15 seconds has to be more difficult than trying to score 14 points in almost 1:40. Both are really unlikely of course but the 2nd one is at least somewhat possible.

Of course, if the attacking team was especially smart then the runner would get the first down and then would fall down shy of the end-zone while the other team is trying to let him score.

[/ QUOTE ]
This idea is much more applicable when a team is up by one and either the defense stupidly doesn't allow the team to score or the offense stupidly goes in for a TD instead of falling down.

Edit: Washington appeared to have done this against the Eagles earlier this year when they were down by 1 after a turnover and smartly let Westbrook run it in from the 10.