Bradsha'w's TD, should he or shouldn't he?

[TheReff]

Right decision or wrong, the Giants won so neither he, nor the team, nor the fans, nor the sports media should really care.

Never can go wrong with a TD. Too much can go wrong with snap, hold & kick. Remember Tony Romo a few years ago botched the snap & Cowboys lose a playoff game.

I would rather make a team go length of the field in under a minute to win it.

besides, they won so it is only fodder for the talk show people.

 

[SCDeac13]

You're right, the end result is all that matters. Taking the points worked. A win is a win, no?

It is easy to defend a decision when you know the outcome. This discussion is about what the best decision is at the time of making the decision.

For example, a coach chooses to go with a play with a 1% chance of success over a play with a 90% chance of success. Just because he succeeded and lucked out by chance doesn't mean it was the right decision.

 

[Haros]

Because they'd have less than 10 seconds remaining (probably between 7-9), and no timeouts available to do so. Then a play from their 20 after the kickoff would likely run the clock out if it went far enough to get into field goal range. Or if the Pats tried to return the kick, they'd have even less time and any play from scrimmage would run out the clock.

If there were 30-40 seconds left when the Pats would have gotten the ball back, it changes the logic completely, but that's not what they would have had.

 

[liveanddiedeac]

It is easy to defend a decision when you know the outcome. This discussion is about what the best decision is at the time of making the decision.

For example, a coach chooses to go with a play with a 1% chance of success over a play with a 90% chance of success. Just because he succeeded and lucked out by chance doesn't mean it was the right decision.

He lucked out by a team not going 80 yards with less than a minute left to score a touchdown??????

 

[deac29]

You're right, the end result is all that matters. Taking the points worked. A win is a win, no?

I once saw a woman hit on 18 at the blackjack table and get a 3. So it was a good decision, right?

 

[88Deac]

Clearly the odds were stacked in favor of the Giants when the Pats had to call timeout with just over 1:00 to play and one timeout left, and the Giants with the ball on the 2 yard line. Personally, I think the FG is a 99% chance to win for the Giants. The Pats had maybe a 15% to score a TD in a minute with a timeout left.

 

[deac29]

To say that scoring the TD was the right play, you have to argue that the statistics cited to show the Giants chances of winning decreased by a non-insignifigant amount by scoring the TD are incorrect, or that the play was correct even though it decreased the chances of winning by a non-insignifigant amount. I haven't seen anyone argue the first, and the second doesn't make any sense.

 

[D4L]

Gotta take the points there if they are going to give them to you. No guarantees that you will score them on the next play or two. . .

 

[AnonymousDeac]

There is a very high correlation between which side of this debate you're on and whether or not you're a good poster.

 

[liveanddiedeac]

There is a very high correlation between which side of this debate you're on and whether or not you're a good poster.

Anonymous, your on the wrong side of the debate, but I still consider you a good poster. :thumbsup:

 

[stonz]

All the people arguing in favor of what the Giants did should take into account that they hold the same opinion as the TheReff.

I agree statistically that kicking the field goal with very little time makes sense. But the thing about statistics is that you don't get 100 field goal attempts to get 98 of them there. You get one shot in probably the most stressful moment in the snapper, holder, kicker's lives. Coughlin and the Giants would have taken way more criticism if they passed up on the TD and them something went wrong on the kick. Most people would not have been very impressed this morning with statistical analysis proving he did the right think. And Brady, HOFer that he is, had never before done what it was going to take to win that game...And if he did, you say "Giants' D had a chance to win but Brady was just to good" kinda thing. WAY LESS EGG IN FACE than botching a field goal.

The last sentence is the key point. A lot of coaches, across sports, employ strategies to minimize the potential "egg in face."

I for one prefer the coaches that do whatever gives their team the best chance to win, regardless of the flack he might catch after the game.

He lucked out by a team not going 80 yards with less than a minute left to score a touchdown??????

It was clearly a hypothetical.

 

[SCDeac13]

To say that scoring the TD was the right play, you have to argue that the statistics cited to show the Giants chances of winning decreased by a non-insignifigant amount by scoring the TD are incorrect, or that the play was correct even though it decreased the chances of winning by a non-insignifigant amount. I haven't seen anyone argue the first, and the second doesn't make any sense.

BINGO!

I'll add to that by saying the only argument I can accept in favor of scoring the touchdown is that the coach is worried about the media backlash for doing something unconventional. Like the poster above mentioned, I would hope that most good coaches would do whatever gives his team the best chance to win, regardless of backlash.

 

[Les Grossman]

Actually, the real play is having Bradshaw take a knee on the one inch line. Make Belichick use his last time out. Then, do a QB sneak up the middle. If he scores, great. More time off the clock and now Pats are out of timeouts. If he doesnt, that's fine too. Run the clock down and take your last timeout. Have Tynes come on for a chip shot. Win, win.

Someone really neg repped me for this post? Weird.

 

[Deaconblue]

Bradshaw would have had to gone down really quickly, because it looked like one of the Patriot linebackers was coming up to hit him from behind, probably to knock him into the endzone, not tackle him and try to keep him out.

There is a lot of risk in waiting until fourth down to kick a field goal. If the Giants had not scored the TD and tried the kick on third down, there is the possibility of a "do-over" in case of a bad snap - fall on the ball at the 8 or 9 yard line, then line up and try the kick again a play later.

 

[CDeacMan]

Probably already mentioned, but the fact that the Patriots wanted Bradshaw to score by itself is enough for me to know it was the wrong move. If I am doing exactly what my opponent wants me to do, then I'm probably doing it wrong.

 

[marquee moon]

Probably already mentioned, but the fact that the Patriots wanted Bradshaw to score by itself is enough for me to know it was the wrong move. If I am doing exactly what my opponent wants me to do, then I'm probably doing it wrong.

stupid argument

 

[TuffaloDeac10]

stupid argument

Not in a zero-sum game where you're facing an evil genius whom you can assume is smart.

The fucking fact that Bradshaw said he was trying to go down (“I thought I heard Eli yelling at me to fall down,” Bradshaw told reporters, referring to Giants quarterback Eli Manning. “I tried, but I couldn’t do it.”) should end the debate about this, but it somehow doesn't. :rulz:

 

[w84it]

The problem is that all of the statistical analysis of the situation don't bother to take into account that the Giants and the Patriots haven't played each other 100 times to come up with those numbers - those numbers are compile by looking at different games with different players and coaches, and therefore have different variables that have a significant impact on the probability of victory.

Simply put, the stats might say that teams that score the TD there only have a 85% chance of victory, but that's simple the chances for every team in that situation, not the chances for the Giants in that situation. Given the Giants players and coaches, their chances might be significantly higher, but you'd never know because their unlikely to get into that situation with enough frequency to do an advanced statistical analysis.

 

[AnonymousDeac]

The problem is that all of the statistical analysis of the situation don't bother to take into account that the Giants and the Patriots haven't played each other 100 times to come up with those numbers - those numbers are compile by looking at different games with different players and coaches, and therefore have different variables that have a significant impact on the probability of victory.

You seem to have a decent background with statistics. One understanding within stats is that if you're sample size is great enough, and your confidence level is great enough, those variables you mention often become less important.

There were 1207 XPs attempted this year, and only 7 missed. All those variables such as weather, team, kicker, etc become pretty much irrelevant when the success rate of all XPs was 99.4%.

The only way those would matter is if one specific variable had a great enough affect to directly influence those 7 missed XPs. However, that is not the case. They were simply random misses. Thus, the ease of making an XP far outweighs any random variables you might come up with.

 

[IAppreciateIt]

You seem to have a decent background with statistics. One understanding within stats is that if you're sample size is great enough, and your confidence level is great enough, those variables you mention often become less important.

There were 1207 XPs attempted this year, and only 7 missed. All those variables such as weather, team, kicker, etc become pretty much irrelevant when the success rate of all XPs was 99.4%.

The only way those would matter is if one specific variable had a great enough affect to directly influence those 7 missed XPs. However, that is not the case. They were simply random misses. Thus, the ease of making an XP far outweighs any random variables you might come up with.

Eh, that's not entirely correct.

He wasn't talking about random variables, but characteristics of the teams that deviate from the average. For example, the quality of each team's kicker would weigh into the win probabilities fairly heavily (relatively speaking). If the Patriots had Sebastian Janikowski, the win probabilities would change.

That said, the disparity in win probabilities between the two situations was so big that I don't think any factor would make up the difference.