Jump to content

What if had went for it on 4th Down instead of the FG?


jlrfalcon
 Share

Recommended Posts

The mistake was on 3rd down.   The checkdown pass only gave Bryant 2-3 more yards he doesn't need.   Attempting a quick sideline fade for the 1st down, where Julio or nobody catches it, would have made more sense.  If it's not there Ryan throws it away and then take the 3.  A first down in that situation is pretty much a kill shot

Edited by Ghosts of Glanville
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, since68andcounting said:

Absolutely not.

A FG in the Super Bowl would have put us up 11 with 3 minutes left. That's insurmountable even for Brady without a freak fumble or onside kick. Even with that, it's almost impossible to accomplish.

Kicking a FG to go up 6 with over 3 minutes left gives you exactly what we almost got. A TD drive by the opposing offense. Without a couple dropped passes, that's what we had.

I said they're cut from the same mold, not identical. Basically stating that both going for it on 4th and 6 in Chicago and not running on the last drive to kill time and kick a fg are poor coaching choices. 

With 6 yards to go, playing in Chicago, against a defensive front that had some success, it's not advisable to go for it. The percentages are better for you to kick the fg and then hold them to a fg on the next drive. Regardless of whether they made it all the way to the goal line or not, the percentages still played out as expected and we held them without a TD on the final drive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, sandtrap said:

I said they're cut from the same mold, not identical. Basically stating that both going for it on 4th and 6 in Chicago and not running on the last drive to kill time and kick a fg are poor coaching choices. 

With 6 yards to go, playing in Chicago, against a defensive front that had some success, it's not advisable to go for it. The percentages are better for you to kick the fg and then hold them to a fg on the next drive. Regardless of whether they made it all the way to the goal line or not, the percentages still played out as expected and we held them without a TD on the final drive. 

Well, we did exactly that a few years ago against Taneyhill as a rookie and he took it down the field and beat us. Granted, our defense is much better now.

Look at it this way. The average yards per play in the NFL is between 5-7 yards. So there's about a 40-50% chance we'd have gotten that first down. And once were inside the 25 there's about a 40% chance we'd have scored. At a minimum you run more clock and still have the option to kick.

But even had we not gotten the 1st down and the Bears were down 3, they would've kicked a FG when they were stuck on 4th down from wherever it was, the 20 or 30. Assuming they make that kick, it's tied. And we still would've had 2 timeouts and about a minute to go with Matt Ryan to comeback and win. Or even if we didn't do that, we would have OT. As it was, sure, we hung on to win, but there were 2 drops on the final possession that really could've gone either way. I'm not convinced the win percentages are that different kicking or going for it in that situation. I'm sure someone has stats on it somewhere.

 

My main point here is that a 6 point lead completely changes the opposing offense's philosophy. It dares them to beat you. A three point lead puts them in a much more conservative mindset. Every NFL team is full of players who were champions in little league, high school, maybe college. NFL players as a rule know how to rise to a challenge. If you put most NFL teams up against one, you're asking for it. I'd much rather be the aggressor and end it with a TD to put it out of reach. And your comparison to the Super Bowl doesn't wash. This was a completely different situation from the Super Bowl, where only a FG put it out of reach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, since68andcounting said:

Well, we did exactly that a few years ago against Taneyhill as a rookie and he took it down the field and beat us. Granted, our defense is much better now.

Look at it this way. The average yards per play in the NFL is between 5-7 yards. So there's about a 40-50% chance we'd have gotten that first down. And once were inside the 25 there's about a 40% chance we'd have scored. At a minimum you run more clock and still have the option to kick.

But even had we not gotten the 1st down and the Bears were down 3, they would've kicked a FG when they were stuck on 4th down from wherever it was, the 20 or 30. Assuming they make that kick, it's tied. And we still would've had 2 timeouts and about a minute to go with Matt Ryan to comeback and win. Or even if we didn't do that, we would have OT. As it was, sure, we hung on to win, but there were 2 drops on the final possession that really could've gone either way. I'm not convinced the win percentages are that different kicking or going for it in that situation. I'm sure someone has stats on it somewhere.

 

My main point here is that a 6 point lead completely changes the opposing offense's philosophy. It dares them to beat you. A three point lead puts them in a much more conservative mindset. Every NFL team is full of players who were champions in little league, high school, maybe college. NFL players as a rule know how to rise to a challenge. If you put most NFL teams up against one, you're asking for it. I'd much rather be the aggressor and end it with a TD to put it out of reach. And your comparison to the Super Bowl doesn't wash. This was a completely different situation from the Super Bowl, where only a FG put it out of reach.

The same mold in my statement was that both are taking risks that aren't necessary. If we went conservative in the SB and ran it 3 times and kicked a fg we would've  put it out of reach. We didn't need a TD there. In the Chicago game it would've been nice to get a TD to put it out of reach but up by 6 is a heck of a lot better than up by 3. You're not daring anyone to do anything on the NFL. You're forcing them to have to drive the entire field to get a TD to win it. If we would've gone for it on 4th, all they have to do is get half the yards to tie it. When your on the road you take any win that you can. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the logic of kicking the FG and going up by 4. But, playing devil's advocate here, it is not crazy to attempt to go for it on 4th down because the FG doesn't put you up by than 7. Yes, it prevented a FG from tying you, but for the Bears it eliminates the FG as an option for them. You are asking your D to stop them with 4 downs to get a 1st as opposed to 3 downs any other time. The Bears would only go for it on 4 downs until they got into FG range. They could at that point try for an upset and go for it, but most likely, they would kick a FG. The Falcons strength is their offense so that would be an advantage in OT. If the same situation held for a team like the Broncos, then you could put your faith in your D, because that is their strength.

Edited by Sidious
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, I like going for it on 4th down with this offense as much as the next guy, but 4th and 6 and up by 3? You gotta kick the field goal there. The Bears managed the clock very well, deferring on the coin toss and leaving us no time at the end of both halves. Luckily our defense came through, and the confidence they've gained from this victory will pump them up moving forward. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...