Raiders were better off kicking the FG a minute ago. All the penalty did was take time off the clock.
Week 3 Gamethread
- Thread starter trekfan55
- Start date
Even if they do.... do they have a better chance at a TD length of the field compared 4th and 4 inside the 10?
Strange
I think it's a bad call, but 3 TO and the 2min, should get it back, and now a TD wins, before you needed a TD and conversion jsut to tie.
I get the benefit too.... but even with that my initial first guess response was WTF is he doing?
Feels like you have to be 90%+ sure you're getting a 3 and out to go that route.
One thing I agree with Bill Simmons on is the astonishingly poor decision-making exhibited by many NFL coaches on basic clock management and when to go for it vs kick.
Even if they failed on the 4th down, they still could have held them and gotten the ball back (in good field position to boot).
Coaches love to extend games.
Coaches love to extend games.
I can't wrap my head around this, even with the field goal they still needed to get the ball back and drive down the field for a touchdown with little time left.
How is that the better option then being 4th and 4 from the 10 yard line a better option on any level.
Totally. And if he was worried that they’d need to make the 2 point conversion just to tie…. Well if they scored a TD, failed on the conversion then stopped the Steelers and got the ball back (which he clearly thinks they could do!) then a FG would win.
Wouldn’t you want to only need a FG to win over a TD?
Coaches are so weird.
Are there some analytics that make that a close decision? Someone will post soon I bet.
Hard to imagine...though maybe (as Cellar Door said) the potential good outcome of winning in regulation rather than going to OT has more weight than we think.
Hard to imagine...though maybe (as Cellar Door said) the potential good outcome of winning in regulation rather than going to OT has more weight than we think.
View: https://twitter.com/SethWalder/status/1706146669031547374
so yeah, everyone's initial reaction is backed up by ESPN's model.
Nice, yeah about what I expected. Pretty brutal move.
Decreasing your chance of winning by 35% simply by making one decision is an impressive botch job by Josh McD (Unless this a long game Tank for Caleb plan
)
View: https://twitter.com/stuckey2/status/1706154536010682475?s=46
View: https://twitter.com/victafur/status/1706153274368483435?s=46
https://www.youtube.com/live/9sF-qdJamMs?si=9gE96DlIBJyznw-N
View: https://twitter.com/pgutierrezespn/status/1706153243943047491?s=46
View: https://twitter.com/victafur/status/1706153274368483435?s=46
McDaniels press conference
https://www.youtube.com/live/9sF-qdJamMs?si=9gE96DlIBJyznw-N
Ummmm
View: https://twitter.com/pgutierrezespn/status/1706153243943047491?s=46
Last edited:
Davidow had the FG a 1% edge. While that may be a stretch I don't feel the FG was that awful when you compound the 2-pt% along with then having to win a coin flip tie game.
This is a pretty random aside, but I have listened to a bunch of podcasts about the NFL in the last few weeks and there has been a lot of comments about how Green Bay and Jordan Love is doing this without David Bakhitari and how impressive that is. Why is that guy getting any attention?
He played 1 game in 21, 11 last year, and 1 this year. Bakhitari is Kawhi Leonard, except in the NFL. 680 snaps in 3 years.
He played 1075 snaps in 2019 when he used to play.
He played 1 game in 21, 11 last year, and 1 this year. Bakhitari is Kawhi Leonard, except in the NFL. 680 snaps in 3 years.
He played 1075 snaps in 2019 when he used to play.
Love has had some nice drives when trailing late against soft coverage but overall that offense he hasn't been very good except for the Bears game which is well ya know. I read somewhere where GB leads the NFL in 3 and outs.
Last edited:
Interesting.
Real time it felt like it was the wrong call, similar to most people here seemed to think.
But I did wonder if the 2Pt chance and needing to win in OT swayed things more than we thought.
Obviously there are a ton of random things that can happen but big picture you’re basically trading:
Successful TD and 2 pointer + winning in OT for successful defensive 3 and out + full field TD drive with little time and 0/1 time out.
Of course if you fail on 4th… the 3 and out + TD drive, 2 pointer, win in OT is still on the table and has to be factored in.
That was my initial reaction as well until I did a deep dive. It goes to show how valuable it is to play for the win and not for a tie in other situations. I also feel most of the internet is discounting that the Raiders will fail to convert the 2-pt like 70%-ish of the time.
Last edited:
I know it's ridiculous but it's true. I think Simmons said every team should have a 23 year old Madden expert dealing with clock management.
For sure, big picture that was a very unlikely game to win no matter what for the Raiders at that point.
Even taking the other fork in the road… if you need a 30% chance followed by a 50% chance to happen back to back (without giving up a score at some point), you’re in trouble too.
Yeah, isn't it virtual consensus that when you're down 14 with likely only two possessions left, and you score a TD, to go for 2? That's the case even with poor 2 point conversion stats, and I think the point there is that teams in overtime only win about 48 percent of the time, while teams that win in regulation win . . . .(wait for it) 100 percent of the time. :0) I don't know that these are really comparable, but I do feel like people value getting to overtime too much.
McDaniels' decision did not strike me as crazy at the time. It seemed to me within the margin of closeness to let factors like "feel" and game flow, and information about how your team and the opponent is doing, put a thumb on the scale.
One other thing that I'd love to know is the stats on is how often teams in the Steelers' position actually convert a first down. It feels to me as though teams in that position actually convert less often than the normal first down series' conversion rates. That is, when a team has the ball protecting a one-score lead against a team that has time outs, they often put a premium on getting the opposition to burn the time outs, even if it means not choosing optimal plays to gain a first down. I could be wrong about that. It is just noteworthy how often teams go three and out in that circumstance, where otherwise, I think three and out is pretty rare.
Here's what I didn't understand about McDaniels decision... Don't you have to stop the Steelers regardless? So why not go for it and take advantage of what is likely to be your best shot at a TD (which you must score one way or another). The outcomes here were:
1) Make a FG ---> stop the Steelers to get the ball back ---> score a TD to win
2) Convert the 4th/score a TD/make the 2 point conversion ---> stop the Steelers from winning in regulation ---> possibly need to stop them again in OT
3) Convert the 4th/score a TD/don't make the 2 point conversion ---> stop the Steelers to get the ball back ---> score a FG to win
4) Fail to convert the 4th --> stop the Steelers to get the ball back ---> score a TD and 2 point conversion to send the game to OT
There's no outcome here where the Raiders D wouldn't have to stop the Steelers at least one more time for the Raiders to either win or have a chance to win. So why not try to stop them after you've taken your best shot that you're likely to get at scoring a TD.
Seemed like McDaniels prioritized extending the game rather than looking for the optimal way to win.
1) Make a FG ---> stop the Steelers to get the ball back ---> score a TD to win
2) Convert the 4th/score a TD/make the 2 point conversion ---> stop the Steelers from winning in regulation ---> possibly need to stop them again in OT
3) Convert the 4th/score a TD/don't make the 2 point conversion ---> stop the Steelers to get the ball back ---> score a FG to win
4) Fail to convert the 4th --> stop the Steelers to get the ball back ---> score a TD and 2 point conversion to send the game to OT
There's no outcome here where the Raiders D wouldn't have to stop the Steelers at least one more time for the Raiders to either win or have a chance to win. So why not try to stop them after you've taken your best shot that you're likely to get at scoring a TD.
Seemed like McDaniels prioritized extending the game rather than looking for the optimal way to win.
Only 2 of those scenarios involve winning in regulation. Seems as if he was prioritizing that over possibly getting to OT and having a 50-50 shot or whatever. I can respect it from that standpoint. Extending the game is the opposite to me. He was trying to win in regulation.
Sure, I get that. But he needed to score a TD to win in regulation, and likely a FG as well. Seeing as he was on the 8 yard line, and could have picked up a first without scoring, wasn't that his best shot at getting the TD? Instead he gets the ball back on his own 15 with 12 seconds to play.
I'm not angry about it or anything, and I get the thought process you're suggesting. Just seemed like he was trying to extend not losing more than seizing his best chance to win.
This seems to be terrible information at 4:30pm by a reporter. The news that Burrow will prepare to start hit my wire at 11am today about 90 seconds before the market moved from Bengals -1.5 to -3
Regarding last paragraph I do not think you are wrong at all. Offensive play callers generally become super conservative in these spots to prevent disastrous outcomes such as INT, QB strip sack, etc
Yea I think it’s pretty directly related to offenses always running the ball on at least first and second, and often on third, and the defense knows it’s coming.
What was it again, 4th and 4? I get what you're saying - if you go for it and don't get it, your chances drop to near zero, whereas if you kick the FG you're still alive. Honestly I think the best argument to make in going for it is that even if you don't get it, you have them backed up inside their 10, so if you get a quick stop you're likely to get the ball back on their side of the field with another chance. Whereas if you kick the FG, even with a 3 and out you probably still have to go 65-75 yards for the TD.
There's a reason why the analytics say that going for it was a slightly better choice. But I can see why Josh did what he did. And to be honest, I am torn. I know there was more time left in both games, but the 2015 AFCCG, and then week 1 against Philly, I watched the Pats go for it when I wish they had kicked it instead.
