Down by 1, and Garrett goes for the FG?

[Doomsday101]

Sure, it's a sure way of taking a lead at some point in the game. But that's completely meaningless. The only time being in the lead means anything is when time runs out. And if going for the field goal gives you less chance of being in the lead at that time, then you don't go for it.

See my post on calculations of possibilities.

Your calculations do not mean a thing. So in a 1 point lead the Colts were assured of taking the lead yet in OT in a tie game where they win the toss they all of a sudden are no longer guaranteed to win the game? Please that makes no sense. If the Colts could score at will then they would have won it on the 1st drive of OT and they could not do it.

 

[theogt]

Your calculations do not mean a thing.

It's better to just ignore what you don't understand, isn't it?

 

[Doomsday101]

You're not walking off the field. You're giving yourself the chance to take a bigger lead, a lead that helps better ensure you win the game.

or fail and be trailing leaving the colts to only pick up a couple of 1st downs instead of having to drive the lenght of the field. By taking the lead you force the other team to put together a drive not just grab 20 yards and end the game

 

[Doomsday101]

It's better to just ignore what you don't understand, isn't it?

It is better to understand what your talking about. No coach is taking that type of gamble week after week coaches in that same situation are taking the 3 points and putting the game in the hands of their defense. There are no sure things but walking away from the oppertunity to grab the lead is not a smart move when there is no way of telling what will take place after the fact.

 

[theogt]

or fail and be trailing leaving the colts to only pick up a couple of 1st downs instead of having to drive the lenght of the field. By taking the lead you force the other team to put together a drive not just grab 20 yards and end the game

Which do you think is more likely -- that we get the touchdown or that we prevent Manning from scoring a FG?

 

[Doomsday101]

Which do you think is more likely -- that we get the touchdown or that we prevent Manning from scoring a FG?

If Dallas is only up by 1 then I doubt they go into the prevent as they did when they took the 7 point lead. I would tell you what is more likely not taking the lead and having Manning pick up a couple of 1st downs opposed to having to drive the feild to pick up points getting a couple of 1st downs is a hell of allot easier than driving the field. As I said once Dallas got away from the prevent defense they were able to stop the Colts 2 times in OT and won the game so right there proves they could stop the colts.

 

[theogt]

If Dallas is only up by 1 then I doubt they go into the prevent as they did when they took the 7 point lead. I would tell you what is more likely not taking the lead and having Manning pick up a couple of 1st downs opposed to having to drive the feild to pick up points getting a couple of 1st downs is a hell of allot easier than driving the field. As I said once Dallas got away from the prevent defense they were able to stop the Colts 2 times in OT and won the game so right there proves they could stop the colts.

Convoluted answer. So which is it -- are we more likely to get the touchdown or prevent Manning from scoring a FG?

 

[theogt]

I wonder if we'd gone for the TD and made it, how many of you people defending Garrett's decision would have argued that we should have gone for a FG instead.

My guess -- none.

 

[Doomsday101]

I wonder if we'd gone for the TD and made it, how many of you people defending Garrett's decision would have argued that we should have gone for a FG instead.

My guess -- none.

All I can tell you is when Dallas failed on 3rd down and was faced with the 4th down I had no doubt Garrett would kick the FG. Hell it ended up taking us 6 plays to get the TD

 

[Doomsday101]

Convoluted answer. So which is it -- are we more likely to get the touchdown or prevent Manning from scoring a FG?

it took us 6 trys to get the TD so that was never a sure thing to begin with. To sit there and act like the TD would have been a given? It was not a given. Making a QB go the lenght of the field is harder to do than picking up a couple of 1st downs not to mention the momentum they get when they do stop you 4 downs.

 

[theogt]

it took us 6 trys to get the TD so that was never a sure thing to begin with. To sit there and act like the TD would have been a given? It was not a given. Making a QB go the lenght of the field is harder to do than picking up a couple of 1st downs not to mention the momentum they get when they do stop you 4 downs.

Now going to answer the question are you?

 

[Stautner]

Yes, it's a sure way of taking a lead at some point in the game. But that's completely meaningless. The only time being in the lead means anything is when time runs out. And if going for the field goal gives you less chance of being in the lead at that time, then you don't go for it.

See my post on calculations of possibilities.

Please tell me you're not really this dense.

Taking the lead is never meaningless, especially when you only have one shot to do it. If we had a full quarter left I would probably have agreed we needed to go for it because odds are grea that with a full qurter left and anywhere from 2-4 posessions left the Colts are going to score, but with only one possession left, and only one shot to take the lead, you have to be certain.

As for your calculations, without actual numbers plugged in it means nothing.

It's easy to call a person dense, it's another thing to explain why? So far you have never explained why it would be possible to stop the Colts on 3rd and 5, but absolutely impossible to stop them on 4th and 5. You have never been able to explain how it is that every team in the NFL, including the Colts, knows that there are no guarantees when you use 4 downs, which is why teams punt, yet in this situation using 4 downs would carry a guarantee. The fact is, that there is no evidence that anything is guranteed, and your only way to combat that fact is just to call people dense, or just act as if it's an indisputable truth despite all evidence to the contrary.

The fact is that you are taking a situation where, admittedly, the Colts would have had pretty solid odds of success, and unreasonable translating that into "guranteed" success.

 

[Doomsday101]

Now going to answer the question are you?

what question is that? I did ansewer the what is easier getting the TD that TD was really easy that is why it took us 6 tries to get it? or manning scoring. However you don't seem to want to ansewer the question that if it was such a sure thing the colts would score the FG then why in the hell could they not do it in 2 drives in OT?

 

[peplaw06]

No, that's not how you judge a decision. You don't judge a decision based on how the events unfold after the decision was made. You judge a decision based on the information that is on hand at the time the decision is made. You can luck into a win. And you can make every right decision and still lose.

If I have a 99.9999% chance of winning a massive lottery by betting my entire life savings, I take that chance. If for some strange twist of fate, it turns out to be the 0.0001% case in which I lose, it was still a good decision to make the bet. That doesn't change based on how the events unfolded.

*sigh*

It's a game. We won the game. Your analogy here is off because it's one decision. The game is filled with hundreds of decisions and variables, and not ones just made by Garrett, but you have other coaches and players, etc., etc. You're never going to find a game where every single decision made is the right one. Like I was saying, I could argue that the decision to take points off the board was a bad one. But we won the game, so it doesn't really matter a hell of a lot, does it?

 

[theogt]

Go for field goal:

Percentage chance FG is made: A
Percentage chance hold Colts to no FG: B

Percentage chance we win in FG scenario: A * B = X

Go for touchdown:

Percentage chance make a TD: C
Percentage chance Colts held to no TD: D
Percentage chance Colts held to punt: E
Percentage chance Cowboys kick field goal to win: F

Percentage chance of win/OT: (C*(1-D)) + (C*D) + (E*F) = Y

Here's what I would assign. The first number is a VERY conservative assessment and the second number is what I think is more in line with reality.

A - 95%; 95%
B - 30%; 20%
C - 30%; 40%
D - 30%; 30%
E - 20%; 40%
F - 20%; 30%

In the conservative scenario, X = 29% and Y = 34%.

In my more likely scenario, X = 19% and Y = 52%.

 

[theogt]

*sigh*

It's a game. We won the game. Your analogy here is off because it's one decision. The game is filled with hundreds of decisions and variables, and not ones just made by Garrett, but you have other coaches and players, etc., etc. You're never going to find a game where every single decision made is the right one. Like I was saying, I could argue that the decision to take points off the board was a bad one. But we won the game, so it doesn't really matter a hell of a lot, does it?

Whether it's one decision or hundreds, it doesn't matter in the slightest. You attempted to justify the decision based on the results, which is not how you properly judge a decision.

 

[Stautner]

I wonder if we'd gone for the TD and made it, how many of you people defending Garrett's decision would have argued that we should have gone for a FG instead.

My guess -- none.

You are a master at after the fact observations, aren't you?

Neverthelss, I can abslutely promise you I would tell you that if he had gone for it and had success that I still felt it was the wrong decision.

Being certain of taking the lead has to be the deciding factor, and despite your claims that kicking a FG would have GUARANTEED a loss, it simply is an indisputable fact on Colts possession could have been derailed by a big sack, a penalty or two, a dropped pass (like Reggie Wayne had in OT), and errant pass (like on the 3 precvious INT's), some manner of positve play or plays on defense, or negative play or plays on offense .......... there simply is no such thing as a guarantee.

If the Colts were so overwhelmingly dominant that they could be called a guarantee in that situation, they never would have been in that situation.

BY THE WAY: Did you know the Colts are only 7-6 this year? I never saw a 7-6 team that was guaranteed of anything.

 

[Doomsday101]

Whether it's one decision or hundreds, it doesn't matter in the slightest. You attempted to justify the decision based on the results, which is not how you properly judge a decision.

And you are justifying on made up numbers to do your calculation. You are assigning the number? :laugh2: Hell you can get it to turn out the way you see it by using arbitrary numbers that you are pulling from thin air.

 

[theogt]

You are a master at after the fact observations, aren't you?

Neverthelss, I can abslutely promise you I would tell you that if he had gone for it and had success that I still felt it was the wrong decision.

Being certain of taking the lead has to be the deciding factor, and despite your claims that kicking a FG would have GUARANTEED a loss, it simply is an indisputable fact on Colts possession could have been derailed by a big sack, a penalty or two, a dropped pass (like Reggie Wayne had in OT), and errant pass (like on the 3 precvious INT's), some manner of positve play or plays on defense, or negative play or plays on offense .......... there simply is no such thing as a guarantee.

If the Colts were so overwhelmingly dominant that they could be called a guarantee in that situation, they never would have been in that situation.

BY THE WAY: Did you know the Colts are only 7-6 this year? I never saw a 7-6 team that was guaranteed of anything.

If you notice, I actually didn't give the Colts a 100% chance of scoring a FG in my calculations.

Why? Because when I said "virtually guarantee" I didn't actually mean it's an inevitability. You see, I use the English language. And in the English language, words are not always taken literally. This may be new to you, I understand.

 

[Stautner]

And you are justifying on made up numbers to do your calculation. You are assigning the number? :laugh2: Hell you can get it to turn out the way you see it by using arbitrary numbers that you are pulling from thin air.

Not to mention, he is now calculating percentages, whereas up to now he has been saying that had the Cowboys kicked the FG the Colts would have been GUARANTEED (100% chance) to win.