Since it worked, of course, Joe Gibbs is going to wind up not taking criticism for his odd decision to kick the early field goal instead of continuing to run the football, but I still don't like the decision. Not only does it seem wrong on the merits to me, but it seems strange to start off your season with a vote of no confidence in your running backs.
« Crackpots, Crackpots Everywhere | Main | Time for a Blogger Ethics Panel »
The Early Kick?
09 Sep 2007 04:59 pm
Comments (19)
I'd think the odds would favor trying to get the ball in as close as possible however I admit I've never taken a hard look at the numbers.
It's when people kick on 4th and 1 that really bothers me though.
Yeah. I mean, they were really moving the ball on the ground that series. I understand you don't want to turn the ball over, but you don't try a couple more runs up the gut? Seems weird.
Huh? I would've enjoyed seeing Portis continue to advance the ball as well, but do you really think that constituted a vote of no-confidence? After they stuck with the run the entire game? After the run set up the FG in the first place? You don't think that's a little extreme?
Check the first vs. second half rushing stats. I think the game, in toto, was a vote of full confidence in the running game.
You've got this one bassackwards, Matt. Given the shitty sudden death OT system in the NFL, you go for the field goal as soon as possible, always. Continuing to run would have been a vote of no-confidence in the kicker, who should be automatic at 39 yards. Not running is just basic common sense.
I don't think kicking sooner vs. later is a vote for or against confidence in anything. It sure is boring, though. I propose a couple of fixes for this (applies to overtime only):
1) Ban field goals of less than 50 yards.
2) Have the goalposts rotate around the base pole. Perhaps 1 rps.
I didn't like kicking on 1st down either, at least do it on 3rd, but you can't say Gibbs doesn't have confidence in his running game. Betts and Portis each had 17 carries.
And if he had continued to run the football and there had been a lost fumble, Mr. Yglesias would be screaming why didn't he kick the field goal.
On the radio after the game, Joe Jacoby offered an interesting argument of support: a holding penalty would have pushed them out of field goal range. Given the line's inexperience playing together and the team's penalty struggles, it's a consideration worth making. I'm still not sold, but it's a good point.
The NFL really needs to revisit their overtime rules and contemplate something similar to the college system. It all comes down to the coin flip. I'm willing to bet that the team winning the overtime flip has a quite statistically significant greater chance of winning. I'm sure someone has calculated it.
They wouldn't need a system exactly like the college system but something similar in that each team gets an equal opportunity to score.
In 1983 the Denver Broncos and Los Angeles (!) Raiders had a heated and fearsome rivalry. They played a hard game and went into overtime.
L.A. drove down to a first down on the Denver 10 yard line. The game was about over. L.A. tried one more time to punch it into the end zone for six and fumbled. Denver recovered the ball and John Elway drove the team down the field into field goal range. Rich Karlis kicked the game winner for Denver.
Q.E.D.
In fact, Karlis had hit an upright at the end of regulation so this was an especially healing vote of confidence in the kicker.
Kent-actually the numbers show very close to a 50-50 split for whether the team who wins the coin flip wins the game-which surprises me as well.
That said, the college system is much more exiting, and it ensures that both teams have a chance to score, which seems more fair.
It's silly to call this a vote of no confidence. If someone gets designated to take the last shot in basketball, is it a vote of no confidence in the other 4 players on the floor?
The college OT system is awful. No special teams -- no chances for long kick off or punt returns, or for that matter, interception returns. Hell, no long passes either. All the most exciting plays are gone.
In the NFL, a 42-yard FG is easy, and it's very hard to move to ball in the red zone. It would just be a drawn out field goal kicking contest.
First game of the season you're likely to get false starts. The tenser the situation, the more likely they become.
On home field, the coach should know where his kicker needs to get to to make further gains not worth the risk. I wouldn't have thought it was a 40 yarder, but Gibbs should know his kicker.
By doing it 1st down, it gives 2 chances to make up ground lost in a bad snap. I'd bet at that range, ~75% of the failure permutations are bad-snap related.
The logical inconsistancy in that game was Miami going for 6 at the end of the half, but then settling for 3 later in similar circumstances. If you do this gamble and fail with time on the clock, you have the opponent pinned down by their own goal line. If you do it at the end of the half, they just run out the clock.
I heard the announcer saying that Cameron called a game "by feel". That may be fine for calling plays, but decisions involving punting, kicking field goals or going for firstdowns/touchdowns should be made logically.
It doesn't give you a second chance if you have a bad snap!
If you have a bad snap you're now gonna be 10 yards back and the kicker would have no chance.
I've always thought that NFL overtime should be the first team to 6. That way a moderately OK kickoff return and two first downs doesn't win the ballgame, but a phenomenal play or good, solid 75 yard drive will.
"It doesn't give you a second chance if you have a bad snap!
If you have a bad snap you're now gonna be 10 yards back and the kicker would have no chance."
Not really. Teams have a FIRE play in case of a bad snap. And trust me, the punter (or whomever the holder is) is universally taught that if it is a bad snap in this situation and the fire receivers go out, he needs to throw the ball as hard as he can at their feet.
Comments closed September 23, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
As opposed to a vote of no confidence in your kicker?
Posted by John DE | September 9, 2007 5:19 PM