I will eventually read through all the replies here, so not sure whether this is a hot button item or not. But....neither of these plays or any other play that wasn't a FG attempt was the right call. You ABSOLUTELY take the points there. In that particular situation. I am all for being aggressive, but every indicator tells you to take the points here. If it was 1 yard to go....maybe you go for it. Maybe. Still questionable to me. If it was a long FG and not a chippie....maybe you go for it. If they were up 1, 2, or 3 and Bradys inevitable last-minute TD drive wins it if they kick a FG....then you go for the kill. If there weren't only 2 minutes left...maybe you go for it. If this wasn't a young team that needs to learn how to win close games working on what could have been a second straight last second victory where they held on for dear life....maybe you go for it. Throw ALL of those ingredients into the pot, and you KICK THE FUCKING FIELD GOAL!!!!!!!!!! Give yourselves the 7 point lead, maybe Brady doesn't drive for a score (yeah right) and you win. If he does (likely) score, then maybe he does so with enough time for you go get into FG range and win it. Or take your chances in overtime. If they decided to go for 2 to win it.......then good or them. THEY beat you. You didn't beat your fucking selves. KICK. THE FUCKING FIELD GOAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The last paragraph is irrelevant. Belichick and McVay punt the most in said scenarios in the NFL and win buckets and buckets of games. Green Bay LaFleur also loves to punt on 4th and shorts and they’re a top team in the league every year. Kicking/punting and winning ball games can build a winning culture just as much as playing gambler and going for it. I get every point you and HOTJ have made. I just don’t agree with it. I think a lot of coaches have bought way too deep into this analytics/going for it because you have X% to win the game if you convert mentality and play that simple percentage while ignoring all other game factors. The Ravens going for two in back to back weeks to try to win the game (and lost both) against the Packers and Steelers (while they held both offenses in check late in the game) is further proof that sometimes you need to live to fight another day. Both were huge hits to the “analytics” community. And I will say that I watch a lot of games and Jets games where I say “you go for it here,” but I just don’t think that was the right place to do it.
The Jets lined up, ran out of time, had to call a timeout and then almost ran out of time again before running a QB sneak into the heart of the defense. If they were all in on the analytics they woulda been better organized. Saleh was just shooting from the hip. I bet you he didn't even know "the percentages"
But this is why they were right to go for it - there's only 1 game left in an otherwise forgettable season. There is really no "another day". If they lose - which they did - they get to keep their high draft pick as a "consolation" prize - that's worst case. Had they called the right play, there was a high chance of success in getting the 1st down and winning the game. And had their defense not had a couple of crucial breakdowns to allow Brady to keep the drive alive they also would've won. I know we're not going to agree on this, but IMO there was more chances for this to turn out right by going for it in this instance.
I just think the best approach is using analytics to guide you, but still having a good feel for the specific game/ situation. The Ravens decisions were not hits to the analytics community though. Analytics is just a fancy way of saying numbers or percentages. Just because the result didn’t work out that one or two times doesn’t mean it wasn’t correct long term. I’m not going to fault the Jets in this case, because I would rather be aggressive and fail than the opposite. I personally would have kicked the 3 but it it were 4th and 1 or less I would have went for it no questions asked. I don’t think this situation has a correct answer any way you look at it, it was that close.
How is it not a hit to analytics though? It resulted in TWO immediate losses for the Ravens that’ll knock them out of the playoffs. Analytics said to go for it and it failed. Analytics has a place and should be weighed but football is the only game left in professional sports where momentum and game feel rules over percentages because of the limited schedule. If they played 30 games I’d think differently. On top of the fact that you need so many things to go right on a single play to succeed.
I don’t know the exact percentages but if going for 2 gave them a 53% chance to win and kicking it gave them a 49% chance to win based off of historical data or analytics, then they went with the better option and it didn’t work out. How is that a hit to analytics? You can hit in blackjack with a 16 twice against a 6 and win both, would that be a hit to blackjack analaytics? Obviously not the same situation but just an example. I do agree with you though, that there’s so many different variables that are hard to solve using just numbers. So a smart coach that uses analytics to guide him but not necessarily be the end all be all is the best way to go IMO
Truthfully, I felt the Jets would lose when they had the Bucs by the throat and could not stop the 3 and 20 play. The 4th and 2 was a ridiculous play. You can no way expect to get two yards on a QB sneak with the lines stacked. This is on the Coach. The Jets had plenty of TOs. Dont make the rookie QB make the decision between one of two plays. Call ONE play and if you dont get the right look, call the TO and try again. But all that being said, I was totally on board with not kicking the FG and going for the W. Also, what was that D on the last play. You leave a CB out to dry w no help 30 yards down the field in that situation ??????
It’s a hit because the analytics said to do it and they lost both games and will subsequently miss the playoffs because they lost both games. It’s not squarely on those decisions of course, but the old head in me says to not make decisions like that simply based on computer simulations that remove the human element. Agreed on the last paragraph though. There’s a place for it but it shouldn’t determine all decisions.
Can’t blame this on Zach when they had an entire timeout to plan a play and couldn’t dial up the appropriate play due to MISCOMMUNICATION. Saleh has had an absolutely atrocious rookie year.
There's some kind of psychological fallacy at play here, IMO.. In sports, when conservative decisions fail, by the time the repercussions are felt, time has passed and the decision is forgotten. Likewise, conservative decisions that "succeed" often aren't good enough to win, but they "worked" at the time, so they too are forgotten. And risky decisions? When they work, even THEY are often overlooked. For example, if we simply convert that 4th and 2, nobody is on here saying it was a bad decision to go for it. Even if someone creates a "great decision on 4th and 2" thread, I submit that no one replies in disagreement. But when risky decisions don't work out, uh-oh. It's the end of the world because the results are so conspicuous. In other words, "risky failures" are, to a drastic degree, disproportionately remembered compared to risky successes and all conservative decisions.
Conservative voices, not good enough to get anything accomplished but loud enough to make you 2nd guess the better options. If Bob kicks that field goal TGG would be calling for the TE coach to replace him ASAP.
How many other times this season did the Ravens go for it on 4th to their benefit? Or not go for it on 4th to their detriment? For all we know, if they'd gone with a more old-school approach they could have had a worse record. My point is that to make these claims, you have to look at every decision they made all season, not cherry pick two plays.
Also after seeing Brady carve up our defense on the last drive, does anyone really think we would have won in overtime? I mean maybe we win the coin flip and Zach leads us on a touchdown drive. But the much easier thing was just to pick up the two yards we needed and keep the ball out of Brady's hands entirely.
