No, your ignorance of football is what is unquestionable. The history of football is filled with 4th quarter 4th down attempts that have foregone FG’s in tied games, game tying scenarios or lead scenarios, in which the first down was determined to be achievable and a better play than the FG attempt.
If I had a chance to run clock on Rodgers or Brady vs. getting a 1 to 3 point lead with 3 minutes and a couple of time outs I might go for it. The lead doesn't get rid of your chance to lose the game. Controlling the ball along with maintaining FG distance does. If you can't control the ball or stop the opposition the lead isn't a sure thing. It comes down to which are you more sure of. Does your O have a better shot to get the first down than your D has to stop the other team? In this game you had to kick the Field goal. To much time left. Our O was overmatched completely by Cleveland at the point of attack and Darnold was having a bad game. As good as Mayfield was playing our D is better than our O and Mayfield might well make a mistake under pressure. In fact we dropped a possible INT which may well have radically changed the outcome. If I'm playing Green Bay or NE I'm going for it on 4th and under 2.
It may not be "rocket science", but there is scientific evidence for NOT kicking a FG or punting on 4th down in many situations as I posted the other day: What you're advocating is a philosophy rooted in tradition, not fact.
Let's see, how easy could you have made my job to prove not only your ignorance of NFL history but your lack of understanding of football, and why context matters. 2004 Divisional Playoffs, Pats vs Titans, it is 4th and 3 from the 33, and with arguably the most clutch kicker in NFL history at his disposal in Adam Vinatieri (who already has two game winning SB kicks in his history), arguably the greatest coach in the history does not kick the FG to take the lead but goes for it on 4th down. Patriots get the 1st down to set up an easier kick. This is where context of the situation matters and Belichick did not believe attempting to take the lead in that situation was the best decision. He risked turning the ball over to set up a more favorable situation. If your assertion was true, Belichick would have attempted the FG to take the lead, because, and I quote you "You kick the field goal for the lead. You never don't take the lead in the 4th quarter. " I suppose you know more about football than Bill Belichick, who doesn't believe you always kick the FG on 4th down to take the lead and considers the context of the situation. Look it up Dude, it's not rocket science. Though I question your ability to do simple searches based on the lack of critical thinking skills you have exhibited in this discussion. Now, you'd be hard pressed to argue the rational of your argument if you say your position wouldn't apply to ties. If you are arguing you always kick the FG to take the lead, why would you argue you would pass on a FG if it were simply to tie the game. Why would it be okay to go fo it on 4th down, down by 3 in the 4th and risk losing the game by 3 but not down by 2 and risk losing by 2? Once again, we just have to go back to 2001, Bears vs Washington. Down by 3, Chicago fakes the FG and gets a TD; so, once again we have a team not kicking a FG in the 4th with a tie at stake. As I mentioned, you can claim your argument only applied to FG's that could take the lead, but it would reveal you are as irrational in your reasoning as you are ignorant of football.
Found the statistical bot that tells you what to do logically. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/4thdownbot/team/jets If you scroll down to This same simulator recommends kicking the field goal in 4th and under 3 with a tie game.
I said within the 30 yard line, whenever the kick is 50yards + the situation changes. My point still stands and you still cannot find an example.
If you're going against Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers, sure, I can see not having enough confidence to warrant going for the 4th down. Especially if it's not a chip shot. However, the original discussion did stem from our game, which was clearly a good call to kick the FG.
No you didnt. You stated unequivocally "Under EVERY situation." Let's revisit your post, shall we: You have no point to still stand; you are backtracking and changing your argument to attempt to save face. Too late on that account.
My point was to counter your assertion that you ALWAYS, NO EXCEPTIONS, kick the FG in the 4th qtr. The bot clearly shows that there are often times when you go for it instead of kicking or punting.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/4thdownbot/team/eagles Tried to paste a picture but don't know how...scroll down to Eagles vs. Buffalo. 4th and 4, tie game with 3 minutes remaining. Same simulator recommends field goal.
Where does the bot say with a tie game you go for it in the 4th quarter close to the goal line? It doesn't, it recommends kicking it.
Now you are changing your argument again. Nobody is arguing with your opinion whether you agree with the call; but you argued it was absolute and there was no scenario in which you forego the FG to take the lead and go for it on 4th down. You can only concede that argument in whole, not partially. So, this post can only serve to show you have wasted your time arguing a nonsensical point that you are now conceding is nonsensical. We appreciate your compliance in rebutting your dumbass argument.
Here is my quote: Because you don't gamble during the 3rd game of the season when you can easily take the lead late in the 4th quarter. And yes, I am fairly sure that the Eagles would have kicked the FG would they have been tied. Is there an example of a coach not going for the lead in the 4th quarter and opting instead to go for 4th down within the 30 yard line? I think someone would be hard pressed to find it So yes, I did say 30 yard line, and yes you're still wrong lol
Yes, there are times when the scientific evidence says you should kick the FG, but you said EVERY TIME, NO EXCEPTIONS. That formula is what keeps mediocre or poor coaches from winning games they could win, and ultimately costs them their jobs.
The statistics don't lie. Just admit you were wrong about the bot. Y'all are wrong but you're so butthurt about it lol.
statistics don't tell you anything other than probability of outcome. It's up to the user of the stat to determine whether they are comfortable with the risk the probability reveals, but the stats aren't an absolute indicator of good decisions. so, now you are revealing you have a complete ignorance of statistics. You aren't doing yourself any favors.
Again, I never said that you NEVER kick the FG or punt. I contested your absolute assertion that your ALWAYS kick. Secondly, the bot isn't gospel either, although if you followed it 100% you'd likely have positive outcomes most of the time, but there is also such a thing as context and circumstance that the bot cannot take into account, This is where good coaching comes in. And good coaches don't just rely on unproven axioms to make decisions. Part of being a successful coach is being unpredictable to your opponents, so sometimes you go against "conventional wisdom" and take chances based upon your knowledge of your players and the conditions of the game. You don't just say "Well, we're at the 30 yard line and it's the 4th quarter so we MUST kick the FG."
Considering I'm an analyst, I would take the guess I know a lot more about statistics, and obviously football, than you. Regardless, yes, this entire point is that coaches and statistics will go for the FG try in a tie game under 30 yards late in the 4th quarter. I said it at the beginning, I'm saying it now. And yes...it's just correct, sorry bud.
