"Fourth and Goal: The John Fox Story"

And again, with 10 minutes left, we aren't just talking about a touchdown -- if it's 17-12, you can win that game with two field goals in the final 10 minutes, and many teams have done that. So if that's a 5-10 percent consideration, it pushes the call even farther in the direction of taking the points and cutting the deficit to five.

 

My instinct is that you have a better chance of scoring a touchdown on 4th and goal from the 4, plus tacking on another field goal, than you do of putting together two more field goal drives in the 10 minutes left.

 

The two more field goals is an add-on to the previously discussed scenario of stop/score (to win) or opponent FG/score (to tie).

 

I am in no way angry, and I did not think that was an angry post. Not sure why you interpreted it so harshly.

No it was not (in my opinion). And you've provided no evidence to back that claim. What exactly were their odds at that time of getting the FG, then making the stop, then scoring a TD, then their D holding thereafter? You don't know. And neither do I. But I do know not very damn high.

The only thing you've shown with your 4o percent/50 percent stuff is that the odds were against them tying the game at that moment with the TD/2 point conversion. Well, so what? The odds of winning are always gonna be against you when you're down 17-9 with only 10 minutes left, regardless of what decision you make. Just because the odds were poor one way doesn't mean they were any better under the alternative scenario. And, imo, they were not.

And you largely neglect the fact that they're still very much in it even if they don't convert there. If they fail to get the 2 pointer, they still only need a field goal to win, which is plainly more likely to happen than the additional TD they'd need if they kicked. And if they fail on the fourth, it means they'd need another TD, which they'd still need anyways if they'd kicked.

Neither of us have the chops when it comes to statistical computation and analysis to know for sure what choice gave the best the odds of winning, considering all the little permutations and contingencies involved. So let's not pretend we do. But my rough analysis leads me to believe Fox made the right call. You're entitled to a different opinion.

 

Right. An opinion that's "nonsense."

Anyway, good day.

 

Thing is, the chances of making the FG there are very close to 100 percent. So there's one score.

I think the big issue with going for it is if you miss and you allow any points at all on the ensuing possession, it's a two-score game and you're pretty much done (depending on how long it takes Denver to score).

If you kick the field goal, you can give up a FG and still be within one score. Potentially, you are extending the game, keeping yourself in it longer.

I don't think it's a no-brainer either way by any means.

 

Right, and that's why everyone loves it. You get to punt the big decision down the road a little while.

But does going for it give you the best chance of winning? That's the only question that really matters.

 

It isn't a n0-brainer at all. But the percentages vary with the amount of time left. Probably at about the 6 minute mark, they swing in favor of going for it. But with 10, you're talking at least two possessions left for each team. The near-certainty of making it a game you can win with a TD if you kick the field goal outweighs the higher reward at higher risk of going for it. But I admit it's probably no better than a 60 to 66.6 percent advantage.

 

The flip side is which gives you the best chance of losing.

The thing is, the answer to both those questions might be the same.

 

Maybe this makes me old, Michael, but I think I'm in your camp here.

 

I agree that the two-point conversion play (after they scored to make it 17-15) was more of a head-scratcher to me.

It really doesn't matter in the long run. The Bears have only beaten one NFC team (record vs. NFC is an important tie-breaker for wild card) and, as much as it pains me to say it, they're going to get destroyed in Green Bay Thursday night.

 

The only thing I meant to suggest was nonsense was the statement that they "needed" the 2 pt conversion, whey they plainly did not, as even if they'd failed on the conversion they'd still be left in a far better position than kicking. I did not mean that your overriding opinion that they should've kicked was nonsense. Sorry if it came across that way.