That let them score stategy does not work

[flocko76]

posted on Grantland.com by bill barnwell


Let's skip to the fourth quarter and take on the game's three big coaching decisions in chronological order. We'll start with Bill Belichick's decision to throw the red challenge flag out on Mario Manningham's enormous catch for 38 yards with 3:46 left, a play that finished virtually right in front of Belichick on the Patriots' sideline. Neither Belichick nor his video people likely got a chance to review a replay before throwing the challenge flag, which is normally a sign of a terrible challenge, but this was a situation where throwing the flag made total sense. It was a low-risk, high-reward challenge.

Why is that? Well, the reward is obvious: If Manningham happened to step out of bounds, the Patriots wipe the game's biggest play off the books and send the Giants back to their 12-yard line. It's an enormous shift in field position, particularly in a game where big plays had been so hard to find. If you believe in the power of momentum, a replay review would calm down the Giants-friendly crowd and give the Patriots a chance to recover from the shock of the play, even if the challenge ended up unsuccessful. The risk of losing a challenge is basically nil, since the Patriots had two challenges left with just under two minutes of game time to go before they lost them. The risk here is that you lose one of your three timeouts, and as it turned out, the Patriots ended up wishing they had that timeout when they were trying to stop the Giants near the goal line. Had the Patriots been able to stop the Giants short on three consecutive plays after the two-minute warning, they could have held Big Blue to a field goal attempt and still had plenty of time to try a drive for the win with Brady. That's why it's low-risk and not no-risk. Every decision like this in a close game carries a certain amount of risk and reward; a good coach considers risk without being unnecessarily averse to it. Bill Belichick, as you might suspect, is a good coach.

Next, Belichick sullied all that is right about the game of football by allowing the Giants to score on an Ahmad Bradshaw run with 1:04 left in the fourth quarter, giving the Giants a four-point lead while allowing his team to get the ball back in an attempt to drive for the winning touchdown with some reasonable amount of time. Bradshaw now-famously realized what was going on mid-play and tried to delay himself from scoring, but let's review the decision-making heading into the play. What should each team have done?

Win Probability charts aren't perfect because they don't adjust for the teams involved, but they're the best tool for answering a question like this. Here, the Giants-Patriots WP chart on advancednflstats.com notes that the Giants had an 89 percent chance of winning the game when Hakeem Nicks picked up a first down on the New England 7-yard line with 1:09 left. From there, the Giants could have chosen to kneel three times, force the Patriots to use their final timeout, and then attempt a game-winning field goal with seconds on the clock without ever giving the ball back to the Patriots. The model might even be underestimating their chances; history suggests that an average field goal kicker will convert a 24-yard field goal about 96 percent of the time, and the Giants were playing on turf with the options to both move the ball onto Lawrence Tynes' desired hash mark while falling on the ball and trying again in the case of a bad snap. And if you think Tynes is a terrible kicker, note that he's 56-of-57 on kicks from 20 to 29 yards during his career.

Instead, when Bradshaw scored the most mournful game-winning Super Bowl touchdown in history, the Win Probability analysis suggests that the Giants' odds of winning decreased to 85 percent. That's right: Bill Belichick was likely correct to allow the Giants to score, and the Giants should have taken a knee and decided to kick the chip shot field goal instead.3 If you use the 96 percent win expectancy that we're suggesting instead of the model's 89 percent, it's patently obvious that the Giants should have kneeled and kicked.


this still won't convince OP he's wrong because he's never seen it work.

[d2bets]

posted on Grantland.com by bill barnwell


Let's skip to the fourth quarter and take on the game's three big coaching decisions in chronological order. We'll start with Bill Belichick's decision to throw the red challenge flag out on Mario Manningham's enormous catch for 38 yards with 3:46 left, a play that finished virtually right in front of Belichick on the Patriots' sideline. Neither Belichick nor his video people likely got a chance to review a replay before throwing the challenge flag, which is normally a sign of a terrible challenge, but this was a situation where throwing the flag made total sense. It was a low-risk, high-reward challenge.

Why is that? Well, the reward is obvious: If Manningham happened to step out of bounds, the Patriots wipe the game's biggest play off the books and send the Giants back to their 12-yard line. It's an enormous shift in field position, particularly in a game where big plays had been so hard to find. If you believe in the power of momentum, a replay review would calm down the Giants-friendly crowd and give the Patriots a chance to recover from the shock of the play, even if the challenge ended up unsuccessful. The risk of losing a challenge is basically nil, since the Patriots had two challenges left with just under two minutes of game time to go before they lost them. The risk here is that you lose one of your three timeouts, and as it turned out, the Patriots ended up wishing they had that timeout when they were trying to stop the Giants near the goal line. Had the Patriots been able to stop the Giants short on three consecutive plays after the two-minute warning, they could have held Big Blue to a field goal attempt and still had plenty of time to try a drive for the win with Brady. That's why it's low-risk and not no-risk. Every decision like this in a close game carries a certain amount of risk and reward; a good coach considers risk without being unnecessarily averse to it. Bill Belichick, as you might suspect, is a good coach.

Next, Belichick sullied all that is right about the game of football by allowing the Giants to score on an Ahmad Bradshaw run with 1:04 left in the fourth quarter, giving the Giants a four-point lead while allowing his team to get the ball back in an attempt to drive for the winning touchdown with some reasonable amount of time. Bradshaw now-famously realized what was going on mid-play and tried to delay himself from scoring, but let's review the decision-making heading into the play. What should each team have done?

Win Probability charts aren't perfect because they don't adjust for the teams involved, but they're the best tool for answering a question like this. Here, the Giants-Patriots WP chart on advancednflstats.com notes that the Giants had an 89 percent chance of winning the game when Hakeem Nicks picked up a first down on the New England 7-yard line with 1:09 left. From there, the Giants could have chosen to kneel three times, force the Patriots to use their final timeout, and then attempt a game-winning field goal with seconds on the clock without ever giving the ball back to the Patriots. The model might even be underestimating their chances; history suggests that an average field goal kicker will convert a 24-yard field goal about 96 percent of the time, and the Giants were playing on turf with the options to both move the ball onto Lawrence Tynes' desired hash mark while falling on the ball and trying again in the case of a bad snap. And if you think Tynes is a terrible kicker, note that he's 56-of-57 on kicks from 20 to 29 yards during his career.

Instead, when Bradshaw scored the most mournful game-winning Super Bowl touchdown in history, the Win Probability analysis suggests that the Giants' odds of winning decreased to 85 percent. That's right: Bill Belichick was likely correct to allow the Giants to score, and the Giants should have taken a knee and decided to kick the chip shot field goal instead.3 If you use the 96 percent win expectancy that we're suggesting instead of the model's 89 percent, it's patently obvious that the Giants should have kneeled and kicked.


this still won't convince OP he's wrong because he's never seen it work.

Unless my math is off I don't think it is correct that taking a knee would have made it so that they wouldn't have given the ball back. It's 2nd and 10 at 1:04. They take a knee. Call it 1:00. Now they run a play and let the clock bleed. Figure 3 seconds for the play and 40 for the lock. We're down to 17 seconds. 3-4 seconds for the FG. They're kicking the ball off with 13-14 seconds. So NE still would have gotten the ball (with no TO's). They either get it on the 20 with 13-14 seconds, or NYG kicks a grounder and probably NE tosses it around and who knows what and then from there 1 play. But that analysis ought to factor in that NY would have kicked off with 13-14 seconds left, up by 1 point.

[jsmithj88]

Have you seen anyone mess up a chip shot fg in a big game? In 59+ minutes the pats scored 2 tds, they were going to score one in 57 seconds?

if u let them bleed the clock and kick the FG the game is over
if u let them score with time left, u can still have a legit chance to win the game

that is why it was the correct decision

when was the last time u saw a kicker miss a kick within the 20 yard line in the playoffs?
when was the last time u saw a kicker miss an extra point in the playoffs?

[SparJMU]

Letting them run the clock down to 1 second doesn't work either.

This thread is three pages long? It was settled at post #2.

[seaborneq]

That was the right decision. If the Pat's didn't have 2 drops it might have gotten more interesting. I thought that short pass over the middle by Brady that ate up a lot of clock down to like 17 seconds was a horrible decision by Brady. You have to play the sidelines or get something over the middle deep. Tough break.

Giants own the Pat's now.

The pats let the other team score and gave them the lead and the advantage, why would the Giants give them sideline plays to get out of bounds. All of that has to be taken into consideration. Instead of the pressure being on the snapper, holder, kicker the pressure was all on the pats to score a touchdown with no hope of catching any pass that would stop the clock.

[d2bets]

The pats let the other team score and gave them the lead and the advantage, why would the Giants give them sideline plays to get out of bounds. All of that has to be taken into consideration. Instead of the pressure being on the snapper, holder, kicker the pressure was all on the pats to score a touchdown with no hope of catching any pass that would stop the clock.

Not true. They had a timeout. Problem was taking that sack was the critical play. Instead of using a TO on a play that gained 20 yards, they used on a play that lost 8 yards.

Pressure on snapper, holder, kicker on a 20 yarder? Come on now. If you're the Pats don't you want to give your team a chance to get on the field and take the win away by making great plays rather than praying that the other chokes on a play they convert 99 times out of 100? What kind of a team would rather hope for a missed PAT rather than giving one of the great QB's of all time a chance to win the game. Your argument becomes nuttier by the day.

[seaborneq]

Not true. They had a timeout. Problem was taking that sack was the critical play. Instead of using a TO on a play that gained 20 yards, they used on a play that lost 8 yards.

Pressure on snapper, holder, kicker on a 20 yarder? Come on now. If you're the Pats don't you want to give your team a chance to get on the field and take the win away by making great plays rather than praying that the other chokes on a play they convert 99 times out of 100? What kind of a team would rather hope for a missed PAT rather than giving one of the great QB's of all time a chance to win the game. Your argument becomes nuttier by the day.

It's 8 men in coverage, the sack came on a three man rush. Superman can't do anything in that situation. But that is what you think is the ideal situation to win a game, more power to you.

[milwaukee mike]

this might have been mentioned before but it bears repeating.

BELICHECK SHOULD'VE LET THE GIANTS SCORE EARLIER.

patriots could have easily saved their timeout and let the giants run in with 2:00 left on the clock, that would've been the best choice by far. i think that would've given the patriots at least a 50% chance of winning the game.

[hels]

this might have been mentioned before but it bears repeating.

BELICHECK SHOULD'VE LET THE GIANTS SCORE EARLIER.

patriots could have easily saved their timeout and let the giants run in with 2:00 left on the clock, that would've been the best choice by far. i think that would've given the patriots at least a 50% chance of winning the game.

I was wondering if he was going to let them score on the first play after the 2min warning. Brady has proven time and time again that the 2 minute drill is not difficult.

[milwaukee mike]

with 2:00 left it was first and 10 at the new england 18 and bradshaw ran up the middle for 7 yards to the 11.

so at the 2 minute warning, belicheck had plenty of time to think about what to do with one timeout and the giants with a first down at the new england 18.

any option for belicheck other than letting them score on the first play gave his team a much less than 50% chance of winning. for such a genius coach he made a decision that ruined his team's chances of winning the super bowl. 3 plays later, he made the best decision remaining by calling a timeout and letting them score.

but it was too late.

with another minute on the clock and a timeout, i am pretty sure brady would've driven the patriots down the field for a winning td.

[d2bets]

It's 8 men in coverage, the sack came on a three man rush. Superman can't do anything in that situation. But that is what you think is the ideal situation to win a game, more power to you.

So you've never seen a team score a TD to win when they get possession with 1 minute or less to go and 1 timeout? It would take some research but I would bet that has been done literally dozens of times before. I would bet that it's happened more times than a team has missed a FG inside of 25 yards (or PAT) in the final minute.

[smoke a bowl]

It's 8 men in coverage, the sack came on a three man rush. Superman can't do anything in that situation. But that is what you think is the ideal situation to win a game, more power to you.

If you really believe that not letting them score gave them the best chance to win you are a certified idiot. Fact.

[d2bets]

with 2:00 left it was first and 10 at the new england 18 and bradshaw ran up the middle for 7 yards to the 11.

so at the 2 minute warning, belicheck had plenty of time to think about what to do with one timeout and the giants with a first down at the new england 18.

any option for belicheck other than letting them score on the first play gave his team a much less than 50% chance of winning. for such a genius coach he made a decision that ruined his team's chances of winning the super bowl. 3 plays later, he made the best decision remaining by calling a timeout and letting them score.

but it was too late.

with another minute on the clock and a timeout, i am pretty sure brady would've driven the patriots down the field for a winning td.

Wait. Let's think this through a little closer. So NY has it 1st and 10 at the 18 after the 2 minute warning and we have 1 TO. Ay that point we are looking at a 35 yard FG. Pretty good chance, but not the sure thing that a 20 yarder is. That's point #1. Next, from 18 yards out, if the sea parts and they let Bradshaw through....now how dumb will you feel if he takes a knee at the 2? You just made the FG 16 yards closer by option. When the ball is at the 18, you can be thinking about shutting them down, maybe even having a negative yardage play or forcing a fumble. Once they were at the 8 that is substantially different from being on the 18. I just think from the 8 letting him go there's no downside. From the 18 letting them walk through also gives Bradshaw plenty of time to see what's happening and choose to stop short. Then you've got egg all over your face by making the FG way way easier if that's what they elect to do. It's not like a video game you can dictate what the other team does. If they had tried that they would have run the real risk of looking very stupid. From where they ended up doing it, there was no real major downside if Bradshaw had elected to go down.

[seaborneq]

with 2:00 left it was first and 10 at the new england 18 and bradshaw ran up the middle for 7 yards to the 11.

so at the 2 minute warning, belicheck had plenty of time to think about what to do with one timeout and the giants with a first down at the new england 18.

any option for belicheck other than letting them score on the first play gave his team a much less than 50% chance of winning. for such a genius coach he made a decision that ruined his team's chances of winning the super bowl. 3 plays later, he made the best decision remaining by calling a timeout and letting them score.

but it was too late.

with another minute on the clock and a timeout, i am pretty sure brady would've driven the patriots down the field for a winning td.

I can agree with this. Either let them score at the 3 minute mark or not at all. Eli sliced and diced them on every snap after taking possession. But belichick was not up to putting up with that criticism after being called a defensive genius/coach for so many years. In fairness coughlin might not have cooperated and started taking knees to make belichick use all of his timeout to kick a safe fg. All that I've been hearing is that coughlin wanted a touchdown and didn't want to leave it to his kicker. Plus he probably had a feeling that the pats couldn't score a tds no matter how many seconds were left.

[JR007]

LOL. I have changed my mind.
They should have tried to stop them. I just realised my Superbowl square was NFC 8 AFC 7. A field goal for the NYG and that hits.

me too...for 8 bills

[seaborneq]

wat is the OP arguing about?
the giants had the ball in FG range and chewing up the clock
u let them score or u have no time to get into FG range
brady had 1 min and 1 TO and barely got to the 50 yard line

how was he supposed to get into FG range with 30 seconds or watver time was left if they didnt let the giants score?
letting them score was the only option

Yeah smart guy, the pats should have been trying to get in fg position down by 4 points.

[JR007]

Coughlin states that he did not tell Bradshaw to take a knee in that situation,(espn new york) also he states that you go for the touchdown in that situation (NFL .com),

[jsmithj88]

Yeah smart guy, the pats should have been trying to get in fg position down by 4 points.

ur so confident u are correct yet u cant answer this question
soo how many FGs within the 20 yard line were missed in the last 10 years in the playoffs?

[diondublin]

I've seen it fail too many times. Ask Holgram and the Favre's.

Indeed.

Which happens more often?

1) An NFL game is won with a time-expiring Hail Mary
2) An NFL game is lost with a missed time-expiring kick from close range

My bet is it's the latter, so I think the Giants were right to take the lead (even if the scorer regretted it). Therefore the Patriots were wrong to offer the easy touchdown.

Also if the Patriots has not allowed a touchdown the Giants could have blown it in other ways (a la Rivers earlier this season).

[milwaukee mike]

Wait. Let's think this through a little closer. So NY has it 1st and 10 at the 18 after the 2 minute warning and we have 1 TO. Ay that point we are looking at a 35 yard FG. Pretty good chance, but not the sure thing that a 20 yarder is. That's point #1. Next, from 18 yards out, if the sea parts and they let Bradshaw through....now how dumb will you feel if he takes a knee at the 2? You just made the FG 16 yards closer by option. When the ball is at the 18, you can be thinking about shutting them down, maybe even having a negative yardage play or forcing a fumble. Once they were at the 8 that is substantially different from being on the 18. I just think from the 8 letting him go there's no downside. From the 18 letting them walk through also gives Bradshaw plenty of time to see what's happening and choose to stop short. Then you've got egg all over your face by making the FG way way easier if that's what they elect to do. It's not like a video game you can dictate what the other team does. If they had tried that they would have run the real risk of looking very stupid. From where they ended up doing it, there was no real major downside if Bradshaw had elected to go down.

that is a very good point.
but i think there was enough time during the 2:00 timeout to say "ok if they get through the line of scrimmage on the next play (to the 15 or inside) then linebackers/d'backs let him score".
if bradshaw wasn't smart enough to stop at the goal line with 1:00 left when he was expecting them to let him score, he certainly wasn't smart enough to stop with 2:00 left when he wasn't expecting them to let him score.

interesting discussion

[d2bets]

Indeed.

Which happens more often?

1) An NFL game is won with a time-expiring Hail Mary
2) An NFL game is lost with a missed time-expiring kick from close range

My bet is it's the latter, so I think the Giants were right to take the lead (even if the scorer regretted it). Therefore the Patriots were wrong to offer the easy touchdown.

Also if the Patriots has not allowed a touchdown the Giants could have blown it in other ways (a la Rivers earlier this season).

Your options are wrong. Option #1 needs to be kicking off with 57 seconds and 1 TO. Why assume that they're only hope is a hail mary? Of course that's the way it ended up, because Brady suffered a huge sack. If Branch catches that very first pass he was going to be able to go out past midfield. Now you're at midfield with 50 seconds and 1 TO. That is just plenty of time and not a hail mary situation. Your options would be appropriate if the kickoff was at 15 seconds. Then your best hope is probably a hail mary. 57 seconds with 1 TO is very different.

[jsmithj88]

the main reason he let them score is to preserve TIME
1 min and 1 TO is enuff time to get down the field
was it likely? not very likely to happen, but better than hoping the kicker screws up

the answer to my question is NONE. ZERO. NADA
every FG within 20 yards has been converted in the last 10 years in the playoffs
EVERY SINGLE ATTEMPT

so there u go. u wanna talk about pats not being able to drive down the field
well ur banking on something that NEVER happend in the last 10 years to happen
rather than giving ur probowl qb a min to try and win the game

case closed.

[SparJMU]

Indeed.

Which happens more often?

1) An NFL game is won with a time-expiring Hail Mary
2) An NFL game is lost with a missed time-expiring kick from close range

My bet is it's the latter, so I think the Giants were right to take the lead (even if the scorer regretted it). Therefore the Patriots were wrong to offer the easy touchdown.

Also if the Patriots has not allowed a touchdown the Giants could have blown it in other ways (a la Rivers earlier this season).

This post is wrong for a few different reasons. The most important reason is that both NFL coaches agreed, and they disagree with you. Belichick coached the Pats to allow the score. Coughlin coached the Giants not to score (although they did not execute). Two head coaches with 5 combined Super Bowl rings agreed that the Giants best chance to win was to run the clock out and attempt a last second field goal. It's that simple. Anyone who disagrees is simply wrong.

[seaborneq]

This post is wrong for a few different reasons. The most important reason is that both NFL coaches agreed, and they disagree with you. Belichick coached the Pats to allow the score. Coughlin coached the Giants not to score (although they did not execute). Two head coaches with 5 combined Super Bowl rings agreed that the Giants best chance to win was to run the clock out and attempt a last second field goal. It's that simple. Anyone who disagrees is simply wrong.

Are you drinking? You are going to misinterpret coach Coughlin's words for the sake of your argument. Get a life. Coughlin wanted the touchdown, and if you go back a few years ago in overtime against the Carolina Panthers, he chose to run that sucker down their throats for a touchdown instead of kick a chippy fg. He wanted to make a statement in that game, just as he chose to in the super bowl on Sunday. He basically said we are going to win this game, you are not going to give it to us.

[SparJMU]

Why would I be drinking at 1:45 EST on a Thursday? Why would the opinion of Coughlin choaching Bradshaw to take a knee seem so shocking to you that you would think I was drinking? What about drinking or my opinion on this particular play have to do with "get a life"? I think you were trying to be funny, but failed.

Back to the discussion at hand however. Ahmad Bradshaw was coached not to score. You are mistaken. Tom Coughlin made the decision, Eli Manning relayed that decision to the team, and was literally screaming it at Bradshaw when the ball was handed off. Bill Belichick has also confirmed that he coached the defense to allow the TD.

So to repeat myself, "Two head coached with 5 combined Super Bowl rings agreed that the Giants best chance to win was to run the clock out and attempt a last second field goal. It is that simple. Anyone who disagrees with that is simply wrong."

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/giants/decision_sparks_debate_grVUe9UH7TJBY86UrPSg4K

And since some people are getting a little chippy on here over a simple fact that is already public knowledge.......Seaborn you are completely incompetent and have no business expressing your opinion in this forum. Your opinions are flat out wrong. Please refrain from sharing them in the future.

[seaborneq]

Why would I be drinking at 1:45 EST on a Thursday? Why would the opinion of Coughlin choaching Bradshaw to take a knee seem so shocking to you that you would think I was drinking? What about drinking or my opinion on this particular play have to do with "get a life"? I think you were trying to be funny, but failed.

Back to the discussion at hand however. Ahmad Bradshaw was coached not to score. You are mistaken. Tom Coughlin made the decision, Eli Manning relayed that decision to the team, and was literally screaming it at Bradshaw when the ball was handed off. Bill Belichick has also confirmed that he coached the defense to allow the TD.

So to repeat myself, "Two head coached with 5 combined Super Bowl rings agreed that the Giants best chance to win was to run the clock out and attempt a last second field goal. It is that simple. Anyone who disagrees with that is simply wrong."

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/giants/decision_sparks_debate_grVUe9UH7TJBY86UrPSg4K

And since some people are getting a little chippy on here over a simple fact that is already public knowledge.......Seaborn you are completely incompetent and have no business expressing your opinion in this forum. Your opinions are flat out wrong. Please refrain from sharing them in the future.

Who's getting chippy? I have not called anybody one name in this thread. I've been called a lot of names, but that's what losers resort to doing when they cannot express themselves eloquently. As for you, you are going as far as to tell me not to say anything else like you are some lord or god. You want things to begin and end with your conclusion. You got the wrong one buddy. Find someone you gives two shits about you. you have an opinion and an asshole, just like everyone else in the thread and I could care less what side you are on.

[SparJMU]

Did you seriously just imply that you know how to "express yourself eloquently". You started the ill-will with pathetic jokes about drinking, then telling me to get a life. Neither of those attempts at humor was eloquent.

I am not some "lord or god". I am often wrong and don't always speak like my words are a certainty. However in this case I am right, and my words are a certainty. The article I shared proves this. You started this argument with your incorrect theories about Coughlin wanting "to make a statement". I finished this argument with direct quotes from Giants players and Bill Belichick, proving that every single thing you said was 100% wrong. End of story.

Just apologize and move on.

[poochiecollins]

18 yard fg. he makes it 95 percent of the time. so if you don't let them score you will lose 95 percent of the time. if you let them score, it only has to work 6 percent of the time to be the right decision.

[seaborneq]

Should the Patriots have let the Giants score?
With the Giants having the ball inside the Patriots 10 with just over a minute to go, the Patriots had a decision to make: let the Giants score right away and leave as much time as possible for their offense, or play defense and hope for a turnover or missed field goal.

The math shows that the Patriots were in a deep hole either way.

If they held the Giants out of the end zone and made them attempt a last-second field goal, it would have had a very high likelihood of success.

This season, NFL kickers were 37-for-38 (97.4 percent) on game-tying or go-ahead field attempts from inside of 26 yards (the longest field goal attempt the Giants likely would have ended up with) with under a minute and a half left in the 4th quarter.

On the other hand, the Patriots’ win probability after Bradshaw’s touchdown with 57 seconds remaining was only 3.4 percent.

This is confirmed by historical analysis of similar situations.

The Patriots took over on their own 20, needing a touchdown to win the game and 57 seconds to go 80 yards.

Since 2001, NFL teams beginning a drive between their own 10 and own 30 when trailing by four to eight points (in other words, needing the touchdown) with between 40 seconds and 1:15 left in the fourth quarter have scored a touchdown just twice on 63 such drives, a 3.2 percent success rate.

So essentially the Patriots were choosing between a 2.6 percent chance of winning via a missed field goal (maybe a bit higher if you account for the very small likelihood of a fumbled snap or something like that) and a little bit better than a three percent chance of winning with a game-winning touchdown drive after letting the Giants score.

Either way, the decision had a very small impact on the overall outcome – the Patriots had essentially lost the game on the preceding plays of the Giants’ final drive.

Take this information and see it however you want to see it. I believe what I believe, if you feel you are correct based on this so be it.

[d2bets]

Should the Patriots have let the Giants score?
With the Giants having the ball inside the Patriots 10 with just over a minute to go, the Patriots had a decision to make: let the Giants score right away and leave as much time as possible for their offense, or play defense and hope for a turnover or missed field goal.

The math shows that the Patriots were in a deep hole either way.

If they held the Giants out of the end zone and made them attempt a last-second field goal, it would have had a very high likelihood of success.

This season, NFL kickers were 37-for-38 (97.4 percent) on game-tying or go-ahead field attempts from inside of 26 yards (the longest field goal attempt the Giants likely would have ended up with) with under a minute and a half left in the 4th quarter.

On the other hand, the Patriots’ win probability after Bradshaw’s touchdown with 57 seconds remaining was only 3.4 percent.

This is confirmed by historical analysis of similar situations.

The Patriots took over on their own 20, needing a touchdown to win the game and 57 seconds to go 80 yards.

Since 2001, NFL teams beginning a drive between their own 10 and own 30 when trailing by four to eight points (in other words, needing the touchdown) with between 40 seconds and 1:15 left in the fourth quarter have scored a touchdown just twice on 63 such drives, a 3.2 percent success rate.

So essentially the Patriots were choosing between a 2.6 percent chance of winning via a missed field goal (maybe a bit higher if you account for the very small likelihood of a fumbled snap or something like that) and a little bit better than a three percent chance of winning with a game-winning touchdown drive after letting the Giants score.

Either way, the decision had a very small impact on the overall outcome – the Patriots had essentially lost the game on the preceding plays of the Giants’ final drive.

Take this information and see it however you want to see it. I believe what I believe, if you feel you are correct based on this so be it.

Where did you get that stat from? I'll assume it's correct and still claim first that's a pretty small sample. Second, you won't change my opinion that the Pats had better than a 3.2% chance to score in that situation. 100 chances, they are converting more than 3 times. You also need to account for having 1 TO. TO's are huge in that situation. I think their chances were more like 10%. Just my opinion. These situations don't happen often enough and there are too many variables to prove by empirical evidence.

[seaborneq]

Where did you get that stat from? I'll assume it's correct and still claim first that's a pretty small sample. Second, you won't change my opinion that the Pats had better than a 3.2% chance to score in that situation. 100 chances, they are converting more than 3 times. You also need to account for having 1 TO. TO's are huge in that situation. I think their chances were more like 10%. Just my opinion. These situations don't happen often enough and there are too many variables to prove by empirical evidence.

The elias sports bureau. As I said, it won't and shouldn't change anybody's opinion. You believe the Pats did the right thing, that's all that matters.

[SparJMU]

Seaborn I have been laughing at you this entire time, but now you are starting to frustrate me. You and I have not been arguing about winning percentages in the two scenarios. My statement was very simple: Tom Coughlin and Bill Belickick both agreed on the most advantageous approach in that situation. I stated two simple facts:

1) Coughlin, via Manning, ordered Bradshaw to go down at the 1, and
2) Belichick ordered the Patriots to let them score.

You responded to this by asking if I was drunk, and telling me to get a life. You "eloquently" rambled some ridiculous concept that Tom Coughlin wanted a TD because he wanted to make a statement. I proceeded to prove you 100% wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt. You responded by changing the subject to winning percentages.

Please please please please just admit that you are completely wrong about Coughlin and Belichick. Admit you were completely wrong to disagree with my statement. And admit you were completely wrong to ask me if I was drinking and telling me to get a life. Once those 3 apologies are finished with, we can let this argument fade away forever.

[seaborneq]

Seaborn I have been laughing at you this entire time, but now you are starting to frustrate me. You and I have not been arguing about winning percentages in the two scenarios. My statement was very simple: Tom Coughlin and Bill Belickick both agreed on the most advantageous approach in that situation. I stated two simple facts:

1) Coughlin, via Manning, ordered Bradshaw to go down at the 1, and
2) Belichick ordered the Patriots to let them score.

You responded to this by asking if I was drunk, and telling me to get a life. You "eloquently" rambled some ridiculous concept that Tom Coughlin wanted a TD because he wanted to make a statement. I proceeded to prove you 100% wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt. You responded by changing the subject to winning percentages.

Please please please please just admit that you are completely wrong about Coughlin and Belichick. Admit you were completely wrong to disagree with my statement. And admit you were completely wrong to ask me if I was drinking and telling me to get a life. Once those 3 apologies are finished with, we can let this argument fade away forever.

Hold your breath. You won't be getting an apology from me for my opinion. If you think you are right stand by it, don't worry about my opinion and keep on walking.

[SparJMU]

Holy crap I give up. If I told you that in my opinion the Patriots won the Super Bowl and Chad Ochocinco won the MVP, you would tell me I was wrong. I couldn't then defend that position by saying it was my opinion. There is a right answer and a wrong answer. Opinion has nothing to do with it.

If you watched the game you saw Bradshaw coached to take a knee, however his momentum carried him. If you read the article you saw that Coughlin ordered him to go down. If you read the article you saw that Belichick ordered the defense to let them score. Yet somehow, without an ounce of factual evidence or logical thought, you are going to tell me I am wrong.

You sir are one in a million. I sincerely hope that we never interact again.

[poochiecollins]

Should the Patriots have let the Giants score? With the Giants having the ball inside the Patriots 10 with just over a minute to go, the Patriots had a decision to make: let the Giants score right away and leave as much time as possible for their offense, or play defense and hope for a turnover or missed field goal. The math shows that the Patriots were in a deep hole either way. If they held the Giants out of the end zone and made them attempt a last-second field goal, it would have had a very high likelihood of success. This season, NFL kickers were 37-for-38 (97.4 percent) on game-tying or go-ahead field attempts from inside of 26 yards (the longest field goal attempt the Giants likely would have ended up with) with under a minute and a half left in the 4th quarter. On the other hand, the Patriots’ win probability after Bradshaw’s touchdown with 57 seconds remaining was only 3.4 percent. This is confirmed by historical analysis of similar situations. The Patriots took over on their own 20, needing a touchdown to win the game and 57 seconds to go 80 yards. Since 2001, NFL teams beginning a drive between their own 10 and own 30 when trailing by four to eight points (in other words, needing the touchdown) with between 40 seconds and 1:15 left in the fourth quarter have scored a touchdown just twice on 63 such drives, a 3.2 percent success rate. So essentially the Patriots were choosing between a 2.6 percent chance of winning via a missed field goal (maybe a bit higher if you account for the very small likelihood of a fumbled snap or something like that) and a little bit better than a three percent chance of winning with a game-winning touchdown drive after letting the Giants score. Either way, the decision had a very small impact on the overall outcome – the Patriots had essentially lost the game on the preceding plays of the Giants’ final drive. Take this information and see it however you want to see it. I believe what I believe, if you feel you are correct based on this so be it.

Seaborneq, don't plagiarize. Here's the article: http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/po...-opportunities

The percentages shouldn't be taken to the letter for several reasons:
* The Giants had a much higher chance of winning than 74% the play before the Bradshaw touchdown, as per the formula cited in the full article. As the writer said, it was the plays leading up to the score that put the Giants into overwhelmingly-likely-to-win territory.
* That percentage of touchdown drives in the final ~minute of the game is an average of all the teams involved. The Patriots' offense was better than the Giants' defense. Similar to what another poster above me said, if that scenario were played in 100 alternate universes, the Patriots definitely score a TD more than three times. I agree with ~10% chance. If the Patriots allowed the Giants to score a play earlier and/or didn't burn a timeout on a challenge, that percentage might be significantly higher.