Tonight's Sunday night game between Dallas and NYG is an example of why I absolutely hate "conventional wisdom" which at times is anything but. Bear with me because I'm going to attempt to break this down mathematically and logically and it might be long-winded.
Situation: Giants have the ball with 1:37 left, 4th down and 1 at the Cowboy 1, up by 3 (starting point here, 3rd down is done. No sense debating whether or not they should have pass or run on 3rd down, that's an entirely different discussion and not the point of this. Let's assume what's done is done and it's 4th down)
So, kick a FG here? Really? Conventional wisdom, apparently, says yes. Cris and Al both said yes. Let's assume that the 4th and goal had a 50/50 chance of being converted, and the FG had 100% chance of being converted.
So if you go for it, you have a 50/50 shot of winning it right there, and if you fail, you can STILL stop them if you prevent them from going 70 yards in 1:30. They have the ball backed up on their own 1! Even if they do so (the odds of them going 99 yards in 1:30 are a great deal lower), they have only TIED the game and sent it to overtime.
So instead, you kick the FG. Congrats, you got points. Now you're up 6. Figure a kickoff return to about the 30 (it was the 28), and now the Cowboys have the same amount of time they would have had anyway, and now need to travel the same 70 yards, only now those 70 yards will not just tie the game, but give them a win! One could argue that you have given yourself LESS of a chance to win the game by kicking the FG than failing on 4th down, and you had a 50/50 shot to make it and wrap up the win right there!
Absolute mathematical and logical fail on the part of Tom Coughlin, and what's frustrating is that most coaches would have made the same choice because they somehow at their level do not approach these decisions from an odds-based standpoint.
Situation: Giants have the ball with 1:37 left, 4th down and 1 at the Cowboy 1, up by 3 (starting point here, 3rd down is done. No sense debating whether or not they should have pass or run on 3rd down, that's an entirely different discussion and not the point of this. Let's assume what's done is done and it's 4th down)
So, kick a FG here? Really? Conventional wisdom, apparently, says yes. Cris and Al both said yes. Let's assume that the 4th and goal had a 50/50 chance of being converted, and the FG had 100% chance of being converted.
So if you go for it, you have a 50/50 shot of winning it right there, and if you fail, you can STILL stop them if you prevent them from going 70 yards in 1:30. They have the ball backed up on their own 1! Even if they do so (the odds of them going 99 yards in 1:30 are a great deal lower), they have only TIED the game and sent it to overtime.
So instead, you kick the FG. Congrats, you got points. Now you're up 6. Figure a kickoff return to about the 30 (it was the 28), and now the Cowboys have the same amount of time they would have had anyway, and now need to travel the same 70 yards, only now those 70 yards will not just tie the game, but give them a win! One could argue that you have given yourself LESS of a chance to win the game by kicking the FG than failing on 4th down, and you had a 50/50 shot to make it and wrap up the win right there!
Absolute mathematical and logical fail on the part of Tom Coughlin, and what's frustrating is that most coaches would have made the same choice because they somehow at their level do not approach these decisions from an odds-based standpoint.