Can someone who understands football explain why we didnt kick the field goal?

[stoicsentry]

Im not blaming the game on that, but that's JV football common knowledge. I thought we were done with this nonsense with Herm. You cant win the game there on 4th down. You need to extend the football game.

Im not blaming the game on that, but that's JV football common knowledge. I thought we were done with this nonsense with Herm. You cant win the game there on 4th down. You need to extend the football game.

That might be true if you were down 3, and the question is: go for the win or the tie there? You go for the tie and extend the game.

The phrase 'extending the game' is irrelevant here - because you NEED the TD + the FG one way or another.

[Matt39]

That might be true if you were down 3, and the question is: go for the win or the tie there? You go for the tie and extend the game.

The phrase 'extending the game' is irrelevant here - because you NEED the TD + the FG one way or another.

Which is exactly why you kick the field goal!

[Irish Jet]

30 yards in 50 seconds is hardly a miracle.

It wasnt the reason we lost...its just scary to know our head coach doesnt understand basic clock management.

I know, 65 yards is. That's what it would have been. 30 is what it would take to get into FG range.

And...THE CLOCK WAS RUNNING. It would have taken longer to get the FG unit out than go for it, so you're wasting even more time doing that.

[bLguerriero1]

i have to agree with irish.. u have 49 seconds.. gettin a fg team on and kickin is prolly 20 seconds.. not giving yourself enough time for a possible come back... goin for the td was just plain faster

thats just the stuff that happens when you have to think on the run and cant spare a second to think things over

[Larz]

I honestly don't even know what I was thinking. Hadn't worn my Timbs in quite some time and it was raining all day, figured what the hell. By the time Janikowski tied it up at the half I realized what I'd done.

well, truth be told, neither of my kids had their gameday jersies on, I think that explains cromartie today anyway

[hoping4ASuperBowl]

Disorganization, unpreparedness, and stupidity, all rolled into a big bowl of wrong. By no means do you go for a win when you're down by two scores, under a minute to go, no time outs, you're within that distance of the uprights, and you need the onside kick anyways. By far one of the all-time stupidest calls I've ever seen a Jet coach make.

ummm.....are you sure?

[Maxman]

The field goal was the way to go....getting that close on the 3rd down play changed it up. And potentially cost them...still a long shot with the onside kick in the way but it would have been nice to keep the game alive.

[Sperm Edwards]

The field goal was the way to go....getting that close on the 3rd down play changed it up. And potentially cost them...still a long shot with the onside kick in the way but it would have been nice to keep the game alive.

Easy to say in hindsight. Then if they kick the FG, get the onside kick, and run out of time after getting into (what would have been) FG range, everyone would be killing Rex for trying to get a 2-yard TD and 50-yard FG instead of a 19-yard FG and what would likely be a Hail Mary pass.

Either way, you need to convert 2 of 2. The likelihood of both being converted is greater by going for the TD first IMO.

[hoping4ASuperBowl]

At that point does it really matter at that point? We needed more than a TD and with the amount of time left it would have been near impossible to make up 10 points that fast.

I have a better question, why didn't Rex bench Cro earlier considering how much he was helping the other team. I think Cro cashed his check early when he had that 2 INT performance last week. We got a lot of season left to play Cro, step up your game asshat.

[jason423]

You never go for the TD there. Never. The Jets screwed up. It probably would not have made a difference anyway but you have to give yourself a chance and the Jets didnt do it.

[jason423]

Easy to say in hindsight. Then if they kick the FG, get the onside kick, and run out of time after getting into (what would have been) FG range, everyone would be killing Rex for trying to get a 2-yard TD and 50-yard FG instead of a 19-yard FG and what would likely be a Hail Mary pass.

Either way, you need to convert 2 of 2. The likelihood of both being converted is greater by going for the TD first IMO.

The criticism of Rex in that spot would have been for not going for the FG as soon as they made the big pass to Keller. To be honest that was actually the first thought that came into my head, but I think you only do that if you are beyond the 2 minute warning and can get the ball back even if you miss the ohside attempt so going for the score to pull within 3 is right for the reasons you mentioned. But once it comes to 4th down you have to give yourself the extra play. The Jets didnt do it for whatever reason. It wasnt going to make a difference anyway since the onside odds are so low, but I think its just points out the 1 problem with Rex and his lack of preparation for these types of game scenarios.

[BornJetsFan1983]

yeah it was right call, damn i thought sanchez had it at first

[RutgersJetFan]

It wasnt going to make a difference anyway since the onside odds are so low, but I think its just points out the 1 problem with Rex and his lack of preparation for these types of game scenarios.

This. The onsides probability changes everything. Factoring in getting to the point of even getting to the second drive is exactly why you take the FG. You're looking at .999 times p(onsides) or whatever you give Sanchez in that situation times p(onsides). Given the latter it's not even a contest.

[Sperm Edwards]

The criticism of Rex in that spot would have been for not going for the FG as soon as they made the big pass to Keller. To be honest that was actually the first thought that came into my head, but I think you only do that if you are beyond the 2 minute warning and can get the ball back even if you miss the ohside attempt so going for the score to pull within 3 is right for the reasons you mentioned. But once it comes to 4th down you have to give yourself the extra play. The Jets didnt do it for whatever reason. It wasnt going to make a difference anyway since the onside odds are so low, but I think its just points out the 1 problem with Rex and his lack of preparation for these types of game scenarios.

That's a better argument to me. If you need a TD and have the opportunity for a do-or-die play from the 2 I think you take it. It's basically a 2-point conversion play, which has almost 50/50 success. If you snap a FG attempt from the 2 and then manage to recover an onside kick, you're going to eat 15-20 seconds lining up for the kick, leaving under 30 seconds to get a TD.

I understand the logic, which is essentially to get what sure points you can get when you can. But that logic ignores likelihood of outcomes. Some would rather take the shot on a roughly 50/50 odds on 4th & 2 (same as a 2-point conversion), followed by odds of going 30 yards in 40 seconds, followed by a FG anywhere from 40-something to 50-something yards. Others would rather take the sure FG (even for Folk) plus the odds of going 60 yards into the endzone in 25-30 seconds with no timeouts and everyone knowing you're passing on every down.

In the end, the odds are probably slightly greater the way Rex went, but not off-the-charts greater. The best odds, I'd guess, is kicking the FG with a minute & a half left. Hard to turn away a shot at the endzone, though, when you've got 1st & goal from the 9. At a minimum they probably had to prepare to not throw to anyone who isn't already in the EZ or who can't get out of bounds.

It's all pontificating anyway, since the odds of any of these outcomes is extremely low. The thing to do is to not be in that situation in the first place.

[Sperm Edwards]

This. The onsides probability changes everything. Factoring in getting to the point of even getting to the second drive is exactly why you take the FG. You're looking at .999 times p(onsides) or whatever you give Sanchez in that situation times p(onsides). Given the latter it's not even a contest.

What do you think the odds are, percentage-wise, of Sanchez marching the team 60 yards for a TD, in under 30 seconds, with no timeouts?

[RutgersJetFan]

What do you think the odds are, percentage-wise, of Sanchez marching the team 60 yards for a TD, in under 30 seconds, with no timeouts?

The odds for him doing anything today were low. Scoring from a few yards out was low. Scoring a TD off an onsides kick would have been low. Driving them into FG range would have been low. This is why you go for the FG in that instance; because he's bad, and you're in an immediate position to extend the game in spite of him.

[THE ILK]

What do you think the odds are, percentage-wise, of Sanchez marching the team 60 yards for a TD, in under 30 seconds, with no timeouts?

63.2%?

[Sperm Edwards]

The odds for him doing anything today were low. Scoring from a few yards out was low. Scoring a TD off an onsides kick would have been low. Driving them into FG range would have been low. This is why you go for the FG in that instance; because he's bad, and you're in an immediate position to extend the game in spite of him.

Scoring from the 2 is like a 2-point conversion. League-wide average is almost 50/50.

[RutgersJetFan]

But that logic ignores likelihood of outcomes. Some would rather take the shot on a roughly 50/50 odds on 4th & 2 (same as a 2-point conversion), followed by odds of going 30 yards in 40 seconds, followed by a FG anywhere from 40-something to 50-something yards. Others would rather take the sure FG (even for Folk) plus the odds of going 60 yards into the endzone in 25-30 seconds with no timeouts and everyone knowing you're passing on every down.

The reason this comes off as correct is because you're ignoring the onsides probability. Again, you can multiply that by 1 or multiply that by Sanchez. You saw how the latter turned out. You'd really stick with those odds?

[RutgersJetFan]

Scoring from the 2 is like a 2-point conversion. League-wide average is almost 50/50.

.5 is generous for him, but very well. .5 x .12 or .999 x .12?

[Sperm Edwards]

The reason this comes off as correct is because you're ignoring the onsides probability. Again, you can multiply that by 1 or multiply that by Sanchez. You saw how the latter turned out. You'd really stick with those odds?

If you want to be optimistic:

4th & 2: 45%

onside kick: 30%

drive 30 yds into FG range in 40+ seconds: 50% (the optimistic odds)

Folk 45-55yd FG: 50%

Total: 3-4%

vs

chip-shot FG: >99%

onside kick: 30%

drive 60 yds for a TD in (at best, if Folk and everyone line up insanely fast) 30-40 seconds: 5% (or insert your own ridiculously-low odds. I doubt there's even the 1 in 20 chance I used to get into the endzone in that timeframe).

Total: 1-2%

[Sperm Edwards]

.5 is generous for him, but very well. .5 x .12 or .999 x .12?

Huh? You ascribe the same odds of getting into FG range and kicking the FG with driving all the way for a TD?

If that were the case there would be no FG's attempted in the NFL.

[RutgersJetFan]

If you want to be optimistic:

4th & 2: 45%

onside kick: 30%

drive 30 yds into FG range in 40+ seconds: 50% (the optimistic odds)

Folk 45-55yd FG: 50%

Total: 3-4%

vs

chip-shot FG: >99%

onside kick: 30%

drive 60 yds for a TD in (at best, if Folk and everyone line up insanely fast) 30-40 seconds: 5% (or insert your own ridiculously-low odds. I doubt there's even the 1 in 20 chance I used to get into the endzone in that timeframe).

Total: 1-2%

That's the problem, you have to get the ball back first. You ready to gamble .06 up against .12? I need to bring you on blackjack trips.

[RutgersJetFan]

Huh? You equate getting into FG range and kicking the FG with driving all the way for a TD?

If that were the case there would be no FG's attempted in the NFL.

No, those are the odds of even getting the ball back with a chance to win or tie.

[Sperm Edwards]

No, those are the odds of even getting the ball back with a chance to win or tie.

The odds of that are 25-30%. Last stat I read is 1/3.5 success for an onside kick but even that's rounding off.

Either way, you're ascribing the same likely success rate for driving 30 yards and kicking a FG with no timeouts vs. driving 60 yards for a TD (with at least 10 fewer seconds on the clock) with no timeouts.

That is why you think it "isn't close" as to the right decision. The likelihood of FG success in that case has to be at least 5x greater than crossing the goal line. Quick strike offense lining up for a last-second, successful, long FG seems to happen every other week. But Hail Mary passes, which would surely be required in this case -- how often are those successful? Maybe one time every other season, or once every 500 games. There have been a handful since the millennium began and fewer than 20 in NFL history since the merger.

[Sperm Edwards]

No, those are the odds of even getting the ball back with a chance to win or tie.

Yes, and then you're ascribing equal odds from that point onward. But those odds are anything but equal. They're even far more lopsided than the odds of converting a 4th & 2 compared to kicking the chip-shot FG.

[Sperm Edwards]

That's the problem, you have to get the ball back first. You ready to gamble .06 up against .12? I need to bring you on blackjack trips.

It doesn't matter. You still have to convert both a FG and a TD either way. Once scenario gives you a realistic chance. The other does not IMO.

You are comparing this fabricated .06 vs .12 because you are ascribing the same odds of getting 7 points with maybe 30 seconds left vs scoring 3 points with 10 additional seconds.

[RutgersJetFan]

The odds of that are 25-30%. Last stat I read is 1/3.5 success for an onside kick but even that's rounding off.

Either way, you're ascribing the same likely success rate for driving 30 yards and kicking a FG with no timeouts vs. driving 60 yards for a TD (with at least 10 fewer seconds on the clock) with no timeouts.

No, I'm really not. In fact those odds aren't even figured into that at all. Everything starts and ends with putting yourself in a position to even get the second score. The odds of that happening if you go for a chip shot vs if you go for the TD are monumentally different.

But Hail Mary passes, which would surely be required in this case -- how often are those successful?

Oh now who's being the indifferent one.

[RutgersJetFan]

Yes, and then you're ascribing equal odds from that point onward. But those odds are anything but equal.

Again, no I'm not. Either you're misinterpreting what I'm saying or you've gone Klecko.

[RutgersJetFan]

You are comparing this fabricated .06 vs .12 because you are ascribing the same odds of getting 7 points with maybe 30 seconds left vs scoring 3 points with 10 additional seconds.

Oh, my bad, I wasn't aware that I had to figure in the OC being a moron as well.

[Sperm Edwards]

Again, no I'm not. Either you're misinterpreting what I'm saying or you've gone Klecko.

What are you talking about?

You're taking the odds of 4th & 2 plus the odds of the onside kick and comparing them to the odds of a chipshot FG plus an onside kick. And you stopped there.

Therefore you have removed from your equation what happens after that. You ignored comparing the likelihood of starting ~55 yards from the EZ and kicking a FG in 40 seconds with no timeouts (vs.) the likelihood of a 55-yard TD drive in 30 seconds with no timeouts.

And that is the whole crux of choosing one over the other. No one disputes that a chipshot FG is easier than converting a 4th & goal from the 2.

[Maxman]

Are we really using decimals to break down this game? I don't like using decimals until after the Jets have lost their 4th game of the year.

[RutgersJetFan]

What are you talking about?

You're taking the odds of 4th & 2 plus the odds of the onside kick and comparing them to the odds of a chipshot FG plus an onside kick. And you stopped there.

Therefore you have removed from your equation what happens after that.

Right, that's my point. Not sure why you're harping on me for this when I've admitted it several times over. Option Folk vs Option El Guapo are so astronomically different that the latter isn't worth considering. Res ipsa loquitur. You saw what happened with the latter. Better to put yourself in a position to get the second score than eliminating it altogether.

[Sperm Edwards]

Are we really using decimals to break down this game? I don't like using decimals until after the Jets have lost their 4th game of the year.

He started it.

Also I might worry more if this criticism wasn't coming from someone who weighs 3000 tenths of a pound.

[RutgersJetFan]

Are we really using decimals to break down this game? I don't like using decimals until after the Jets have lost their 4th game of the year.

Relax. We're only .1875 games into the season.