Decline penalty let cowboys kick FG in 1st qtr ? (1 Viewer)

[Jackavelli]

I'm sure this was discussed on board but what was logic in declining penalty ? Thx.

 

[Nolan]

They still would have been in FG range had we accepted it, and given a chance to convert a third and 15+ and maintain possession for a potential TD. 100% the right call.

 

[ndcc]

They still would have been in FG range had we accepted it, and given a chance to convert a third and 15+ and maintain possession for a potential TD. 100% the right call.

this. ^^

 

[bclemms]

They still would have been in FG range had we accepted it, and given a chance to convert a third and 15+ and maintain possession for a potential TD. 100% the right call.

This. It was a no brainer. Bailey has been good between 40-50 yards over the last two seasons at a remarkable rate of 92.9%. The penalty would have made it a 47 yard FG giving him a 7% chance of missing if we accepted the penalty and stopped the Cowboys on 3rd and 16 for little or no gain. Meanwhile, 3rd and 16 and the Cowboys run about a 15% success rate in getting the first down. There is also about a 50% chance they will get 10 yards leaving them in the exact same situation. So really there was a 15% chance of them getting a first and only 7% chance of them missing and that is if we stopped them for no gain.

 

[whodat42]

They still would have been in FG range had we accepted it, and given a chance to convert a third and 15+ and maintain possession for a potential TD. 100% the right call.

100% correct.

 

[mmule]

This. It was a no brainer. Bailey has been good between 40-50 yards over the last two seasons at a remarkable rate of 92.9%. The penalty would have made it a 47 yard FG giving him a 7% chance of missing if we accepted the penalty and stopped the Cowboys on 3rd and 16 for little or no gain. Meanwhile, 3rd and 16 and the Cowboys run about a 15% success rate in getting the first down. There is also about a 50% chance they will get 10 yards leaving them in the exact same situation. So really there was a 15% chance of them getting a first and only 7% chance of them missing and that is if we stopped them for no gain.

My brain is about to explode.

 

[lapaz]

This. It was a no brainer. Bailey has been good between 40-50 yards over the last two seasons at a remarkable rate of 92.9%. The penalty would have made it a 47 yard FG giving him a 7% chance of missing if we accepted the penalty and stopped the Cowboys on 3rd and 16 for little or no gain. Meanwhile, 3rd and 16 and the Cowboys run about a 15% success rate in getting the first down. There is also about a 50% chance they will get 10 yards leaving them in the exact same situation. So really there was a 15% chance of them getting a first and only 7% chance of them missing and that is if we stopped them for no gain.

Good analysis, and I generally agree, but it doesn't account for the possibility of a negative play to take them completely out of field goal range. In a known passing down, we would've put a lot of pressure on, so it must be at least a 8% chance of a negative play.

 

[bclemms]

Good analysis, and I generally agree, but it doesn't account for the possibility of a negative play to take them completely out of field goal range. In a known passing down, we would've put a lot of pressure on, so it must be at least a 8% chance of a negative play.

It also doesn't account for the possibility of a penalty giving them an automatic first down. Would you trust the refs in that situation to not throw a flag if we are playing Bryant physical one yard too far down the field? Besides, Bailey has been 70% from 50+ so even if we get the negative play chances are he still makes the FG from 53 yards (our average sack this season has been for -6 yards).

 

[greg985]

Good analysis, and I generally agree, but it doesn't account for the possibility of a negative play to take them completely out of field goal range. In a known passing down, we would've put a lot of pressure on, so it must be at least a 8% chance of a negative play.

I would be willing to bet that on 3rd and more than 10 Ryan (along with most other DC's) would not blitz in anticipation of some kind of screen pass or draw. Which is the prefect play call against heavy pressure. I did a quick Google search on Ryan's 3rd and long blitz percentage and couldn't find anything. But I bet a 3rd and long blitz isn't that common. So the chances of a negative play (sack or tackle for loss) was not high.

 

[saintsfan342000]

Everybody listen to this podcast. Downs are paramount.
The Advanced NFL Stats Podcast : The Advanced NFL Stats Podcast - Brian Burke

 

[ynneb]

I was more concerned with Garrett Hartley missing a very makable field goal.
If he makes it we lay a 50 burger on the Alice Cowgirls.

 

[Bulletproof Tiger]

agree with bclemms...

As soon as the turnover happens the first through through my head was "please only give up three points." Using a blackjack analogy, getting them to fourth down was getting two face cards.... 20. You don't split tens, bruh

 

[LUX]

In a dome, kickers can nail 50+ yards almost all day. Sure, there is the possibility to miss, but in a dome, not sure why teams with good kickers try for 60 yards. Kickers used to be very important and they used to hit 50+ a lot. That's rare in this day and age...

 

[fahad]

They still would have been in FG range had we accepted it, and given a chance to convert a third and 15+ and maintain possession for a potential TD. 100% the right call.

I am with you 100%. you are right.
There is no point of taking a risk of giving them another shot to convert the 3rd down.

 

[St. Geezy]

Field goals don't beat the Saints at home in the dome, especially in primetime. It was the right call to concede there. We knew going in we were going to score in bunches.