Possible to score too soon?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Dallas only had one timeout left after Lacy took it to the Dall 1.

Do it once to get Dallas to burn their final timeout.


I really am alarmed at the number of people who think that the Packers scoring quickly can be a good thing for both the Packers and the Cowboys. Only one team gets to win, anything that increases the odds of one team winning decreases the odds of the other team winning.

[woodbuck27]

Do it once to get Dallas to burn their final timeout.


I really am alarmed at the number of people who think that the Packers scoring quickly can be a good thing for both the Packers and the Cowboys. Only one team gets to win, anything that increases the odds of one team winning decreases the odds of the other team winning.

You know what's really strange and some:

Some see it and simply forget to examine it for a better way.

For going on two decades I worked in the Canadian nuclear Power Industry ending with over a decade spent as a trouble shooter in a power plant.

We studied ways to work. We discovered improved ways to get the job done right which means more than 'just getting the job done'.

That way often translates to less error in the future and as an added bonus ... less repeated error.

[woodbuck27]

That is a very foolish comment.

Wasn't his post at least thought provoking?

[red]

i'll bring up something that no one else has

a QB kneeling down also results in a loss of a yard or two

if we had knelt one time, to get them to burn a timeout then its second and goal from the 3 or so

if we take a knee again to run some time off the clock we lose another yard or so

3rd and goal from the 4, against a defense that is no trying to stop you

now keep in mind, OUR REDZONE OFFENSE FUCKING SUCKS THIS YEAR. an example is our failed 2 point attempt 1 play after the score

no thank you. take the points when you can. it was the right thing for the cowboys d to let us score, and it was the right thing for our offense to take that gift

imo

[MJZiggy]

heres an idea

you take a knee let the clock run down. the cowboys are then gonna try and stop you when they know you're really going to try. on the next play, you line up like your going to kneel it, lull them to sleep, and run a qb sneak

honestly, i agree with hoosier. if you take a knee on the play where they are trying to let you score they are gonna change their mentality. all you've done is waste an opportunity to score. instead of 4 tries for a TD, you now only have 3

No, because the part you're forgetting is that in a game of inches, when you take a knee, you lose a yard on the exchange. You've now put yourself in a situation of having to move a yard further with one less attempt. You're making a huge assumption that you can move the ball any distance you choose. If on that second play, Dallas comes back and blows you up in the backfield, you've cost yourself the goal line and possibly the game.

[red]

well i just got done saying that now didn't i?

look above you^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

typical of a woman not paying attention to her surroundings

[pbmax]

Do it once to get Dallas to burn their final timeout.


I really am alarmed at the number of people who think that the Packers scoring quickly can be a good thing for both the Packers and the Cowboys. Only one team gets to win, anything that increases the odds of one team winning decreases the odds of the other team winning.

You are simply confusing yourself by not comparing apples to apples. The Packers need to score. Dallas wants more clock. You simply forget to factor in the null case, where nothing happens or changes. The Packers lose no matter how much time the burn not scoring.

You imagine the Packers chances of winning improve with less time left, which is true but is a much smaller factor than the fact that they currently DO NOT HAVE THE LEAD!

[Joemailman]

Do it once to get Dallas to burn their final timeout.


I really am alarmed at the number of people who think that the Packers scoring quickly can be a good thing for both the Packers and the Cowboys. Only one team gets to win, anything that increases the odds of one team winning decreases the odds of the other team winning.

The problem with your argument is that the 2 teams are not on equal footing before the play is run. The Packers are behind. They need to score a touchdown. Period. That need is a bigger consideration than anything else. So it makes sense for them to take the touchdown whenever the opportunity presents itself. The Cowboys can play probabilities though. With the Packers having 1st and goal at the 1, the odds are strongly against them stopping the Packers from scoring. But the sooner the Packers score, the more time they have to move into field goal range.

Edit: PB beat me to the argument.

[bobblehead]

Then GB was foolish to score. This is not an opinion, it is the logic any zero-sum-game.

You are confusing the situation by arguing that any given outcome is part of a chain of desired outcomes in a strategy. I would go one step further, and say that because it is a zero-sum-game, you also have to analyse how the outcome affects the strategy for the other team.

You can do all the analysis that you want and justify why any particular decision is foolish. But you can't escape the fact that a desirable outcome for one team must be an undesirable outcome for the other. Or put another way, if two teams in a zero-sum-game are seeking the same outcome, one MUST be making a foolish choice.

This actually is a math problem. %chance to stop a score in 4 chances vs. %chance to take the kickoff and score a field goal. That is Dallas choice and somewhere some mathematician will figure it out for you (with assumptions that are hard to quantify).

GB must figure %chance to score in 1 try, 2 try, 3 try (each one weighed by dallas chance to score FG based on time left on the clock). GB could run it to 1 second and then try to score in 1 try right? But is it wise. Well, depends on your chances of doing that vs. Dallas chances of scoring by getting the ball back.

In the end the actual math based on league averages could be calculated to give you the "right" answer, but as I said in the 4th down bot, league averages aren't right in every situation, they are averages and thus not a good basis for calculation in THIS instance. That is why coaches make decisions in a game and might make different decisions from one game to the next. What they believe to be their chance to march for a FG right now might be very different than what they think their chances are next week. same goes for actually stopping us in 4 tries.

[bobblehead]

i take the points when you can. it was the right thing for the cowboys d to let us score, and it was the right thing for our offense to take that gift

imo

Your "opinion" is factually incorrect as HH stated. It can NOT be possible for it to be best for us AND them. They are known as mutually exclusive possibilities (events) and therefore can't be (mathematically speaking). If it was best for us to score it simply could NOT be best for Dallas IF we score. Does that make sense?

[bobblehead]

The problem with your argument is that the 2 teams are not on equal footing before the play is run. The Packers are behind. They need to score a touchdown. Period. That need is a bigger consideration than anything else. So it makes sense for them to take the touchdown whenever the opportunity presents itself. The Cowboys can play probabilities though. With the Packers having 1st and goal at the 1, the odds are strongly against them stopping the Packers from scoring. But the sooner the Packers score, the more time they have to move into field goal range.

Edit: PB beat me to the argument.

You should have let him, then only one person would be wrong.

[Joemailman]

Your "opinion" is factually incorrect as HH stated. It can NOT be possible for it to be best for us AND them. They are known as mutually exclusive possibilities (events) and therefore can't be (mathematically speaking). If it was best for us to score it simply could NOT be best for Dallas IF we score. Does that make sense?

I don't think I said the best thing for Dallas was for the Packers to score. But given the unlikelihood that the Packers could be stopped from scoring with 1st and goal from the 1, it made sense for Dallas to allow the Packers to score so that Dallas could get the ball back. It also made sense for the Packers to try to score, because they absolutely must have a touchdown.

[hoosier]

Do it once to get Dallas to burn their final timeout.


I really am alarmed at the number of people who think that the Packers scoring quickly can be a good thing for both the Packers and the Cowboys. Only one team gets to win, anything that increases the odds of one team winning decreases the odds of the other team winning.

What if Dallas is making a mistake by trying to let Lacy score? What if they are willing to concede the TD on 1st and goal from the 1 but would change their strategy on 2nd and goal? Is 2nd and goal still a gimme TD for the Packers in that situation? If so then it's clearly right to make Dallas burn their last TO. If it is no longer a gimme then I think you have to use all four of your shots at the TD.

[pbmax]

The proposition of Dallas allowing the Packers to score and the Packers attempting to score are not two sides of the same discrete decision. They are NOT mutually exclusive.

One contemplates a scenario in which they Packers WILL score a TD.

The other contemplates the possibility that a TD is no sure thing.

And each is a fair representation of the situation for decision-making purposes. Dallas has reason to expect the Packers to try to score as they are behind. The Packers cannot know if the Cowboys will actively resist on 1st down. Each subsequent down, it becomes more attractive to resist the TD attempt if the previous play resulted in no score.

[hoosier]

For going on two decades I worked in the Canadian nuclear Power Industry ending with over a decade spent as a trouble shooter in a power plant.

We studied ways to work. We discovered improved ways to get the job done

That is truly a frightening thought.