Possible to score too soon?

[MadtownPacker]

I wouldn't trust Mad's spanish. He went to night school and got a B.

Been a while since I busted this one out. No mejor tiempo que en presento.

[pbmax]

If it is a reasonable strategy for Dallas to let pack score, then it is an equally reasonable strategy that the Packers should delay scoring.

Nope the options are unequal. For every down the Packers waste, the Cowboys have more incentive NOT to let them score. The more time you waste, the more difficult you will find it to score based on opposition.

But mainly they are unequal because a FG would not do it, they HAD to have a TD and that is no sure thing even with four downs. A FG on fourth down is a reasonable risk. A TD attempt on fourth down is too large a risk.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Nope the options are unequal. For every down the Packers waste, the Cowboys have more incentive NOT to let them score. The more time you waste, the more difficult you will find it to score based on opposition.

But mainly they are unequal because a FG would not do it, they HAD to have a TD and that is no sure thing even with four downs. A FG on fourth down is a reasonable risk. A TD attempt on fourth down is too large a risk.

I think you are over-thinking this. We have a zero sum game. One team's increased chance of winning is matched exactly by the other team's decreased chances of winning.

If it's true that an action by Dallas on a particular down increases their chances of winning, by definition GB should prevent that action from happening. Further analysis just muddies the water.

[pbmax]

I think you are over-thinking this. We have a zero sum game. One team's increased chance of winning is matched exactly by the other team's decreased chances of winning.

If it's true that an action by Dallas on a particular down increases their chances of winning, by definition GB should prevent that action from happening. Further analysis just muddies the water.

I don't know where you come by your analytical skills, but why does zero sum allow you to think one-dimensionally?

There are several more plays to be run, the clock is a factor as is scoring. And you cannot predict the outcome (scoring) by the choice (play call). The priority of the three variables (four if you count possession) has to be to score.

[Harlan Huckleby]

There are several more plays to be run, the clock is a factor as is scoring. And you cannot predict the outcome (scoring) by the choice (play call). The priority of the three variables (four if you count possession) has to be to score.

There are many factors to consider, including game flow, how the defenses are playing. The correct decision here is debatable. The priority is to score, but that doesn't mean you ignore the clock, and the odds of Dallas coming back with a field goal. Leaving yourself with 3 downs to score is a good trade-off for burning Dallas's last timeout, IMO. It's a judgement call.

You are suggesting that there is a right answer, and Dallas was foolish to allow GB to score. You can't have it both ways. It can not both be smart for GB to try to score and smart for Dallas to allow a score.

[pbmax]

There are many factors to consider, including game flow, how the defenses are playing. The correct decision here is debatable. The priority is to score, but that doesn't mean you ignore the clock, and the odds of Dallas coming back with a field goal. Leaving yourself with 3 downs to score is a good trade-off for burning Dallas's last timeout, IMO. It's a judgement call.

You are suggesting that there is a right answer, and Dallas was foolish to allow GB to score. You can't have it both ways. It can not both be smart for GB to try to score and smart for Dallas to allow a score.

They are probabilities, not right answers. If I insists that one choice is superior, its not because its foolproof, but because I believe all other options are poorer than my choice.

Dallas was not foolish to allow GB to score. GB had to score to take the lead, so ANY time left benefitted Dallas, including the remote though real chance that GB doesn't score. GB was not foolish to score immediately. The status quo does not win you the game. You must have a TD and the lead for the clock to become an important consideration. Without scoring the clock is irrelevant because there is so little time left another possession does not benefit them.

The opportunity to score a TD was paramount, the time it took to do so was important, but not as important as the lead.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Dallas was not foolish to allow GB to score.

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.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Or put another way, if two teams in a zero-sum-game are seeking the same outcome, one MUST be making a foolish choice.

The Cowboys were foolish in playing games in December, when they have proven they stink.

[hoosier]

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.

What if Dallas "let" the Packers score in order to lure them into refusing that offer and running a play designed to come up short of the goal line. Then, starting on second down, Dallas's plan would be to sell out and try to stop GB at all costs. The benefit for Dallas is that Green Bay has voluntarily given up one of its four tries at the end zone.

[pbmax]

When you are behind by more than a FG, it cannot be foolish to score a TD. You cannot optimize defense of a lead with a lead.

You are constructing an argument for a game situation we did not experience Sunday.

[red]

What if Dallas "let" the Packers score in order to lure them into refusing that offer and running a play designed to come up short of the goal line. Then, starting on second down, Dallas's plan would be to sell out and try to stop GB at all costs. The benefit for Dallas is that Green Bay has voluntarily given up one of its four tries at the end zone.

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

[ThunderDan]

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

I believe that Dallas had two time outs remaining. The simply would have called the TOs if the Packers downed it and would have only had to stop the Pack on 3rd and 4th down for the win.

Two shots from the 1 this year I would probably feel OK with. Last year I would have puked a little in mouth thinking they need the 1 yard to win.

[red]

I believe that Dallas had two time outs remaining. The simply would have called the TOs if the Packers downed it and would have only had to stop the Pack on 3rd and 4th down for the win.

Two shots from the 1 this year I would probably feel OK with. Last year I would have puked a little in mouth thinking they need the 1 yard to win.

oh, i didn't know they had two timouts left

then there's no way you take knees to burn off the clock. you wouldn't be able to burn clock until third down. that leaves you with one chance, or 4th down, from the 3 or 4

no fucking way

[hoosier]

Dallas only had one timeout left after Lacy took it to the Dall 1. 1st and goal from the one with 1:34 remaining. You would have to flop on it twice to run the clock down significantly, and that leaves 3rd and goal which is cutting it too close for my taste.

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/201312...yze=playbyplay

[Cleft Crusty]

Or put another way, if two teams in a zero-sum-game are seeking the same outcome, one MUST be making a foolish choice.

That is a very foolish comment.