So 1st and goal at the 7 with around 1:10 left for the Giants, down 2. Pats stop him and call their 2nd timeout leaving 2nd and goal at the 6 with 1:04 left. Now I understand why the Pats let him score, but is it really proper football strategy to nto take the lead? I could see if you are up 1 point or in a tie game to go down, but from my view you always have to score there to take the lead. I would have believed in stopping at the 1 on first down, but on 2nd and goal I think he had to take the TD. I guess to follow up, is there a reason the Pats tried to stop him on 1st down instead of letting him in immediately and saving a TO? Now IF Bradshaw goes down at the 1, and the Pats call a TO leaving 1:00 left. On 3rd and goal is it correct to go for the TD because you killed the last TO or do you take a knee and center the ball? And from the Pats perspective, do you still let him score/throw him in the endzone or do you try to make a stand and force a FG since you have no TO left? Thanks for the help guys.
A friend and I have talked about this scenario for years and wondered why coaches don't do what the Giants tried to do last night. In the end, you have to decide which you'd rather deal with: A - a 1-point lead and Brady getting the ball back with no time-outs and 20 seconds left on the clock; or B - a 4 point lead and Brady getting the ball back with 1 time-out and 58 seconds left on the clock. I'd prefer the first scenario. Brady with time and a time-out is dangerous. Both scenarios have their dangers; I just prefer the first.
Win Probability charts aren't perfect because they don't adjust for the teams involved, but they're the best tool for answering a question like this. Here, the Giants-Patriots WP chart on advancednflstats.com notes that the Giants had an 89 percent chance of winning the game when Hakeem Nicks picked up a first down on the New England 7-yard line with 1:09 left. From there, the Giants could have chosen to kneel three times, force the Patriots to use their final timeout, and then attempt a game-winning field goal with seconds on the clock without ever giving the ball back to the Patriots. The model might even be underestimating their chances; history suggests that an average field goal kicker will convert a 24-yard field goal about 96 percent of the time, and the Giants were playing on turf with the options to both move the ball onto Lawrence Tynes' desired hash mark while falling on the ball and trying again in the case of a bad snap. And if you think Tynes is a terrible kicker, note that he's 56-of-57 on kicks from 20 to 29 yards during his career. Instead, when Bradshaw scored the most mournful game-winning Super Bowl touchdown in history, the Win Probability analysis suggests that the Giants' odds of winning decreased to 85 percent. That's right: Bill Belichick was likely correct to allow the Giants to score, and the Giants should have taken a knee and decided to kick the chip shot field goal instead.3 If you use the 96 percent win expectancy that we're suggesting instead of the model's 89 percent, it's patently obvious that the Giants should have kneeled and kicked. http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7545771/the-patriots-giants-super-bowl-rematch-disappoint Good synopsis.
Manning saw the defense part like the red sea and yelled for him not to score. Coughlin after the game thought it was better to score anyway especially in light of what happened to Baltimore and their missed chip shot. Anyway none of it was Bradshaw's decision.
Thanks guys, I still don't understand why Bill didn't tell his team to let Bradshaw score on 1st down leaving himself two timeouts instead of one. It is definitely one of those questions that is always going to be debated.
Bingo!!!!! I will take the TD everytime!!!! I would rather be ahead and put the pressure on the other team to score. I got into an argument with my 84 year old father in law about this, he wanted them to play for the FG, i said he was insane the FG is not a lock (Ravens vs Pats).
It certainly gets more interesting if the Pats WR's don't start getting a case of the dropsies on that last drive.
I'm not sure why they even ran it on 2nd down, but you can't score a touchdown on 2nd down in that situation. Assuming Bradshaw stopped or Eli took a knee, Pats would have been forced to burn their final timeout. The Giants would then have one of two decisions to make: 1) Run it again, the Pats will still let you score, and they would have gotten the ball back with about the same amount of time, but no timeouts. 2) Take another knee & call timeout with 2 seconds left. Convert a <25 yard FG with no time on the clock. Either scenario was better than scoring on second down. Even though it was a chip shot, I can understand worrying about a botched snap, hold or kick. You still have to force NE to burn their last time out before they let you walk into the endzone.
This. Take the points whenever you can. We all remember taking the knee that allowed O'Brien to send it to overtime right? Oh, wait...
