JoeBucsFan blasts Raheems's decision-making

[BucFan9720]

I would have kicked the FG. No reason to put the game on the line on a single passing play from a very inexperienced QB who struggled in the second half. Kick the FG, then when you get the ball back you have a chance to drive half the field and kick the game winner. The only wrench in the works was the inaccuracy of the kicker.

I wouldn't. Even if you get stopped, you back them up at their 4 and increase your chances dramatically of getting better field position, as opposed to kicking a FG(which that POS Nugent almost missed!!), then having to drive damn near the length of the field to kick another FG just to send it into OT.

[dalbuc]

I wouldn't. Even if you get stopped, you back them up at their 4 and increase your chances dramatically of getting better field position, as opposed to kicking a FG(which that POS Nugent almost missed!!), then having to drive damn near the length of the field to kick another FG just to send it into OT.

You can't play this both ways.

If we go for it and stop them, you can't pretend we will man up on D and get the ball back at around the Deadskins 45 yardline, on average but if we hit the FG and kick to them we have to "drive the length of the field". If one imaginary D can stop them at the 4 then another imaginary D can stop them at the 20. The change in field position is 16 yards so all the kick the FG position asks you to do is to go an extra 16 yards in field position.

Let's do the numbers:

Toss in that the "go for it" scenario now requires a TD so you have to travel ALL 45 total yards into tougher sledding ground while the "kick the FG" position means you have to get to, let's say the 20, for a chippy shot.  That's actually now 4 yards less than the TD scenario and the 41 yards traveled in that case are a lot easier than the 45 yards in the first scenario.

It isn't as easy as some folks want to make it out unless you start to rig the conditions of the game with stuff like "drive the length of the field" comments.

[Biggs3535]

It isn't as easy as some folks want to make it out unless you start to rig the conditions of the game with stuff like "drive the length of the field" comments.

Hardly "rigging the conditions."  Tampa Bay got the ball at their own 19 yard line.  What would you call it?

41 yards (like you said, which looks like rigging the conditions to me) from there is a 57 yard field goal.  Nugent is 0-3 from 40+ yards this season.

[DanTurksGhost]

It isn't as easy as some folks want to make it out unless you start to rig the conditions of the game with stuff like "drive the length of the field" comments.

Just to add to your comments, dal, had the Bucs missed the TD and held them to 3-and-out, the distance they'd have to drive would have been about the same -- except they'd have to drive for a TD and not a FG try.

[watson]

I wouldn't. Even if you get stopped, you back them up at their 4 and increase your chances dramatically of getting better field position, as opposed to kicking a FG(which that POS Nugent almost missed!!), then having to drive damn near the length of the field to kick another FG just to send it into OT.

You can't play this both ways.

If we go for it and stop them, you can't pretend we will man up on D and get the ball back at around the Deadskins 45 yardline, on average but if we hit the FG and kick to them we have to "drive the length of the field". If one imaginary D can stop them at the 4 then another imaginary D can stop them at the 20. The change in field position is 16 yards so all the kick the FG position asks you to do is to go an extra 16 yards in field position.

Let's do the numbers:

Toss in that the "go for it" scenario now requires a TD so you have to travel ALL 45 total yards into tougher sledding ground while the "kick the FG" position means you have to get to, let's say the 20, for a chippy shot. That's actually now 4 yards less than the TD scenario and the 41 yards traveled in that case are a lot easier than the 45 yards in the first scenario.

It isn't as easy as some folks want to make it out unless you start to rig the conditions of the game with stuff like "drive the length of the field" comments.

Dal,
The one thing going for it on 4th down and not making it would have done was compress the Redskins playbook and that gives the Bucs defense an advantage.  After giving up 3 ints already in the game, not sure they would have wanted to put the ball in the air down there.  That may be wrong, but it is a real possibility.  Also kicking out of their end zone speeds up that play and usually results in shorter kicks.  Not sure any of this would have made a difference in the outcome, but it just seems to be a better option at that point in the game.  

[Blaze688]

According to the geniuses (no joke) at AdvancedNFLStats.com, the Buccaneers had a 29% chance of winning the game from 4th and goal, and a 19% chance to win just before Peanut's fumble.

So, it's not GREAT disparity... but still extremely annoying.  When victory is 4 yards away, you go for it.

[dalbuc]

The one thing going for it on 4th down and not making it would have done was compress the Redskins playbook and that gives the Bucs defense an advantage.

Thought about that but really, there was no way they'd try and throw at that point no matter the 4 or the 40. They were starting to run better in the second half and with Campbells 4 TO's no one is putting the game in his hands.

I probably would have gone for it to be honest but I don't think the decision is a gimmie for that PoV by any means. In the end, my biggest argument for trying for the TD isn't about anything more than the really old saw about going for the win on the road and the tie at home but I can see why oou want that FG given the time left in the game.

[Biggs3535]

According to the geniuses (no joke) at AdvancedNFLStats.com, the Buccaneers had a 19% chance of winning the game from 4th and goal, and a 15% chance to win just before Peanut's fumble.

Good stuff.

When victory is 4 yards away, you go for it.

With this team, I agree.

What NFLCoach plays for overtime, when there is 4:30 left in the game?  Only a coach with a "losers" mentality would do that.   People are paying money to see the team win, not play for overtime.   what a fool this guy is. 

[watson]

In the end, my biggest argument for trying for the TD isn't about anything more than the really old saw about going for the win on the road and the tie at home but I can see why oou want that FG given the time left in the game.

Me too.  That combined with them sitting at 0-3 and going nowhere fast.  Going for it might have been the spark that shows the young offense the coach has confidence in them to make and if not, confidence in the young defense to stop them and get the ball back.  Even is they fail, it shows them that their coaches believes in them.