Superbowl 32. Mike Holmgren, coach for Green Bay, told his team at the end of the 4th quarter (with the Broncos on the Packers’ 1 yard line and the score tied at 24-24) to allow the Broncos to score in order to maximize the time for the Packers to score afterwards.
I remember when Doug Flutie was in college, his coach said Flutie once mentioned that if you were losing by a point late in the game and the opponent had the ball, let them score if you didn’t have the timeouts to get the ball back. If they kick the PAT, you still have an outside chance to get the ball, score a TD and two point conversion. Of course the opponent could go for two points but that isn’t a gimme. Flutie felt that if you did this, the opposing team would instinctively take the bait. Don’t think the circumstances ever called for it.
Not football but in the NHL in 1970, on the last game the Montreal Canadiens needed a win (or tie) or to score five goals to get the final playoff spot. With 9:30 left and down 5-2, coach Claude Ruel pulled goalie Rogatien Vachon (except for faceoffs) to get an extra skater. Failed miserably, no goals scored, five allowed.
Another related concept in cricket
According to the article, Jones-Drew didn’t think of it, either. The coach told him to do it. I doubt that a player would pass up a touchdown that way on their own initiative. Even if it occurred to them, they would have to explain to the coach what in the hell they were thinking of after the play, and would still be in trouble if the coach didn’t agree with the strategy.
That one actually does make some sense, taking a one point win and running out the clock, rather than giving the ball back with a five point lead (presuming PAT). Still, I would think most teams would simply score, and trust their defense to hold for the last minute, since the other team is going to have to advance the length of the field.
The only other variant discussed here which seems worth it to me is the elective safety with a 6 or 7 point lead, also trusting your defense to hold, rather than risking a turnover near your own end zone. But some coaches think otherwise, apparently.
There was a soccer game in 1994 that deserves mention in this thread.
Barbados was playing Grenada in the Shell Caribbean Cup. Barbados needed to win by two goals to advance to the final, otherwise Grenada would. And someone had created a rule for this tournament that a win in overtime counted as a two-goal win. So, late in the game and leading by only one goal, Barbados kicked the ball into their own net to tie the score and force overtime. Grenada then realized what was going on, and had a few minutes left to score in either goal.
I guess they couldn’t decide which way to attack. The game went to overtime. Barbados won and advanced to the final.
Of course, I see they took a 2 point win rather than a 1 point win, looking at the article again. They were down by 1, not 2. Doesn’t change the strategy.
I recall reading about that game. Barbados was placed in the odd position of defending both goals (but with a true goalie only in one).
Barbados’ two-ended defense worked better than Grenada’s two-ended offense.
*Ad hoc *rules sometimes have weird side effects. The 3rd-and 4th-level tie breakers used to determine playoff berths at the end of the regular season are another common source of unexpected side effects. Avoiding these perverse incentives is a big job for smart rules committees.
Georgia Tech allowed Georgia to score at the end of their football game last year from 20 yards out to go down by 8 and get the ball back for one last try while there was still time on the clock.
http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/in-georgia-smart-football-and-not/
It didn’t work out for them…
There’s an interesting scenario playing out in the NFL just now.
The worst teams each year are rewarded with first picks of new players leaving college (the “draft”). And the worst team of all gets the first pick.
Given the typical American fixation that #1 is all that matters & #s 2 thorugh 10 are all pure rubbish, there’s a lot of jockeying to try to get the worst record & so get the #1 pick.
The final games of the sseason are this upcoming weekend. I don’t think there’s a head-to-head game between two contenders for worst team overall. But if there were we’d see some very interesting tactics. As it is there are some teams who’d rather lose this weekend than win.
Ummm, really? There’s nothing rubbish about the #1 pick, particularly if you’re in competition with two or three awful teams. That #1 pick is valuable to you if you want a player likely to go at #1, or if not, are able to trade that #1 pick to another team that wants to guarantee it has the best player in the draft.
Of course, whether that “best player” is actually the best player or not is a matter of debate, but in every draft, somebody is going to be considered good enough to go first, and if you’re a team that wants that player (or the trading leverage that comes from being in a position to draft that player), having the #1 pick ain’t rubbish, nor is it “typical American fixation” (whatever that silly thing means)- it’s basic market logic, demonstrated every single year in the draft.
That doesn’t mean the #2 pick isn’t valuable, BTW. It just means the #1 is far more valuable than #2, let alone any other, for the reasons obvious to all (or, most).
I think you may have misinterpreted LSLGuy’s point - he’s saying that teams place a disproportionate value on the #1 draft pick, as though #2-#10 are “rubbish.” The “typical American fixation” he refers to is viewing #1 as far and away better than #2, when realistically the marginal value of the first pick is probably not that high as compared to the second or third pick most years.
Former Eagles running back Bryan Westbrook did it before Jones-Drew. That might be who Jamicat was thinking of. I agree Owens never would have done it.
Brandon Stokely with the Broncos. It’s a crazy play - an 87-yard reception off a deflected pass - and it looks like he ran off about four extra seconds by slowing down and running across the field.
Exactly right.
Moved from GQ to the Game Room.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
I think this strategy could have been applied on Thanksgiving Day when the Cowboys beat the Dolphins with a short field goal on the last play of the game. Correct me if I’m wrong, but had the Dolphins conceded a touchdown on the final drive they would have had at least a slim chance of a comeback TD. Scoring a TD with even one second left on the clock is easier than scoring a field goal with no seconds left, obviously.
This was done by Cal against UCLA about 5 years ago. UCLA had a 1 point lead and the ball at the Cal 1 or 2-yard line with about 2 minutes to play. Cal allowed UCLA to score a touchdown so they would be able to get the ball back with an 8-point deficit and a (theoretical) chance to win the game.
Teams in the running for worst team overall (as I understand it)–St. Louis Rams and Indianapolis Colts. Not playing each other.
But the Colts are playing Jacksonville Jaguars, if I recall correctly. So a team which has been challenged and frustrated by playing against a team with Peyton Manning as quarterback for the past decade, finds themselves in the position of possibly being able to prevent that team from picking up the next great quarterback (Andrew Luck).
So the Colts arguably want to lose, so that they get that #1 draft pick, and the Jaguars arguably want to lose so that the Colts don’t get that #1 draft pick . . .
Since as you say, commentators like to talk like the #2 draft pick is rubbish.
This season, the #1 pick has taken on particular significance, because of Andrew Luck. Many analysts believe he is one of the best quarterbacks to come out of college in recent years, and it’s widely believed that he will be the first pick in the draft, so much so that the term “Suck for Luck” came into being this year (meaning to play badly, in hopes of getting the first pick in the draft, and getting Luck).
Added to this is that the Colts, whose future-Hall-of-Fame quarterback, Peyton Manning, may or may not ever play again due to his neck injury, seemed to be a shoo-in for the #1 pick, until they won not one, but two games in the past few weeks.
This happened in the 1999 Music City Bowl with Kentucky versus Syracuse. Syracuse was up by one (14-13). Kentucky had no time-outs left and Syracuse had just got a first down with 1:42. Syracuse could have kneeled, but they ran a play instead. Kentucky’s defense did not go after the runner. Syracuse went for 2 to try to get up nine, but failed. But Kentucky was not able to score a touchdown in the final 1:35.
(Bolding mine.) Is that the right strategy? You have about a 50% chance of converting a 2-pointer, so they had a 50% chance of (essentially) winning the game on the spot. If they fail, that’s a 7 point lead.
Had they just kicked the PAT, they would have had an 8 point lead with a minute and a half. Had Kentucky scored a touchdown, they still would have had to convert the 2-pointer (50% chance) just to force OT.
Since the odds of a team scoring a TD in a minute-and-a-half are significantly less than 100%, it seems like just going for the PAT is the right play.