True, I missed the word “clutch,” but the definition of “clutch” is too broad. It includes field goals attempted “in the final 3:00 of each half and overtime,” but a field goal kicked with 2 minutes left in the first half of a game is rarely a clutch situation – and is very unlikely to be iced, since the opposing team still needs its timeouts. That increases the accuracy of the non-iced kicks.
ETA to add: I’m moving the goal posts in a debate about goal posts! What do I win?
Yeah, getting more into the weeds with the numbers, the situations, and explicitly defining them would be helpful. At worst, it seems a wash. I see little to suggest that icing is better for the kicker because they get a “practice shot” at the posts. It’s an annoying practice, at any rate. And I’ve seen it “work” in the sense the iced kick goes through and the real kick does not. And vice versa.
As a Bears fan, I remember Cody Parker’s famous “double doink.” That came on the back half of an iced kick. First one went through. Second one, well, that’s history and lost them the 2018 NFC Wildcard game.
The crowd paid money to watch them play football, so they should play football.
The coach is paid to win games. He’s gonna take a knee. Which, by the way, is a football play.
Right off the bat, I’m going to ask what distances all of those kicks were at. I don’t think it’s a surprise to anyone that the greater the distance for a kick, the lower the percentage. Are “game-critical” kicks, on average, at the same distance as “low-pressure” kicks? I’d expect not: Nobody ever attempts a super-long kick unless that’s your only hope. Maybe kickers aren’t actually affected by the pressure, and they just have a lower percentage for “game-critical” kicks because they tend to be longer.
Also, even if three minutes is the right amount of time to look at (debatable), not all kicks at the end of a half will be clutch. If a team’s up by 14, and in field goal range (but not likely to get a touchdown) with 40 seconds to go, they’re still going to go for the kick, but it’s highly unlikely to make a difference in the outcome.
I think the proper research methodology here would be to first look at all the kick distances at which there are enough kicks to get good statistics, and if you think it’ll matter, exclude all of the kicks near the end of a half. Then, from those, construct a model of expected accuracy as a function of distance. Then, gather the data on clutch kicks and iced kicks, and compare how many are successful to the number the model would predict.
Me too, and it’s “Parkey.” And still 
four years later.
I like watching human players having fun playing sports. I’m not interested in emotionless robots executing tasks.
I love touchdown celebrations! Especially, the waddle.
Well, sure, if you take an extreme example you can shut down anyone’s opinion. Okay, let’s say, if you’re past mid-field and need more than 3 points to tie it up. I’ve seen some game-winning Hail Marys that were a lot more fun* than taking a knee.
*New football cheer: “Here we are now, entertain us!”
.
Hey, found a compilation of Game-winning Hail Marys. Some of those are from a ways short of mid-field… and they worked!
(What does this have to do with Quay Walker? Well, umm… )
eta: I know! Hey, Quay, see that Packer team doing fine without you? They can do without you again, so quit the game or get some serious therapy.
Well, sure, those are when, as I said, a Hail Mary (or a hook-and-lateral, or some other gadget play) is absolutely necessary, because it’s the closing seconds of the game, and you aren’t going to have another chance – if you don’t score on that play, you will lose.
If a team is down by 8 points or less (i.e, a touchdown can let them tie or take the lead), and it’s at the end of the game, even if they’re deep in their own end, they can, should, and nearly always do try for a deep throw.
I can’t think of a situation in which a team that was behind by one score or less simply took a knee at the end of a game; when you see teams take that knee, either they’re salting away a win, or they’re behind by so much that one play isn’t going to make a difference. Yeah, it’s anticlimactic, but a team that loses a game because they fumble the ball when they should have taken a knee, or gets a key player injured on a play when they should have taken a knee, has an idiot for a coach.
If a coach, down by a score at the end of a game, chose to took a knee, rather than try even a low-percentage play, then he absolutely should be roundly criticized for his decision-making, and for not at least trying.
Yeah, the scenario presented above was about a case where an heroic Hail Mary won’t change the outcome of the game. Sometimes you just have to accept the results and move on, and save your players to play another game. If it’s a three score game, just end it.
You might make the case that making a long FG attempt or Hail Mary at the half is worth it regardless of the score, but bad things can happen on those plays. Coaches often want to get their players into the locker room and start making halftime adjustments rather than go into the intermission on a down note.
But your quote was:
I, and others, pointed out that, in many of these situations, if a team isn’t in scoring position, it’s a smarter play to take a knee, rather than try a play that has very little chance of success.
If a team is within 60 yards of the end zone at the end of a half, they almost always try a Hail Mary or a similar play in an attempt to score.
Sometimes being a try-hard can lead to unnecessary risk for players, and extensive criticism for coaches.
Part of being a good decision maker is knowing when you’re facing a potential Pyrrhic victory, and just letting it go is a better option.
“Take a knee or lose a knee.”