No, because it makes no sense. There is no benefit to kicking a field goal in that situation. When they were at midfield with like 3+ minutes left it makes a little sense, because rather than burn more time trying to get that last 30 yards, you take three points, try to get a stop, and then a TD gets you a win instead of OT where you can still lose. In last night’s situation, if EVERYTHING played out the same they’d have gotten the ball back with a little over a minute and one time out (thanks to the 2 minute warning).
Once they got the first handed to them and moved it to the four…everything changes because of time/position. At fourth and goal from the 4, if you go for it and miss nothing has changed. You still need a touchdown and a stop, but your opponent needs to go 96 yards to the end zone and about 60 for a field goal. You might also get lucky and get a safety, and the ball back with time to spare, and a TD now wins it.
If you kick the field goal from the four (like they did) again, nothing changes. You still need a stop, you still need a touchdown but now, you lose more time kicking the ball off, and have to use all your timeouts to stop the clock. The best case outcome in both scenarios (except for a safety) is that you succeed and hold your opponent to zero net yards. But in the second scenario, you are getting punted to from the 25 instead of the 4, so you have shittier field position, you need to go further down field, in less time, with no ability to stop the clock.
That’s what I thought as I was watching it, but I thought it was some 5D chess thing that I was too dumb to see. I thought, “they’re gonna need two more field goals or another touchdown anyway.”
The ONLY thing I can think of is that they were thinking too far ahead and assumed the TD+2 was in the bag and wanted to prevent a FG loss. Even then that’s a HUGE assumption.
Yeah, you said it best. It makes ZERO fucking sense.
Josh McDaniels is a fucking idiot.
Can anyone explain why the raiders opted for a field goal there instead of going for it?
No, because it makes no sense. There is no benefit to kicking a field goal in that situation. When they were at midfield with like 3+ minutes left it makes a little sense, because rather than burn more time trying to get that last 30 yards, you take three points, try to get a stop, and then a TD gets you a win instead of OT where you can still lose. In last night’s situation, if EVERYTHING played out the same they’d have gotten the ball back with a little over a minute and one time out (thanks to the 2 minute warning).
Once they got the first handed to them and moved it to the four…everything changes because of time/position. At fourth and goal from the 4, if you go for it and miss nothing has changed. You still need a touchdown and a stop, but your opponent needs to go 96 yards to the end zone and about 60 for a field goal. You might also get lucky and get a safety, and the ball back with time to spare, and a TD now wins it.
If you kick the field goal from the four (like they did) again, nothing changes. You still need a stop, you still need a touchdown but now, you lose more time kicking the ball off, and have to use all your timeouts to stop the clock. The best case outcome in both scenarios (except for a safety) is that you succeed and hold your opponent to zero net yards. But in the second scenario, you are getting punted to from the 25 instead of the 4, so you have shittier field position, you need to go further down field, in less time, with no ability to stop the clock.
It makes ZERO fucking sense.
That’s what I thought as I was watching it, but I thought it was some 5D chess thing that I was too dumb to see. I thought, “they’re gonna need two more field goals or another touchdown anyway.”
The ONLY thing I can think of is that they were thinking too far ahead and assumed the TD+2 was in the bag and wanted to prevent a FG loss. Even then that’s a HUGE assumption.
Yeah, you said it best. It makes ZERO fucking sense.