To take a knee or not

[Brooklyn]

At the end of the Giants / Bears game, with the Giants down 16-14, the Giants drove to the Bears 2 yard line and had a first down with 1:37 left.

The announcers astutely mentioned that the Giants had two options. Try to score. If successful on first down, the Bears would have a lot of time left. Or take a few knees, kick a field goal, and leave the Bears little to no time.

The Giants went for it and scored on first down. AS it turns out, the Bears drove down the field and had three shots at the end zone from the Giants 28.

What would you have done?

I think the Giants would have been better advised to take the knee. I know they don't have a lot of confidence in their field goal kicker, but you have to assume he can make a 20-yarder.

Actually, I probably would have taken two knees, then tried to score. The first knee would have burned the Bears last time out. The second knee would have run the clock down to about 45 seconds. On third, down, I would have tried to run it in. If successful, the Bears don't have a lot of time to score a touchdown. If unsuccessful, run the clock down and kick the field goal as time expires. I'm also OK with just taking three knees and kicking the field goal as time expires.

Thoughts? As Droughns was running in the end zone, I had the empty feeling that they had left the Bears too much time, and the Bears certainly had a shot to prove me right.

From the other side of the coin, if you are the Bears, and the Giants are going for it, do you just let them score? For the same reasons, I would have

[CCN]

The old addage is the object is to score, and you score when you can. While there is certainly strategy to taking the knee (or two) when you're that close, with that much time left, you don't mess around, especially when you're behind.

It wound up working for them. Considering how well the Bears had been moving the ball all season long, it was worth giving them the clock, I would think.

[Brooklyn]

Considering how well the Bears had been moving the ball all season long, it was worth giving them the clock, I would think.

Agreed that the decision may have been very different had they been playing the Colts or Pats.

[efin98]

I think it depends on one variable- do you have the lead during that drive?

If they were already in the lead I think you have to take the knees and run down the clock then kick the field goal- if you miss you still have the lead and the other team has little time left, if you make it the other team has to get a TD to win.

If you don't have the lead you have to go for the end zone with a couple of short passes. If you score you force the other team to have to score a TD of their own to win, if you don't score in the three tries you kick the field goal and kick the ball deep forcing them on a long drive...

[Argonaut Fan]

Article on this very subject from the "Freakonomics Blog" on NYTimes.com:

Last Sunday, the New York Giants played the Chicago Bears in football. The point spread on the game favored the Giants by 1.5 points, meaning that if the Giants won by only one point, those who bet on them would lose.

Having watched the game myself, I was not at all surprised to receive the following e-mail from a fan who prefers to remain anonymous:
Yesterday was the usual Sunday fare, sitting on my couch watching football games that I had bet on while I worked on research. The day had gone in a most familiar way — lost hundred of dollars on the Chiefs +6 against the Chargers, but looked like I was about to win it back with the Raiders +3.5 against the Broncos.

My last game of the day was the Bears +1.5 against the New York Giants. The Bears grabbed an early lead, and things were going pretty well, with a 16-7 advantage midway through the fourth quarter. My 1.5 points looked good, since the worst case scenario looked like a 17-16 Giants win. In which case, I would still win my bet.

The Giants proceeded to score a touchdown with under 7 minutes left. No problem — the Bears will take the next kick-off, chew up several minutes with a few first downs, and, worst case scenario, punt. What actually happened was a three and out, and now the Bears punted to the Giants, but at least they started on their own 23 with less than 5 minutes remaining.

The Giants promptly drove down the field, and with 1:37 remaining found themselves at the Bears’ 2 yard line, at first and goal. I quickly computed in my head that this was okay, because in the process, the Bears had used 2 of their 3 timeouts. Thus, the Giants should just kneel a few times, get the ball to the middle of the field, and run the clock to a few seconds before kicking the game-winning field goal (which would amount to an extra point) as time expired. The fact that the Bears called a timeout to allow the Giants to think this through made me really confident that Coughlin would proceed in this direction. Even the announcer, Troy Aikman, recognized this and called for that strategy. The game would end 17-16, I would win my final bet of the afternoon, and maintain my cheerful holiday mood for our planned tree decorating later that night.
Alas, the ending was not as our hero had planned.

If the Giants had followed the obvious plan, they would have been left with a field goal roughly the length of an extra point to win the game. The success rate on extra points in the NFL is 96 percent. So the Giants were virtually assured of winning the game.

The only problem was that they would only win by one point. Which means they wouldn’t cover the spread.

Could that explain why instead, the Giants ran a sweep on first down, scoring a touchdown? This gave them a five point lead, but also gave the Bears the ball back with 1:33 on the clock and a timeout! It also required the Giants to kick off to Devin Hester, perhaps the most dangerous returner in the history of football. The Bears very nearly did come back to score a touchdown, although they ultimately failed.

So what do we think? Simply a case of bad decision making by an NFL coach (it wouldn’t be the first time according to economist David Romer)? Or something more devious?http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/did-the-new-york-giants-risk-losing-the-game-to-cover-the-spread/

[Patriot Reign]

A few thoughts...

Taking a knee 3 times in a row and then kick a FG with little time left would be the way to go, it's sound and low risk.

Like what happened in the Giants-Bears game, you want to score but maybe not too soon especially if your defense or pass defense is not that good or your head coach or defenive coordinator likes to get in
a prevent defense at the end of the game. A lot of NFL offenses can probably move the ball down the field pretty good and get within FG range vs a prevent defense.

If I was trying to score a TD I probably wouldn't throw it from the 2 yd line, especially since an incomplete pass stops the clock. Besides it could get intercepted or the QB could take a sack. There's a lot of options on quick hitters to score a TD either by pass or run.

It's a chess match and you have to put your team in the best situation to win based on your team's strength. The clock is your enemy and friend all at the same time in that situation. Choose wisely.

[Brooklyn]

Article on this very subject from the "Freakonomics Blog" on NYTimes.com:

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/did-the-new-york-giants-risk-losing-the-game-to-cover-the-spread/

I don't bellieve any team plays the game to cover the spread, as this article insinuates. They are playing to win, but the strategy may be flawed.

I still think they had the better chance to win with the knee strategy