In the comments to yesterday’s post about the Packers’ decision not to let the Bears score, there was some discussion of whether it is a good strategy to kick a field goal once you get into field goal range down by 9, 10, or 11 points late in the game.  The logic behind such a move is presumably that the team needs two scores anyway, an onside kick will need to occur whether you score a touchdown or field goal first, and if you go ahead and take the field goal, you have time to throw some desperation passes to the end zone.  I know we haven’t had this situation occur yet this year, but I thought I would lay out a discussion regarding this scenario. 

My first thought is, unlike the Monday night scenario, where allowing the score and getting the ball back showed a significant advantage of about 10% chance of winning versus less than 3%, there isn’t much difference between the two choices. Both are extreme long shots because of all the things that must go right in a short period of time, and they are both reliant on a successful onside kick. If you opt for the field goal, (1) you must make it (not automatic), (2) get the onside kick, and (3) then score a touchdown from 60 yards away with whatever time is left.

If you opt to keep pushing on, you must (1) score the TD with sufficient time to matter, (2) get the onside kick, and then either (3)(a) pick up about 30 yards with enough time to get the field goal team on and make the kick (again, not automatic), or (3)(b) hit a hail mary pass to win. Oh, and if you were down by 10, not only do you have to do all those things, but you have to then win in overtime still (unless you scored a td followed by a hail mary).  If you were down by 11, add in a 2-point conversion to the necessary tasks to accomplish.  Combine all of those things, and in both scenarios, you probably have less than a 1% chance of winning, and we are arguing about paltry percentage points to the third decimal place.

That said, I think the field goal is the better option to what happens in many games, where the team plays as if they have time remaining, wastes clock with passes in the field of play, and leaves themselves with no time to do anything more than recover an onside kick and maybe have one play.  However, I don’t think it’s the best option, because taking the smaller amount of points first precludes you from winning in regulation (unless down by 9).  Let me set up this scenario.  Team completes a pass for a first down to the opponent’s 25-yard line, runs up and spikes the ball with exactly 1 minute left and no timeouts remaining, down by between 9 and 11 points.   I think the best strategy in that scenario is for the team to behave like they have 20 seconds left and no timeouts down by a touchdown from that distance.  Run vertical routes and post routes and throw to the end zone.  If you are in field goal range, you are also in range to throw legitimate passes to the end zone.  Absolutely nothing short.  Take two shots to the end zone, and if not intercepted or successful, then you take the field goal and hopefully used up about 12 seconds.

Well, now that I think about it, that’s not actually what I would do in that situation.  What I would do is run my field goal team on the field after the spike on first down to stop the clock.  I would be all histrionic Mike Singletary-style running down the sidelines and yelling at my QB to get off the field because we are going to take the points.  And I then would run a fake field goal with a pass toward the sideline.  It may sound like a crazy strategy, but it’s pretty safe because it’s second down and assuming your holder is reasonably competent, he can just throw it away if it is not there.  If you catch the team off guard though and leak the receiver out cleanly, you might just score a much easier touchdown than you could ever hope from a standard play. [Image via Getty]