Is a Tie just as bad as a Loss? (Indy/Hou Week 4 as example)
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Pretty straightforward question, but I can't fully decide where I stand: Is a tie in an NFL game just as bad as a loss? Technically speaking, a tie is like half a win, half a loss; it's a .5 on the record. In either direction depending on what you are comparing it to. But that's always still better than a full -1.0, right? It's just simple math. So why in the world did Indy go for it on 4th down and 4, with only 27 seconds left on the clock in overtime, on their own 42? Here's the recap, starting from the play just before, and I'm sure you can guess what happened: Texans vs. Colts Week 4 Highlights (link to YouTube video starts at play just before) So Indy could have punted and all but guaranteed the game to end in a tie. Where they would have been 1-2-1 instead of 1-3. And also don't forgot, this was a divisional game so wins, losses and ties matter even more. This call could literally mean the difference between which of these teams wins the division and goes to the playoffs. Indy going for it on that 4th down and not getting it almost assured them a loss. But they were already going to at best tie if they punted, and they wanted to win. Which was a real possibility. With 27 seconds and all you need is a FG, I actually totally understand the mentality of win or go home, we didn't come here for no tie. Curious of what others think of this: if you were the head coach in that moment, what would you have done?
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
First of all, I dont think there should even be such a thing as a "tie" in professional sports. Play the game to quadruple overtime.. who cares? Fans would love a quadruple overtime game, in most cases anyway. I don't think a tie has any place, especially when it comes to games where win/loss records matter. Sure, throw in as many ties as you want in the preseason, but they should play until a win in the postseason. Take hockey for example. It used to be I think double overtime, then would turn into a shootout. Basically, whichever team's single player vs. goalie scores more out of 5 attempts wins the game. It has now been changed to if a game ends in a tie, a overtime round is played. If the overtime round is unsuccessful, it turns to a sudden death match. The NFL should take note of this and change their weird overtime rules. I've never really understood how they work anyway. Anyway, yeah, that was a dumb decision on their part. A tie is obviously better than a loss.
-
-
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
The Cowboys just added a new wrinkle to this question of going for it or not in OT. Watching that week 5 game vs the Texans made it very clear just how short 10 minutes really is. If you have any kind of methodical drive whatsoever, you are going to run 3-6 minutes off the clock. Which means each team really only has 1 solid try and scoring a touchdown. Maybe 2 if the defense makes a good stop. So I was feeling pretty nervous and conflicted about the clock situation when Dallas had the ball on the Texan's 42 (Dallas got the ball first) and it was 4th and 1 with only 5:40 left on the clock.. and they decided to punt. They felt they could give the ball away, stop Houston with time left on the clock, and score at least a FG for the win, even though they just went for a 4:20 drive themselves. Pretty nonsensical to me. I think this is the opposite of making too much of a ballsy play, like Indy did. This is making a way too safe call, that ended up biting them, as Houston had a crazy 49-yard catch by DeAndre Hopkins that lead them right into field goal territory anyway. Dallas could have won by showing some courage and understanding the clock was not on their side. They also seemed content with the knowledge that if time ran out, they at least got a tie. So in that case, a tie to me would have been worse than a go for it loss. What's your take on that one??? Here's the highlights from that game: Cowboys vs. Texans Week 5 Highlights
-
-
|