Is The 3rd Down Field Goal The Future of Football?

[@bopete3204]

I'd also add that kicking on 3rd down makes the defense respect trick plays more. So blocked field goals like the Chiefs-Broncos game are a bit less likely.

[@IsaacPunts]

Great add, hadn’t even considered it but you’re absolutely right

[@thebenc1537]

Trick play or not, the left side of the offensive line was going to get smashed in by the Chiefs defense. They had 2 double teams.

[@wlnlax14]

​@thebenc1537 but I believe the holder would have the split second to see that the protection failed and pull the ball and fall on it for a sack but then you get another attempt at a kick on 4th down.

[@thebenc1537]

@@wlnlax14 yeah there are benefits. It's been done before in the NFL usually at the end of games like this. I would rather run time off the clock though if the other team has a good QB. I dont want Mahomes to have 40 seconds and a couple of timeouts to get a field goal and beat me.

[@sergiotim]

@@thebenc1537what youre talking about isn't the focus on this video dude. The point here is all about what you cand do when you're ALREADY downt 2 scores. The Chiefs stuff isn't valid here at all...

[@jeff946]

Yeah, so often it seems like teams always prioritize a touchdown over a field goal when they need both! And then you see them draining a lot of clock inside the 30 yard line only to end up kicking a field goal that they could have already kicked, only with less time remaining now.

[@TheEpic22]

A lot easier to score a TD in the red zone than having to score from the 50. Also teams know you need a TD in the latter and just need to tackle in bounds and not care about first down whereas on the 3rd and 10 they would’ve protected the first down and TD It’s a dumb decision imo. Yeah it didn’t end up mattering but deliberately giving yourself fewer chances to get the TD from closer to the goal line is just a bad decision. The play would have at most taken like 4 seconds off the clock

[@jeff946]

@@TheEpic22 I'm talking about the times that a team might get inside the 30 and end up running 4-6 more plays trying to get a touchdown before finally kicking a field goal once they get to a 4th down. They could have kicked a field goal already and had a lot more time left.

[@jmr5125]

If you can't score a TD quickly from within the opponents 30 yard line, then... Why do you believe that you will be able to score a quick TD from your own 40 yard line (after an onside kick)? If your offense sucks, then going for a TD then a FG is very unlikely to succeed. If your offense is _good_, then TD then FG is slightly more likely to succeed.

[@thomasnguyen5295]

​@@TheEpic22 I actually disagree. The reason is if you know you need a combo of both a TD and a field goal, if you expend time and NOT make the TD on your drive, the game is mentally over. If you get an early field goal, the pressure and mentality that the game is still on the line for both the on side kick, as well as increased pressure if a successful recovery is made.

[@clarenceboddicker1162]

@@jeff946yeah but there is a difference between a 47 yard fg from thr 30 and a 27 from the 10? Also I would qualify it depends if you’re down 8-10 points or down 11. If down 11 you should try for td bc you need a fg and a td/conversion.

[@deadbeats4894]

"Pain is my middle name as a Bengals fan." I felt that one.

[@bonesdoes6142]

Haha,yeah I’m a Browns fan 😢 We do exist.

[@darkhobo]

Ha. I'm a Lions fan. None of you know my power. Only the Browns fan can even begin to understand.

[@eatingyoshi4403]

@@darkhobo When talking about pain in sports, only losing teams can talk. Be happy where you are now instead of making it a competition of how miserable you were.

[@tomdelong808]

I'm a Dolphins fan I know the pain because I wasn't alive during the super bowl years 😂

[@weezyf775]

years ago, kicking on 3rd down was common - you'd never see a team run the clock down to 4 seconds to attempt a walk-off. They'd always leave themselves a buffer down & time in case of a botched snapped.

[@mikes4357]

Exactly,Don Coryell for the Chargers used to always kick field goals on third down for that reason botched snap or hold if I remember correctly, he had been burned on such a situation when he coached the Cardinals, as long as you don’t kick the football, you can re-snap it from the point of recovery.

[@prototypedenNIS]

As a Canadian Football League fan, I absolutely agree with kicking the field goal on 3rd down.

[@BengalsFan-z4q]

Same, from winnnipeg and love both the nfl and cfl

[@prototypedenNIS]

@BengalsFan-z4q go Bombers

[@MisterFusion113]

on-side punt - every time.

[@xRakanishu]

I agree that's a very Canadian take

[@freezer8530]

And even if you miss, you could still salvage a rouge out of it.

[@willsmath]

I think if you're down by 11 you should still go for the touchdown, that way if you miss the 2 point conversion you still can get a touchdown after the onside kick and win. Going for the field goal first when you'd still need a touchdown and a 2 point conversion is locking yourself into that difficult scenario of going for 2 with the game on the line

[@invisibleman1734]

Scrolled down for this

[@Mr.X2188]

My thinking is, in this case, you will need some miracles anyways to pull it off. Trying to get in the endzone from that far is quite risky. An interception or a sack would end the game, either by giving the ball away, or taking you out of field goal range. If you have a good kicker, making a 45 yard or less field goal is more likely than scoring a quick, long range TD. Their are more risks with that. Let's say you do score the TD, and miraculously recover the onside kick, you would likely have no timeouts and maybe only 10 seconds left on the clock. At that point, you're basically forced into a hail mary anyways, except it would be thrown from your own 40. If you kick the field goal, then get the onside kick, yes you still need a TD, but you would have maybe like 30 seconds left to get significantly closer to make the TD more likely. Basically, kicking the field goal first cuts down the number of miracles needed from 3 (1st TD, Onside kick, and likely hail mary) down to 2 (onside kick and hail mary)

[@smudgeous4068]

​@@Mr.X2188They had 1st down at the 12 yard line with 51 seconds and a timeout. How do you reckon a TD from there requires a miracle? 3 quick pass attempts to where only your receiver can possibly catch it or throw it away and gamble ~15 seconds of clock time for 3 shots at a score to pull them within 5. If the TD happens, now if the 2 point conversion play you were going to run fails, you still have a shot at another TD drive with ~35 seconds and a timeout at your disposal. Failure on the conversion the other way means the game is over. The miracle of requiring recovering an onside kick is the same either way. If the TD + conversion succeeds, the onside kick gets recovered at worst at your own 45 yard line, meaning that 45-yard tying kick is less than 30 yards away, instead of requiring 55 yards into the end zone. If you get that 30 yards quickly (2 short sideline throws and 1 medium pass for example), you have a shot or two at another TD to outright win the game before settling for the tie

[@jyutzler]

Only if your offense is in the flow. Third and 10 is perfect - your odds of getting the TD have dropped dramatically.

[@newagain9964]

Like most life’s answers…It depends. On things like timeouts. How off is doing vs D. Etc.

[@shipwreck8847]

I totally disagree with kicking a field goal and conceding the chance at getting a touchdown on one more down. The chances of getting back on the 15 yard line to throw a TD are not that high. You're going to get a field goal no matter what, and if you don't the worst is, you're only going to burn 3-5 seconds off the play clock. It's worth it if you can score a touchdown because (most importantly) if you recover your onside kick, you will need to drive 50+ yards to get that touch down anyways and you'll have only 4 chances per each first down cycle to get it. And you were guaranteed one at the 15 yard line previously and you passed on it for a field goal that would have happened anyways. All you saved was just 3-5 seconds and you bypassed an opportunity at gaining 7-8 points. Now if you went for the touchdown and actually got it you would only need to drive only 20 or so yards to be in reasonable field goal position as opposed to having to drive 50+ yards for a TD. With only 45 seconds and no time outs that's nearly impossible compared if all you need is a field goal. I would strongly recommend if you are within 25 yards you do all you can do get that touchdown because it saves you field position, timeouts and time left on the clock to tie the game instead of just conceding. The best case scenario is you recover the ball but having to drive down 50 yards with no timeouts and unable to work the middle of the field (realistically) puts you in a very bad position. If you can score the TD while on the 15 yard line you SHOULD ALWAYS TAKE THAT OPPORTUNITY. I disagree with your assesment Isaac.

[@mantistoboggan265]

My thoughts exactly. The argument for kicking on 3rd down fails to account for the fact that it's way easier to get into FG range after recovering an onside kick than it is to score a TD and 2 point conversion after recovering an onside kick, and running a 3rd down play would only take a few seconds off the clock, seconds that would be worth losing if it means getting a TD and 2 point conversion to make it a 3 point game. As a Dolphins fan, I was happy that the Rams kicked on 3rd down, because I felt that them not attempting to get into the end zone improved our chances of winning if they were to recover the onside kick. If your opponent is happy that you are making a decision, you might want to reconsider whether it is the right decision.

[@shipwreck8847]

@@mantistoboggan265 Exactly, the main disadvantage is having to drive 50+ yards vs just 20 yards with no time outs remaining. Then your opponent can just guard the sidelines and make you throw in the middle because they know time is working against you. I thought it was a horrible decision.

[@CrocodileWhispers]

TL;DR 1. you’re already in (or near) the red zone. Go for a TD. 2. If you onside kick successfully it’s much easier to get in range for field goal rather than driving all the way down field.

[@SlimThrull]

This. It just comes down to numbers. There's no good reason not to try for a TD on third down.

[@valjohnson7112]

yeah. MAYBE if you are on like the 30. not from teh 12. you are 1 pass away from a TD. no chance thats the right call.

[@kimjong-oink6217]

I think this logic applies even more to situations like the one at the end of the Jets Texans game a couple weeks ago, where the Texans, down by 11, got into FG range with ~1:30 and two timeouts. Rather than kick on first down, allowing for a desperation hail mary or lateral play even if the onside kick isn't recovered, they tried to get into the endzone and chewed up 45 seconds of game clock, allowing the Jets to kneel it out after the onside kick failed.

[@Yurdleyah]

That was the correct play. When you’re down by 11 you don’t NEED a field goal but you DO need a touchdown

[@o.o.o.o.o2969]

@@Yurdleyahbeing down by 8 with the ball and a few minutes left is a significantly higher percentage play than being down 3 or 5 with 1 minute left and having to go for an onside kick

[@Yurdleyah]

@@kimjong-oink6217 it’s 2024 so we actually have all the numbers available to tell us that the difference between 8 pts and 3 pts is worth a whole hell of a lot more than 45 seconds

[@Yurdleyah]

@@kimjong-oink6217 your win probability down by 8 is shockingly low. You have to score, then score again for the 2 pt conversion, and then get a stop, only to have your game come down to a coin flip

[@spowell2665]

this feels like one of those counterintuitive calls. like when the analysis shows it being better to go for it on 4th down and short it will be interesting to see how it plays out going forward.

[@cifey]

If a team is inside the 20 and has a QB like Stafford, they are better off taking 2 passes into the end zone and hoping for a long field goal chance.

[@MiiMoose]

@@cifey You still need the 3 points regardless. Time wasted while scoring a TD doesn't help you if only have 20 seconds left vs a minute or more left if you bang a field goal through.

[@HenrySosenite]

It makes sense at times, but not when you're this close to the endzone with this much time Say they had 15 seconds left, you'd kick, because you can't risk an incompletion and taking 5+ seconds off the clock But with 40 seconds left, and so close to the endzone, it's weird In this moment, I honestly felt like they felt stifled by the Miami defense and basically felt like they had zero chance of getting a TD in this spot lol

[@Michael-sb8jf]

If your gonna do the fg first strategy you need go be 100 percent committed to it and kick the FG ASAP. Even if that means kicking it 1st and 10 at the 40. The clock is the enemy

[@eduardoazeredo6250]

Brazilian commentator for this game brought this up. With 1:20 in the clock he was already asking for the field goal saying “I always think they should do that but they don’t “

[@SamLoplearrrrrooosci]

@@eduardoazeredo6250 because they shouldn’t. It’s hard to get a TD and if you’re that close to the endzone, you go for the touchdown.

[@EB-bl6cc]

3rd down field goals have been a thing for a while, although it's usually the team that will take the lead or preserve a lead (a made FG makes them go up by 2 scores) that takes them, not a team that is trying to come back. So in that way what the Rams did is pretty interesting

[@newagain9964]

So weak. Why not just make goal posts wider and everyone kick more FGs?

[@caliboy09]

Rams tried this in the Super Bowl against the Patriots, Zuerlein missed and that was it

[@justinbombach9873]

I think this really only makes sense if you have a chance of getting the ball back anyways after a failed onside kick. Let's say there is 2:15 on the clock and you have no timeouts. If you get the field goal but not the onside kick, you still have a chance of getting the ball back, if your defense can hold the opponent. If the opponent does three plays then punts, and lets the clock run 40 seconds each play, you'll have approximately 15 seconds left, which isn't much, but at least you could attempt a Hail Mary or similar play. If there is less than a minute and you have only one timeout (or none) then if the field goal is missed, or you don't get the onside kick, it doesn't matter how much time you left on the clock - the opponent will just run three plays and end the game. In the Dolphins vs Rams game, it doesn't matter what points the Rams get or what time they left for themselves on the clock, if they don't get the onside kick and never get the ball again.

[@DanielJamesEgan]

They were in the red zone, it was worth 3 more seconds to try another shot in the end zone. A 1 on 1 fade or something that takes no time and has a low chance of getting picked.

[@Michael-sb8jf]

You could argue it's a better strategy to kick the FG as soon as possible. You need two scores regardless and time is the enemy late in games. Does it matter what order you get them?

[@pastramionrye247]

@@Michael-sb8jf Yes it matters! When your team has the ball with 30 seconds to go on its own 40 yard line, do you feel just as good if they need a TD to win than if they need a FG to win? Of course you don't because the FG is much easier to get. You go for the TD first because it increases your chances of winning dramatically if you are lucky enough to recover the onside kick. The flawed premise in this argument is the ridiculous assumption that after you recover the onside kick, it doesn't matter if need a FG or a TD, just that you need "one score." Of course it matters, driving 20-30 yards for a last second FG attempt is much much much easier than driving 60 yards for a last second TD when you have under a minute left.

[@Michael-sb8jf]

@pastramionrye247 Yes you are correct in this hypothetical game situation because if you need to recover an onside kick your probably doing so less than a minute probably no timeouts so it is easier to only travel the necessary yardage for a FG. What I'm thinking is if you were absolutely certain to play for OT. If your on offense with idk 3ish minutes to play and have 2 or more time outs is to kick the FG as fast and safely as possible assuming your not already in the red zone etc. Then you kick it off regularly. Force the punt and have two minutes to work your game tying drive where you more importantly are more worried about sustaining a drive then fighting the clock A component nfl offense should be able to get into the red zone in that time. Being down two scores is not a game winning strategy with under 5 min to go and doing something like FG first would be very niche. When it comes down to it. You only have in this example 2min 30 (time your offense would have to work with not game clock) some seconds to score any combination of points that gets you to 10. Regardless it all would come down to personal taste on how you want to get your 70 yard and 30 yard drives done and of your are absolutely certain you want to play for ot

[@nextbigthing2917]

@@Michael-sb8jfYes it matters because your chances of getting back this close to end zone is extremely slime, the touchdown is the hardest part of this comeback so you might as well go for it while you have a chance, once you recover the onside kick you won’t need much time to get in field goal range anyway and that takes pressure off your players.

[@chrish931]

Teams used to do this more, especially in two score down situations or to give themselves a 2nd chance if the snap is bad or fumbled. Teams also used to quick kick punt with QB's on 3rd and long, Randell Cunningham and John Elway were both very good at it. .

[@MackNJacishopper]

And the one time that Tom Brady did it.

[@freezer8530]

When down by eleven inside of two minutes and near the goal line, it makes much more sense to consider this four-down territory and go for the touchdown, even on fourth down. That way, you'll know (after the result of the ensuing 2-point try) whether or not a field goal would be good enough to tie the score at the end of regulation. When down by eleven, you need a touchdown+2pt + a field goal; but if you fail to get the 2pt, a field goal does no good and you'll need a second touchdown.

[@SpankinYaBoy]

I understand your reasoning in kicking the FG in the Bengals game on 3rd down. The Ravens already had the ball and lost it, so all the Bengals needed was a FG. In the Rams game, I understand the thought behind kicking the FG on 3rd, but you are already on the opponent 12 yard line, It would take 5 seconds off the clock to try and take another shot at the endzone, but if you don't see anything just throw it away (take the intentional grounding penalty if needed) and then kick a marginally harder FG. I could see your point if they kicked the FG as soon as they got into FG range that way they had more time-outs, but they didn't. They wasted time getting all the way to the 12, wasted time outs, just to end up kicking a FG which they could have done earlier with more time outs.

[@newagain9964]

Fax. Regardless. FGs and XPx are 98% of the time anti climatic (best part is if they’re blocked, be real) and cop out. Get rid of them. Kickoffs to. Placekicking gotta go.

[@xTRUExiNsANiTYx]

The reality is getting the onside kick is harder than scoring anyway. Getting the onside kick with more time remaining gives you more time to score again. You can take your shots to the end zone with no time on the clock

[@SpankinYaBoy]

@@xTRUExiNsANiTYx Then why did they even bother getting to the 12-yard line? Just kick the FG when you get within comfortable range for the kicker and that way you have more time + all time outs? I understand and respect the reasoning, but the Rams executed it poorly.

[@YouTubeAuditor1]

So basically, it's all situational based on the game being in the 4th quarter, within 1:00 left on the clock, the losing team having the ball, all while they're down by exactly 10 or 11 points. So no, it's not the future of football.

[@quackshop6598]

9 pts (two possessions) - 16 pts

[@omgbaxtergames]

I think this makes sense to a certain percentage. If your team is already within the redzone, say 20 yard line, go for the TD. You're already so close, the TD is the hard part, you gotta go for it so close. Rams did it backwards.

[@HeathInClearLake]

3rd down fg used to be very common as insurance against botched snaps. The holder could gather the botch, kneel then call a quick time out.

[@strawman1985]

I've always thought this makes sense. You're down 10 with near the 2 minute warning or under it and you have a 30 yard or so field goal, try to get to the middle of the field and kick it quick. It's gonna take more time for a TD most likely so get what you can and try the onside kick or play strong D.

[@mroverdose14]

Really good point. Trying to maximize opportunities at getting the ball a second time.

[@naveedquadeer3752]

If you are down by a combination of a touchdown and field goal, it is imperative to get any score prior to the 2 minute warning. Ideally you want your opponent to have to run a play before the 2 minute warning, acting as another timeout.

[@ajl61419]

Very interesting stuff! My thought is that getting a TD (probably through a Hail Mary) with time expiring or without a way to stop the clock could be easier than completing a pass and running downfield to spike the ball and setup a field goal (which might not be on the preferred hash). Just my unprofessional thoughts

[@wgme86]

High risk high reward. Getting the touchdown is a major morale booster...if u get it. Goin for it increases risk of turnover, a major morale killer. Goin for three is pretty much guaranteed points. But it comes the feeling of we cant get a TD when it counts

[@meowmeow7900]

By kicking the field goal, they almost effectively gave the game away. They also needed a 2-point conversion. It wasn't only that they needed a TD. If they score the TD first, they can fail and still have a chance in regulation. Assuming that play happens sooner rather than at the very end, it gives them a competitive advantage. If they couldn't score from the 12 in 2 plays, then really leaving it up to 1 2-point conversion is not a batter option. With all the teams going for it more on 4th down, it's completely absurd the Rams kicked on 3rd down. They should have gone for it on 3rd AND 4th. An onside kick leaves them one completion away from a FG attempt, and they had a timeout. What it boils down to is that the Rams really thought it made sense that they couldn't score from the 12 in 2 plays, but could somehow score from the 50 in 5 AND convert a 2 point conversion. Just complete nonsense. The chances from the 12 twice should outweigh the disadvantage of needing a 2-point conversion. They effectively said, instead of needing to make 1 out of 2 plays successful, we're going to instead require that we convert on about 5 out of 6 plays. They need to make the field goal(relatively easy). Then need around 3, but probably in reality 4 completions out of 5 plays. Then succeed on a 2-point conversion. The advantage by trying to score on one of two allows then to either kick the field goal after one completion, or throw a pass into the endzone at the end from maybe the 30-40. So you need to convert on 1 of 2, then maybe 2-3 of 5. Regardless, they didn't need the 7 seconds they would've saved to take away a scoring opportunity. They still would've had 33 and a timeout from midfield. It's incredibly dumb. We don't need coaches trying to reinvent the wheel. Today they have the advantage of statistics but not football sense. Brian Daboll has been pretty bad for the Giants, using his decision as evidence of value isn't that. The Giants don't need more time at the end of games. They need more opportunities because they are a bad team. Giving away a set of downs for them is just willingly sabotaging their opportunity without having the self-awareness that they are bad. They need more chances to score a TD, not more time to score a TD. Similarly, the Rams didn't need more time, they simply needed to score a TD. Adding more time wasn't going to change the reality that not only did they not score one all game, sabotaging a drive isn't going to make it happen either. They needed to have some self-awareness that they couldn't keep 'punting on scoring a TD'. You could excuse these horrible coaching decisions 15 years ago, but not today. Mike McCarthy probably wouldn't get away with such a dumb decision.

[@berlin_rams_85]

This! Thank you!!

[@shmeebs387]

You never know what's going to happen on that 3rd down. Sack, catch in bounds. You don't want to use that last timeout. It's so valuable if you get the ball back because it means that the middle of the field is an option. Without it, the defense only needs to defend the boundary and the deep ball. That's massive.

[@Xhadp]

I was not expecting this to be a the team being down situation. I thought that kicking it on third down when in garbage time as the leading team would be a smart decision from an injury perspective since less snaps means less chances at your players getting injuries, there's been some excellent examples even in this ('24) season showing this with players getting injuries on snaps that didn't matter.

[@cconner42]

If you're going to do this, you should be trying it far earlier then they did. They had the ball on the Miami 24 with 1:35 left. If you're willing to take the field goal, run two plays where you're throwing into the end zone then kick it. Tell the QB to throw it away if he doesn't see anything right away. He didn't kick until 6 plays later with :42. If they would have ran one more play into the end zone (Throw it away if you don't see anything) then your kicking with :35. There's not that much difference.

[@MatthewMcVay-f3b]

i think its when theres 2 minutes left and you got in field goal range on the first play. thats the time to kick for me. most of the time i see them push for td on that drive and waste 1-2 mins just to kick a field goal anyways. i think the math would support kicking early then having to get the TD on the last drive allowing you to use all 4 downs on the last drive.

[@ryanlorber9836]

Georgia Tech vs Georgia 1999. In OT, Georgia throws an interception. Tech kicks the field goal on 3rd down. Kick is blocked but the backup QB picked up the ball and got tackled. Tech kicks the ball on fourth down and wins the game

[@supergidd64]

This is the same reason why you go for 2 early if you need it vs at the end of the game. If you make it, great. If you don’t, you know you have to account for that time

[@iitstre_4550]

Just seeing that hold made me instantly feel pain in my chest. The Bengals are not my team by any means but that’s AGONIZING to see 😂

[@MiiMoose]

They should have gone for the field goal much sooner if they were going to settle for it. The problem isn't the TD vs. Field Goal situation, but it was the time lost. You still have to get the onside kick, but then you have more time to try to go down the field.

[@YogSoth]

“In a game that has already had two interceptions…”. How exactly is that relevant in any way to the decision of whether to kick or go for the TD on third down? This is some top quality analysis right here 😂😂😂

[@danbsports6760]

Yep, the lions didn't stop throwing it when their game had, at last count, about 137 interceptions.

[@redvenomweb]

I think the most relevant part of choosing to kick a FG (when you need multiple scores) is accomplishing the #1 goal of most NFL head coaches: delay the event of a definite loss for as long as possible. All the stats I've seen consistently say that it's easier to score a red zone TD and get into FG range (after an onside kick) than it is to kick a red zone FG and score a TD. But if you go for the TD and fail, the game is unwinnable immediately, whereas if you kick the FG, you extend the time before the game is unwinnable by several minutes. Ultimately, it depends on whether the coach wants to maximize the chances of winning, or delay a guaranteed loss for as long as possible. And the latter is, in most cases, a safer choice for a coach's job security. That said, I don't know why a secure coach like McVay would make that choice. Go for the win.

[@brandontownsend2756]

Go for the td first and use every play you have to do so. If you recover the onside kick youre either in range or 1 play from it anyways. If im up 14 inside of 5 minutes maybe I'd kick the 3rd down field goal to guarantee a 3 score game.

[@DDWyss]

The 3rd down FG could be the future of football, but only if they fix onside kicks. Get rid of the announcement requirement and go back to the "ball has to travel 10 yards" rule which seems to have disappeared while I wasn't paying attention. That would make teams try to kick the ball up and not across, which I think is better for kicking teams.

[@danbsports6760]

I don't think the rule has changed. It has to travel ten for the kicking team to get it, but the recievers can jump on it at any time. Kicking the ball up has never been an option. How can you run ten yards when the ball is going ten faster than you and also beat a guy to a spot he is standing at?

[@DDWyss]

@@danbsports6760 Sorry, when I say "try to kick the ball up", I mean try to make the ball pop up so the kicking team at least has some chance of recovering it. Now they kick it across the ground which seems to make the ball get to the receiving team way too soon.

[@danbsports6760]

@DDWyss OK, yeah, agree totally that the kick it into the ground and get the high bounce is a lost art. Maybe that was more if an AstroTurf thing.

[@Teatreetheartist]

Year of the 3rd down field goal, AND THE 3 point LAY UP🔥

[@samueldrazkowski2908]

Colts did this against the Vikings as well, on 1st down from Minnesota 36 with 28 seconds left

[@tigerwoods373]

If they weren't so close, I would agree with the fg. But it's much easier to get back into fg range than a position to score a td. Some will say just do a Hail Mary but the probability of success is very low and I don't think Stafford has the arm to throw one from any farther than midfield. So he'd still have to get close to where fg range is to even have a chance for a Hail Mary.

[@holgualoxford3871]

Scenario - you get to the 30 1st and 10 with about a minute left and1 time out, down 9 to 11 points. You pretty well gotta do the onside kick if you score. Id kick the field goal immediately even if its 1st down because that low % onside is happening regardless so lets get to it and if we get it now we got time, a time out, AND know we are in 4 down mode so have more options with that going on as well. So yea kicking on 3rd Im all for and even 1st or 2nd if the situation is about as above.. which was pretty much the case in this game here.

[@Michael-sb8jf]

In a two score game with time waining. Time is a more valuable resource. Givin the right circumstances I wouldn't be surprised if a team kicks a FG if down by 10/11 as soon as they get in FG optimal range. As it doesn't matter what order you score points in.

[@EphramZimball]

With 6:00 to go if a team ties the game, they should try an onsides kick because even if it fails the other side gets a short field and they'll get the ball back with a chance to tie or win at worst.

[@leavemanycredits]

That's not allowed anymore anyway. NFL Rules require you to be trailing to attempt an onside kick.

[@B345T1N355Official]

No because if you miss the FG, that’s basically one less attempt to get to a first down and it may incentivize the defense to block the FG attempt, which actually would cause a turnover and put the ball down right then and they can run it immediately.

[@RyTrapp0]

Trotting out Brandon Aubrey for a 1st down 70yd FG to maximize the amount of clock, right before Brandon Aubrey pulls off the onside kick to set up... ...3x 2yd rushes from Zeke, and a Cooper Rush game sealing turnover. Shout out to draft season!

[@danbsports6760]

If they were down five they could just keep kicking the FGs and getting the onsiders.

[@Simon-lm9dt]

I think taking a FG is a product of not having confidence in your offence in a 10 point game you have to score a TD to tie or win if you have already drove the ball down to get in to a scoring position then you should try and score as the onside kick will more than likely put you farther back than you were on the previous drive so you are much more likely to be able to get and make a last second FG opposed to a last second TD play. If a HC wants to play it safe try and score on 1st 2nd and 3rd and FG on 4th to try and put your team in the best spot possible. Taking a FG on 3rd down is planning for failure IMO.

[@grinningchicken]

If you are down 9-11 points under 3 minutes kicking as soon as you are in range makes sense. Because you need the ball back and time to score regardless.

[@lathanmckinney]

You're right to say "kick it at the earliest moment possible" but in the case of the Rams they were already down at the 10 yard line, your chances of scoring a TD there are much better than forcing yourselves to go all the way down the field afterwards. I'm very happy they did kick though, as one more reception from Kupp would have been enough to beat me in fantasy.

[@xavierellis9836]

Great video and i love your stylw of content

[@TheMcswagger98]

i always do this in madden. If you’re down 10 just check the FG off so you’re be closer. wasting clock is the worse

[@adrianjenkins5877]

There's an old rule in journalism that if an article is titled with a question, then answer to that question is invariably "no".

[@losogeezy6110]

The momentum of the game is swayed up and can lead to changes

[@Michael0663-qo4wx]

By this logic, team should just kick FG on 1st down.

[@2muchteevee]

"what he say fuck me for?" - Nebraska

[@MegaBearsFan]

I don't think there is a single meta strategy that is strictly better in these cases. Down by 10, if you kick the early field goal, it also means you're playing for the tie, and you *must* convert the TD in the second drive. But if you do make the TD in the first drive, when youre already in or near the redzone, then you can play for a 2nd TD and the *win*, and can always settle for the tying field goal if you can't quite get into the end zone. It all depends on how much time is left, how many timeouts you have, and how well the respective offenses, defenses, and kickers are playing. Its a judgement call with no right answer.

[@lakerskid2013]

Exactly, but at the end of the day you have to take the points while you have the chance. I’ve seen too many times where teams are down 10 or 17 points, are in reasonable field goal range, and don’t take the 3 points. Knock it out of the way and then you know you have remaining points needed since you cut it down to one less possession. I don’t know, maybe it’s just the traditionalist in me but I don’t really get on board too much with this analytical stuff for situations like this. This new age stuff now affects even how people play football video games as well with their decision making

[@Perfumery_by_Sabin]

Just shows how much trust McVay has in his offense

[@OkagaCalifornia]

I've seen this type of play before, I think it's the smartest way to try and claw yourself out of these types of holes. I don't think it's bad football whatsoever.

[@pastramionrye247]

The reason you go for the touchdown on third down is that if you recover the onside kick, you have a much better chance of moving 20 yards and kicking a field goal than going down the field for a touchdown (which will most likely require a hail mary pass). People are trying to be too clever here. Take one more shot at the end zone and if it fourth down, it's probably better to take the field goal but honestly the touchdown is so much more valuable than the field goal it's close. No coach would ever go for it on fourth down because the fans want the field goal and the illusion of hope that they can convert too extremely low percentage plays (onside kick + hail mary) to win. Nobody ever wins the game after kicking the field goal. The game just feels closer because it's a one possession game and a 1-in-10,000 event could have occurred.

[@ForeverDayGreen]

I feel like in this scenario it was the wrong decision because the Rams didn't know if they'd need Td + 2pt + Fg + Ot or Td + Missed 2pt + Hail Marry. Obviously the onside kick remains the bottleneck (and should be abolished for 4th and 15) but by scoring a TD on that first drive the Rams would have eliminated another point of uncertainty/failure. On the other hand if a team is down 10 points going for the FG early seems smart even if only to reduce injury risk.

[@joshuario]

That close to the end zone I think going for it would be the play here. But I’m not a NFL head coach for a reason.

[@seanbrownsociety]

Another thing to consider is the probability of actually scoring a redzone TD on the very next play. Like if the Rams are 3rd&short from the 15, should they try an endzone pass play? If incomplete, it runs ~10 seconds down and you get a 3pt chip shot kick. But was it worth the, say, 40% probability that they score a TD on that exact play?

[@matheus074]

Been saying this for years now, if you are down by 9-11 you gotta kick it right when you enter into the confortable FG range. Even better if you are before the 2min warning

[@FALMe2660]

I always thought that they should do this whenever in field goal range!!!

[@SteveJonesIndeed]

The point at the end of the video of kicking the field goal with enough time to force the opposition to have to punt is the interesting one.

[@CZsWorld]

It's dumb no matter how you slice it. Because there's no guarantee you'll get back to that field position. Going for the touchdown first and kicking as a fallback is the best of both worlds.

[@IsaacPunts]

Hey, I just watched one of your videos. But I would have argue that the biggest challenge is still the probability bottleneck at the onside. The point of the video is more “would you rather be kicking said inside with 1:11 down 7 or perhaps 35 down 3.” I just like that the discourse is evolving

[@CZsWorld]

@IsaacPunts When you put it like that, it actually makes more sense to me! I think there might actually be a place for it if it's a high scoring game and the ball has been moving down the field all day. Not this game though.

[@nootchog8292]

If you wanna do that then do it, but don't change the rules to have 3 down ball. As a Canadian who has played, 4 down ball is way more fun. 3 down is just cardio for 1/4 of the game.

[@paul16451]

If the snap is muffed on third down, the clock continues to run if a timeout is not called, as it would for a sack. And it takes a longer time to reset for another attempt than it would for a normal play. So in cases like these, third down isn't really an advantage.

[@chosen1one930]

This is only done to have more time if they get the onside kick, just game management, not the first time we have seen this

[@chillbilling2743]

Bruh the Lions just did the same thing against the Texans… which bugged be initially because they had two time outs and opted to take a time out with just seconds left to take the field goal on third down.

[@cdprince768]

Teams should absolutely kick the field goal on 3rd down in game-tying or game-winning situations to guard against a botched snap or hold. Furthermore, teams are downright stupid for letting the clock bleed to 3 seconds before kicking the game-winning field goal. You should call timeout at about 6 seconds to ensure you have time left to kick again in case you are called for an offensive penalty on the first attempt. Who cares if you leave a few seconds on the clock?

[@leogetz3570]

This actually happens quite often in "2 score" situations like this, it's not that unusual

[@post1084]

analysing --🏈good for thinking coaches and for sport KZbinrs 🏈

[@DPClassical-8]

As a kstate fan after last night, yes that was trajic

[@tednorthrop3030]

I think the other factor here is the “softness” of the defense. It’s probably easier to score a TD when you’re down 10, then you only need to get into FG range on the second drive. Having to score the TD last basically puts you in Hail Mary or lateral mode, which is a crazy low percentage.

[@kaspershaupt]

i was a bid confused. still think it a bid odd, mostly because of field position they were in the 12 yard line. if the make the on side they have to walk all the way down the field instead of just kicking a 60 yarder. but McVay has definitely thought about it more then i have

[@smudgeous4068]

It was basically a gamble: assume we won't score a TD on a 3rd down pass attempt (and maybe also mess up the snap/hold on the 4th down field goal afterwards despite that not happening on any of the previous 5 field goal attempts), save ~5 seconds now and then after the onside kick, we'll travel an extra 40 yards of field position for a TD instead of a long field goal attempt. I just don't know how you can square that decision away; it seems like a terrible trade-off. The risk of an INT or lost fumble is the only game-ending risk you're saving by not trying on 3rd, but the likelihood of either one on a single passing play trying to go 12 yards is a lot less than however many pass attempts you take trying to cover 50-55 yards on the next drive with very little time left, instead of only requiring ~15 yards for a long field goal. A sack or fumble recovered by the offense on 3rd down would be the next worse outcome, but it would not move them out of field goal range and if either happened they could just spend their final timeout. Doing so would not lose the ability to kick a field goal with only slightly less time remaining on 4th down. On the flip side, a successful outcome means the game isn't over of the 2 point conversion winds up failing. The next drive then is 15-30 yards with ~35 seconds and a timeout to get into long/intermediate field goal range instead of ~40 seconds and a timeout to go 55 yards.

[@ndgoliberty]

It doesn’t even need to be 3rd down. Get the points as soon as you possibly can. Then come back and try the yolo Hail Mary for the 7 if you get the onside

[@-Only.Facts-]

McVay thinks he's bigger than football.

[@myosick]

Thus shouldn't even be controversial in football circles. The first down FG should become the norm in situations where the offense is trailing 9-11 pts

[@eddurriii8214]

Yes maximize time left but that doesn’t mean take the 3 points bc it’s easier n takes less time. You should still seek to score a TD as it’s harder to get that score with less time than get a FG. Which most kickers are able to make from 50+ fairly consistently.

[@emersonarriety]

Nothing grates my nerves more than teams lollygagging in/near the redzone down by two scores at the end of games. Especially when they have two or three timeouts and could get the ball back without the onside kick. But instead of kicking the field goal or targeting the Endzone, they choose the worst option of wasting time in exchange for negligible yardage.

[@ubon11]

Situational kick. If you’re down 9,10, or 11, kicking makes a little bit of sense on a 3rd and long.

[@jacobwiseman1446]

Having the only college clip being Nebraska is diabolical :(

[@zachstevens9948]

fellow bengals fan here, its hard out here

[@goosemoose4343]

This has happened many many times before when down 2 scores.

[@djmrtwist]

This has happened for years. At least 5 times per season for the last 100 years including Canadian Football

[@aaronthomas8190]

Bengals fan? Even more reason to like you! ❤🐯 Also, good analysis.

[@JackalBruit]

this also signals to me that teams // analytics are showing that the probability for an onside kick recovery (OKR) may be going up - or at least that teams are working to improve said chance otherwise, why bother focusing on how to maximize the amount of time to get the TD post-OKR if the OKR is damn-near impossible any way!

[@SteveSoper1979]

In situations where you need an on-side kick to win regardless, I have no problem with taking the chip-shot FG early. Why take more unnecessary snaps when the game is really decided on that kick anyways. Less snaps = less risk of injury in a game you're almost certainly going to lose anyways.

[@wgme86]

Depends a little on ur 3rd down conversion % if its not good then maybe ur better off with half the points and a bit more time

[@dondewanwalker3439]

the ghost of footballs past really.

[@andrewpolasek5524]

No it's not the future, just a failed experiment. As a Fins fan I was glad they ran this play, that alone tells you it was dumb. You were already in the red zone, go for the touchdown. A shot to the end zone would have consumed maybe 5 seconds off the game clock, and if it failed you could still kick the field goal on 4th down.

[@jonathanweinblatt7866]

There's a human bias toward losing later rather than sooner to keep hope alive. I've always thought this field goal first strategy was dubious at best and stupid at worst. You have two difficult tasks in front of you - Scoring a TD, and kicking a field goal. The scoring a TD one is the more difficult of the two. Getting a TD from within the 20 is far easier than with a hail mary. Ergo, you should take that opportunity to go for the TD. Yes, if you miss it the game is over but so what you were going to lose anyway. Kicking the FG just prolongs things and gives you hope that if you recover the onside kick you can manage a hail mary TD, while the truth is if you managed the TD from inside the 20, you're in much better shape just needing a FG if you manage the onside kick recovery. I don't believe the time saved helps enough and with kicker ranges a long FG is a higher percentage play than a hail mary

[@ThatOneGuy8305]

There's a ton of advantages to the "kick early" strategy. The one that came to mind for me is that from a long-term POV it gets to the important moment - the onside kick - much faster in real time. You don't necessarily want to play around injuries, but spending three plays with players getting hit only to fail to recover the onside kick and have it all be a waste seems not ideal to say the least. Every year players get hurt on plays that don't matter, and until you kick the onside kick you have simply no idea if the plays immediately before it were pointless.

[@Beast-yp2ei]

I think of your in the red zone you should try the td but otherwise it’s actually pretty smart

[@PixelatedLlama]

NFL coaches need to embrace more early down field goals in general. It doesn't make any sense to sell out for a TD when you're in FG range; down by 9, 10, or 11; have 2 timeouts left; and there is 2:30 to 3:30 left on the game clock. The right move under those circumstances is to kick the field goal as early as possible. The goal is to get the ball back into the hands of your offense with at least a minute left, which you mathematically can't do without an onside kick unless you can stop the clock 3 times. Not kicking the fieldgoal with enough clock stoppages left to get a 3 & out is insanity. It's like intentionally deciding to rely on winning the lottery, especially after kickoff return formations were changed by rule a couple years ago. (The rule change this year obviously doesn't help this year, although everybody knows that a team that needs an onside to win the game is going to kick an onside whether it's announced or not.) Yet I swear to God, I've seen the Colts' coaching staff get fixated on scoring a TD under these exact circumstances such that they lost their ability to win the game without recovering an onside kick. That's why I've thought about this quite a bit before this video, although this point was clear to me in the moment as it was happening. In the modern NFL, unnecessarily putting the team in position to need an onside kick recovery amounts to coaching terrorism. Also, the Colts have been so bad in recent years that there have been games where they would've been better off kicking a FG the second they get into FG range rather than even try to score TDs at all. If a team is having turnover issues, it's probably smart to just kick the FG once the team is within the kicker's range. Especially if your opposing offense is also struggling to put points up.

[@duck_corp]

I don't think it makes sense to go for a field goal on third down unless it is guaranteed to be the last play of a half. All kicking on third down tells me is that the coach doesn't have faith in his offense to not turn the ball over.

[@Tickenest]

Tell us that you didn't watch the video without saying that you didn't watch the video.

[@cameronreed1021]

Your leaving your offense with more time on the clock if the get the onside

[@duck_corp]

@@cameronreed1021 Right, but if you're in a position to kick a field goal, you're already upfield a decent amount. If you need a touchdown anyway, take another shot because you could just get it right now, or a couple plays from now. Downs are extremely valuable and wasting one would be foolish.

[@operez1990]

At this spot it was terrible for the Rams to kick the FG here. They should have kicked it when they were in range earlier and tried the Onside after.

[@VegasPokerNomad]

The Rams could have kicked on 3rd, ran a play on 3rd and kicked on 4th, or ran two plays going for a TD. All 3 options are close. Especially when all 4 events (TD, 2, FG, recover a kick) only result in a tie and you lose half the time in OT anyway. The Giants kicking was a clearly better move than the alternatives. The Giants could have won in regulation. And you're not easily nor quickly scoring a TD from the 27.