Let’s join Harvard Sports Analysis for the post-mortem:
But no one knew that his score would decide the game. Before he ran the ball in, the Giants had 0.94 win probability (per Advanced NFL Stats). After the play, the Giants’ win probability dropped to 0.85. Had he instead taken a Brian Westbrook or Maurice Jones-Drew-esque knee on the goal line, the Giants would have had a 0.96 win probability. Assuming the Patriots used their final time out, the Giants would have had 3rd and Goal from the 1-yard line with around 1:04 left to play. At this point, the Giants could either attempt to score a touchdown or take a knee. Assuming the touchdown try was unsuccessful or that Eli Manning kneeled, the Giants could have let the clock run all the way down to 0:25 before using the Giants’ final time out. With 4th and Goal from the 2 with 25 seconds left to play, the Giants would have a 0.92 win probability, 0.07 higher than after Bradshaw scored the touchdown of his life.
I am not sure about all this though. Shouldn’t Bradshaw have just stood there on the 1 (far away enough that he can’t be pushed in) and then cross over at the last second?
Cheap Talk 
8 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 8, 2012 at 3:55 pm
afinetheorem
A play is blown dead if a runner stops attempting to make forward progress.
February 8, 2012 at 5:19 pm
jeff
I believe you, but it can’t be that simple right? I am sure he is allowed to run backwards or sideways and those can’t be construed as attempts to make forward progress, or am I missing something?
February 8, 2012 at 7:56 pm
Anonymous
The runner’s forward progress toward the opponents’ goal line is stopped by contact with an opponent, with little chance to be resumed. The exact moment at which the player’s forward progress stops is subject to the judgment of the officials. This part of the rule has nothing to do with forward momentum. No contact from another player, the play is still live. Bradshaw should have jogged in place at the 1 until he was touched by the defense.
February 8, 2012 at 11:09 pm
luc
ok. but then the pats just push bradshaw forward from the one yard line into the endzone. there are no rules about pushing the runner forward right?
i find it hard to believe that the pats would just let him stand there without shoving him into the endzone.
February 9, 2012 at 12:10 am
Jim S
Assuming the Pat defense was coached well on this ploy, had Bradshaw tried to kill time, they would tackle him. He was surrounded, and would not have had room to kill more than another couple of seconds off the clock, after which Pats call a timeout. (That may be what you were missing.) (Even better is if they push him into the end zone. Were you watching: A Patriot went after Bradshaw to do just that, before Bradshaw managed to fall into the endzone on his own.)
February 9, 2012 at 8:01 am
Sean Crockett
I agree with Jim S., Bradshaw might have bought an extra second, two tops, by standing just outside the goal line. Assuming a touchback on the kickoff, the tradeoff for the Giants is (1) Up by two, Pats need 45 yards in 25 seconds, no timeouts, to have a realistic shot at the win, or (2) Up by 5-6, Pats need 80 yards in 56 seconds, one timeout, to get the win.
In scenario 2, the Pats need an extra 35 yards, but get an extra 30 seconds and a HUGE timeout to get it. The reason the timeout is huge is because they’ve got a chance for one big play in the middle of the field and can stop the clock. In scenario 1, I don’t think there is time for two 20-25 yard plays down the middle then running to the line and spiking the ball. So you either need a huge 45 yard play down the middle on first or second down, or you need to complete a 15 yard sideline play and 30 yard down-the-middle play. Deep sidelines are really tough to complete because the second is playing outside-in.
The Pats made the right call by allowing the score, and Bradshaw should have squatted on the goal line. But he only would have bought a second (which nevertheless could be a big second) by hesitating on the goal line before going down, the Pats would have quickly pushed him forward.
February 9, 2012 at 11:02 am
davidcroushore
According to his account of the game, Eli Manning realized that the defense was planning to allow Bradshaw to score, and shouted at Bradshaw to pull up short. Instead, Eli should have pulled back the hand-off, and run around the end himself. As Eli is a slower runner, more time would have elapsed. Additionally, taking a less direct route to the endzone would have caused more time to elapse.
Had the Patriots seen this strategy, they could have either continued to play the “allow a TD” strategy, or shifted to “tackle Eli.” The win probability for the Giants is largely unaffected if the Patriots tackle Eli, because the probability of making a field goal from that position on the field does not dramatically increase by advancing the ball to the one yard line. Further, if the Patriots stayed on “allow a TD,” Eli could not drop to one knee on the one yard line with likely under :55 to play. After taking a knee on third down and kicking the field goal, there would have been under :20 on the clock.
However, the focus on that touchdown is causing people to miss the better strategic play in the end game. On the final drive, the Giants intentionally put an extra defender on the field to prevent a long pass, conceding 5 penalty yards for 9 seconds of game time. That was good strategy (albeit extremely unsportsmanlike)
February 9, 2012 at 12:39 pm
jeff
i think that about sums it up, thanks david.