Shorttynaz Posted October 27, 2013 Share Posted October 27, 2013 4th and goal and Marvin Lewis chooses to go for it instead of kicking the FG. Stuffed and turnover. We see these decisions haunt teams all the time.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougsul Posted October 27, 2013 Share Posted October 27, 2013 Yes starting Nugent I was not happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
satelliteoflovegm Posted October 27, 2013 Share Posted October 27, 2013 Win probability is greater scoring 7 than 3 and accounting for distance needed for the opponent to go. Get out of the 1990's 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
byroz Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 Win probability is greater scoring 7 than 3 and accounting for distance needed for the opponent to go. Get out of the 1990's I remember reading an article about Chip Kelley and the Oregon offense and the mathematics about going for it on 4th and 1/2/3 or going for it when your 4th and goal on the 1/2/3 whatever and that mathematically your chances of getting those cpl yards or td is a much greater chance of winning than kicking fgs/punting. It was actually a really good read I saw it on yahoo a while back I don't remember the name of it though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
satelliteoflovegm Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 The NFL is changing and some people need to let go of "old fashioned" thoughts and strategies. I'm not saying "gut call" doesn't have it's place, ok it doesn't, but fans and the media need to not rail on a coach that follows the math, even when it isn't successful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gandalas Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 Not to mention, even if you don't get it, then that team has first down on their own 1-5 yard line. The chances of a safety on that ensuing defensive possession also have to be figured in there as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MustOfBeenDrunk Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 Not to mention, even if you don't get it, then that team has first down on their own 1-5 yard line. The chances of a safety on that ensuing defensive possession also have to be figured in there as well. + 1 also satelliteoflovegm was saying about the same thing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geo33 Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 I don't know if this is accurate, but I'm gonna play a little devils advocate here. I think it works both ways..take the Dallas game for example, they decided to take the points instead of attempt to run out the clock/win the game. Then Detroit got the ball back and won the game. Is this relevant to your argument? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shorttynaz Posted October 28, 2013 Author Share Posted October 28, 2013 (edited) Well, it happened a few weeks ago on Monday night. Mike Smith decided to go for a TD at the end of the first half instead of taking a short FG. They were stuffed and ended up losing by 2 to the Jets.. I even made a comment about it a few weeks ago in that game thread.. Not kicking that fg at the end of the half is gonna haunt the falcons Edited October 28, 2013 by Shorttynaz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
satelliteoflovegm Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 Well, it happened a few weeks ago on Monday night. Mike Smith decided to go for a TD at the end of the first half instead of taking a short FG. They were stuffed and ended up losing by 2 to the Jets.. I even made a comment about it a few weeks ago in that game thread.. I'd agree without knowing any math to this point, that the values change significantly at the ends of the half's. You don't have the benefit of defensive plays, field position, and scoring again. What I can't agree with is the assumption that everything goes the same in the game regardless of the outcomes of the play. I believe that's called bias outcome or outcome bias, I forget. I'm still learning this stuff and reading things but just as a general principle I agree with the mathematics and think as the sample sizes of research gets bigger and the dinosaur coaches start to thin out, we'll see a more dramatic shift to following the analytics. And as a result giving fits and convulsions to any football fan born pre 1985. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
satelliteoflovegm Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 I don't know if this is accurate, but I'm gonna play a little devils advocate here. I think it works both ways..take the Dallas game for example, they decided to take the points instead of attempt to run out the clock/win the game. Then Detroit got the ball back and won the game. Is this relevant to your argument? I'm going to look at this later at work for some details. But again don't confuse outcome with what's correct. If I flip a coin 3 times and it's tails every time, the correct probability would be to assume a heads the fourth time. It could still be tails of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bad Example Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 I'm going to look at this later at work for some details. But again don't confuse outcome with what's correct. If I flip a coin 3 times and it's tails every time, the correct probability would be to assume a heads the fourth time. It could still be tails of course. Just what I was going to say - one example is a small sample size; what most of this research says is that ON AVERAGE - over hundreds of different situations in hundreds of games, going for it is the better choice. Of course, that may change as people come around to the thinking that going for it is the better choice - i.e. people may try to convert 4th downs in less advantageous situations - though I know there is at least one HS team that basically said "we are going for it always" and NEVER punts (Gregg Easterbrook talked them up in TMQ a year or two back), and I can't quite recall if they ever kick FGs. I think a measured approach is best - if I were a HC, I'd probably punt on my own side of the field, and from the 50-30, go for it on 4th and less-than-3, and probably inside the 3, I'd be willing to roll the dice and consider it 4-down territory. And it also depends on game situation - say it's 4th and 1 from the 34, with 3 seconds left in the half? You obviously kick the FG there. Easterbrook (and Bill Barnwell) at Grantland maintain that most head coaches are cowardly, superstitious lot and oftentimes kick in order to avoid criticism, as opposed to making the best decision to win the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osu1322 Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 There are a few things that factor into going for it on 4th down. 1. How good has the play you have called up been working so far? 2. Has your offense been able to convert during the game? 3. Does a TD help the situation you in vs a FG? (ex a TD makes it a 2 score game vs a FG still makes it a 1 score game) There have also been games this year where the losing team is around midfield and 4th down comes up and it's an automatic punt. If a team is down by 3 TDs or more they don't have anything to lose going for it on 4th down. I also believe coaches have a feel for how their team is performing. They know that the stud RB is going to get into the endzone or that the QB will audible at the line to call the right play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shorttynaz Posted November 3, 2013 Author Share Posted November 3, 2013 There's another one. Minnesota has it 4th and 1 from Dallas's 21. They opt to pass on the FG and instead go for it, hand it off to Peterson and he gets stuffed and they turn it over on downs. TAKE THE POINTS!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shorttynaz Posted November 4, 2013 Author Share Posted November 4, 2013 There's another one. Kubiak goes for it on 4th and 1 instead of taking the points, Tate gets stuffed and they get nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bad Example Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 You should read Bill Barnwell's "Thank You For Not Coaching" column over at Grantland. I notice you were pretty quiet last week when Sunday teams went 15-for-18 (Barnwell's #) on 4th down conversions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shorttynaz Posted November 4, 2013 Author Share Posted November 4, 2013 teams went 15-for-18 (Barnwell's #) on 4th down conversions. i don't pay that close attention. Only the obvious ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BA Baracus Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 I'm going to look at this later at work for some details. But again don't confuse outcome with what's correct. If I flip a coin 3 times and it's tails every time, the correct probability would be to assume a heads the fourth time. It could still be tails of course. Incorrect. The outcomes of the prior coin flips have no bearing on the outcome of the current flip. The odds are always 50/50 assuming a fair coin. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 I'm going to look at this later at work for some details. But again don't confuse outcome with what's correct. If I flip a coin 3 times and it's tails every time, the correct probability would be to assume a heads the fourth time. It could still be tails of course. Incorrect. The outcomes of the prior coin flips have no bearing on the outcome of the current flip. The odds are always 50/50 assuming a fair coin. um...that's what he said Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BA Baracus Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 um...that's what he said Actually it's not. He said that if you get 3 tails in a row that probability is that the 4th would be a head. The probability is that there would be no favorite. It would be a random 50/50 outcome. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcmast Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 Actually it's not. He said that if you get 3 tails in a row that probability is that the 4th would be a head. The probability is that there would be no favorite. It would be a random 50/50 outcome. That's assuming a fair coin. Without knowing that the smart bet would be another tails. Football isn't a fair coin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bad Example Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 (edited) i don't pay that close attention. Only the obvious ones. Oh, so like announcers, when a 4th down attempt DOESN'T work, you armchair-coach the crap out of it. People rarely remember the ones that DO work, because there's nothing to get pissed about. Heck, going for it on 4th and short has turned around Carolina's season. From Bill Barnwell's article today on Grantland: In Week 2, the Panthers lost yet another close game to the Bills. There, Rivera skipped an opportunity to end the game with a fourth-and-1 conversion, kicking a 39-yard field goal that put his Panthers up six. Just as they did against the Falcons the previous year, Rivera's defense then blew that lead, as EJ Manuel drove the Bills the length of the field for a game-winning touchdown. Since then, the Panthers have faced fourth-and-1 six times and gone for it all six times. Those plays have worked out pretty well: Week 3: Carolina goes for it on fourth-and-1 from the 2-yard line against the Giants in a 0-0 game. Mike Tolbert punches it in for a touchdown. Week 5: The Panthers go for it on fourth-and-1 from the Arizona 15-yard line late in the second quarter of a 3-3 game. A play-action pass finds a wide-open Brandon LaFell, who drops the pass. Week 6: In a scoreless game, Tolbert bursts through the line for a first down on fourth-and-1 from the Minnesota 32-yard line to extend a drive … Week 6: … that ends when the Panthers go for it on fourth-and-1 from the 2-yard line and Newton finds a wide-open Steve Smith off play-action for an easy touchdown. Week 8: With a 14-6 lead in the third quarter, Tolbert busts through the line on fourth-and-1 from the 20-yard line for another conversion. The Panthers score a touchdown four plays later. Week 9: Perhaps exorcising his Falcons demons, Rivera goes for it on fourth-and-1 from the 14-yard line with a 7-3 lead in the second quarter. Again going play-action, Newton finds a wide-open Greg Olsen for a touchdown. In summation: That's three touchdowns and two plays continuing drives that would eventually produce touchdowns in six tries. The one failure was a drop that might have resulted in a touchdown itself, if not simply continuing a possible touchdown drive. The three runs have been relatively simple conversions, and the three passes have each produced wide-open receivers. Rivera would be right to go for it in those situations regardless of the outcomes, but he has been rewarded handsomely for his decisions. Barnwell also is pretty consistent about being accountable; when he's wrong, he admits it. Evidence shows that going for it on 4th down is almost always the correct decision. But in real life (or even sports) sometimes the correct decision doesn't produce the desired outcome. Edited November 4, 2013 by Mr Bad Example Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shorttynaz Posted November 4, 2013 Author Share Posted November 4, 2013 (edited) There's another one. Kubiak goes for it on 4th and 1 instead of taking the points, Tate gets stuffed and they get nothing. Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner. Dont know if HOU would have won but the Colts won by 3. Edited November 4, 2013 by Shorttynaz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron677 Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 Man every single week I watch at least one team go for it on 4th down instead of taking the easy three points and it seems like about 80%+ of the time they don't get it. Very frequently in these games a field goal would have potentially altered the outcome. Case in point - last night the Texans go for it on 4th down, don't get it, end up losing by 3 points. If they had just kicked the field goal the game would have at least gone to overtime where they would've had a chance to win. It's really stupid. In the NFL you can't afford to do this BS, it's an extremely difficult league and you need to take guaranteed points any way you can get them. Leave going for it on 4th down to the college and high school leagues as they are so much more forgiving than the NFL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 I found this site: http://wp.advancednf.../4thdncalc1.php . Assuming I'm using it correctly and it's accurate and up-to-date, here are the real stats, not what "it seems like." So far this year teams are converting 68% of 4th and 1's, 55% of 4th and 2's, 49% of 4th and 3's, 42% of 4th and 4's, 36% of 4th and 5's, 36% of 4th and 6's, 34% of 4th and 7's, 30% of 4th and 8's, 28% of 4th and 9's, 21% of 4th and 10's. The math definitely supports going for it on 4th and short and for the good offenses. But many fans don't understand the math. If a coach gets fired because of taking justified risks, he still got fired. Would be curious to see what numbers you plugged in, the "how you used it" part. Because we're talking about passing on a FG to go for it on 4th down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.