Does any coach punt from the opponent's side more than Garrett?

[CATCH17]

I have no problem with them punting it...


BUT


If it's 3rd and 3 run the ball on 3rd down and go for it on 4th down.

We are good enough to get 3 rushing yards on 2 plays the majority of the time.

Don't just always pass it and force an automatic punt if we don't convert.

 

[Shake_Tiller]

I have no problem with them punting it...


BUT


If it's 3rd and 3 run the ball on 3rd down and go for it on 4th down.

We are good enough to get 3 rushing yards on 2 plays the majority of the time.

Don't just always pass it and force an automatic punt if we don't convert.

This is a very good point. A good coach should know before 3rd down what he is likely to do with regard to a 4th down attempt. I think Romo made this point in his debut as a TV analyst. A rushing play makes sense on 3rd and 5 if the intention is to go for it on 4th and 1 or 2. Improve the odds. That doesn't mean it should always be a running play, but it makes sense to look at 3rd and 4th downs in the context of how many yards need to be gained and to be prepared to call complementary plays.

 

[adbutcher]

It sure feels like Garrett punts a ton from the opposition's side of the field, and Sunday night was certainly no exception. We punted four times from Giants territory out of nine total drives. Those fourth downs:

• 4th and 3 from the Giants 43
• 4th and 2 from the Giants 44
• 4th and 7 from the Giants 42
• 4th and 20 from the Giants 42

The last drive is definitely a punting situation. I'm not sure what the numbers say about the 4th and 7, but I'd go for that with our offense. The first two should be automatic go for it situations unless there is a compelling game situation, which there was not at those points.

This is not Madden football, you suppose to punt the ball.

 

[wick]

this is hypothetical, based on a computer projection!! seriously...you are using this as your proof of data? you must be from the madden generation. I would ask Bilicheck for his response. no in fact, I would look what bilicheck did in the same situations and I take that as the proper action....after all he has been to 7 superbowls and won 5. what did the bot do? wow. you are making yourself look silly with this post

I suspect you didn't dig very deeply into the article and did not click any links to supporting information, like this:

http://eml.berkeley.edu/~dromer/papers/JPE_April06.pdf

The expected points based on yard line, down and distance are known quantities.

 

[wick]

This is not Madden football, you suppose to punt the ball.

No, you are supposed to win. You win by scoring more points than the other team. Punting in the situations discussed here result in a negative effect on the team's expected point differential, thus making it counterproductive to winning.

 

[adbutcher]

No, you are supposed to win. You win by scoring more points than the other team. Punting in the situations discussed here result in a negative effect on the team's expected point differential, thus making it counterproductive to winning.

And we won and we scored points. You don't win by turning over field position by going for it on 4th downs especially when you are ahead.

 

[wick]

And we won and we scored points. You don't win by turning over field position by going for it on 4th downs especially when you are ahead.

People keep ignoring that the first decision to punt (4th and 3 at New York's 43) was with the score tied at 0-0, before the Giants offense had taken a single snap. The second such decision (4th and 2 at New York's 44) was with Dallas up 6-0 at 6:52 of the second quarter. Those are the two egregious cases in which Garrett should have gone for it. There was not nearly enough information at those points in the game to play the "punt because we're ahead" card. Additionally, the fact that we won the game does not retroactively make these good decisions. We won in spite of them, not because of them.

 

[adbutcher]

People keep ignoring that the first decision to punt (4th and 3 at New York's 43) was with the score tied at 0-0, before the Giants offense had taken a single snap. The second such decision (4th and 2 at New York's 44) was with Dallas up 6-0 at 6:52 of the second quarter. Those are the two egregious cases in which Garrett should have gone for it. There was not nearly enough information at those points in the game to play the "punt because we're ahead" card. Additionally, the fact that we won the game does not retroactively make these good decisions. We won in spite of them, not because of them.

You still punt the ball.

 

[wick]

You still punt the ball.

If you want your expected points to decrease by an amount greater than the rise in your opponent's expected points, yes.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

I suspect you didn't dig very deeply into the article and did not click any links to supporting information, like this:

http://eml.berkeley.edu/~dromer/papers/JPE_April06.pdf

The expected points based on yard line, down and distance are known quantities.

again, this proves nothing. a Berkley geek crunching some numbers and coming up with a hypothetical thesis. again, do you put this article above Bill Bilicheck? or Jimmy Johnson? or any other successful coach? it seems you are hell bent on saying and trying to prove that every NFL coach is wrong!!!!

 

[adbutcher]

If you want your expected points to decrease by an amount greater than the rise in your opponent's expected points, yes.

Just because that happened in your game of Madden doesn't make it so.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

Wow you are a little obsessed........Me thinks the lady doth protest too much

It is a discussion about game theory and not necessarily about JG....don't take it so personal

You prove our point when you talk about making 50% of 4th downs.......in this situation that is like getting a turnover at the other teams 35 yard line ...... that is huge and almost guarantees points

Field position has so much less impact on expected points than getting an extra possession....those are facts

!!?? not sure, but I disagreed with going on 4th downs inside opponents territory, in favor of punting....sounds like you agree..... the initial poster was totally wrong on his assumptions and subsequent data that didnt' validate his original assumptions.....

the notion that every NFL coach, and many many successful ones are wrong for punting when inside the opponents field, is absurd to begin with.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

Uh...did you mean to quote someone else?

yes. probably clicked on the wrong response.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

People keep ignoring that the first decision to punt (4th and 3 at New York's 43) was with the score tied at 0-0, before the Giants offense had taken a single snap. The second such decision (4th and 2 at New York's 44) was with Dallas up 6-0 at 6:52 of the second quarter. Those are the two egregious cases in which Garrett should have gone for it. There was not nearly enough information at those points in the game to play the "punt because we're ahead" card. Additionally, the fact that we won the game does not retroactively make these good decisions. We won in spite of them, not because of them.

why go for it, when score is 0-0? why take a risk at that point in the game? why go for it on a 4th and 3 where stats says, that less than 50% of the time you are successful? that less than 50% stat is across all team and all defenses. the stats are even lower against a good defense. why give the other team a short field position and all they have to do is drive 20 yards and kick a field goal and now you are playing from behind? why take unnecessary chances if you have not seen your defense or their offense play? it makes no sense. I don't say that. every NFL coach who has ever coached and NFL game says so. but then again you are trying to prove every NFL coach is wrong, in history of football but a geek from Berkley crunching numbers for his thesis is right!!! a geek who has never played football.... and is using "CORPORATE RETURNS" as his basis of maximizing profits!!! where the object is not to maximize profits, but to win a game, even if its by 1 point.......different perspective....which makes the basis of the thesis wrong to begin with.

and when you are up 6-0. within one score. your defense is playing well since you have seen them in a series, you have the momentum, why risk and give them the ball and change momentum and allow them the opportunity to go on a short field and get a TD... again a dumb decision. I don't say so, every NFL coach in history of football says so. Bill Bilicheck the architect of the best dynasty ever says so. but then again, you are trying to prove Bilicheck is wrong....

good luck with that....

however, you could instead of digging in and fighting and arguing a losing argument, as in you are in quick sand and sinking step up and you could say, perhaps I was wrong and perhaps, I hated the giants so much I wanted us to dominate and just kill them and perhaps I don't like JG and looking for something to knock him anyway I can, so I came up with a cockamamie reason to start an argument.... the argument never had a leg to stand on. I don't say so. every NFL coach in NFL history says so, but then again you are claiming you are smarter than all of them....well, so be it

 

[Nightman]

Just because that happened in your game of Madden doesn't make it so.

Madden is actually a great place to test game theory .....if it makes sense and helps you win then it doesn't matter where you learned it ....... do you know how many pro poker players learned the game playing online without the 'real emotions' of a live game and reading faces...... the numbers are the numbers and some of them just make too much sense to ignore when you strip away the bravado and old school notions

 

[Nightman]

why go for it, when score is 0-0? why take a risk at that point in the game? why go for it on a 4th and 3 where stats says, that less than 50% of the time you are successful?

Because it gives you a better chance of winning the game....period

 

[Shake_Tiller]

A problem with NFL data these days is the tendency, given how much the rules favor the offense, of defenses to give receivers a good deal of space as long as they can be tackled short of the line to gain. It makes sense to allow an 8-yard gain when 9 is needed and be able, as a result, to better defend against a potential big play. If defenses become aware the offense will go for it on 4th down, they will then change the way they defend 3rd down plays. That doesn't mean teams shouldn't go for it on 4th down. It just means the circumstances will be different, and past analysis could be faulty.

Still think the truth is somewhere in the middle. Coaches do have an incentive to be conservative. The zebra with the red stripes gets the attention of the tiger. But field position is still valuable; especially when playing a team that will struggle to string together first downs. And I do think the capability of the opposing offense matters.

 

[skinsscalper]

I would like to see data from actual games of all teams for a season or two.
From actual NFL teams.

I would imagine if you found that info you would find it pretty similar to what Garrett chose to do.

Not just some article from a paper on what some guy thinks someone should do or some college or high school coach he thinks it is better to always go for it.

If you can provide that data of all teams and the average times they go for it vs punting in those situations you will convert what I think of your opinion...other wise I respectfully think you are wrong and think it is pretty normal for most coaches in those situations.

Keep in mind this is not a situation where we are down a bunch of points and we have to take chances to try and get back into the game.
This is a situation where we are clearly controlling the game, where our defense is playing lights out, where most of the game we controlled the starting field position and the giants were not starting beyond on their 30-35 yard line for most of the game.

Context is difficult for some.

 

[jobberone]

Appreciate that. Actually I didn't take it as being aimed toward me. My point was that a discussion in which one side of an argument is being treated dismissively is usually one that isn't fruitful. I do very much agree with the points you make, though I also think football is a violent, emotional game in which the value of some decisions can be difficult to weigh. Being on the field, in a whirlwind, emotions swing wildly with negative events. Good analysis will have to be accompanied by respect for a coach's feel for the game and for what his team requires.

I built quite a successful business by being a contrarian when my competitors turned to a purely analytical/statistical model. And I had several analysts explain to me in great detail why I was doomed to failure. Instead my business became much more successful. It wasn't because the analysts and my competitors were wrong. It was because I saw a niche in offering something beyond numbers, probabilities, etc. I wasn't smarter than them. I wasn't "right," in an absolute sense. I was just different, and it worked.

It's that experience that makes me distru****l of absolutes -- a team shouldn't punt in this situation, or it shouldn't pass in that situation. Science has its place. So does art.

Again, I very much appreciate both your knowledge and your passion. It won't surprise me a bit if you turn out to be right.

What an artful response! I admire your assertive style.

 

[jobberone]

I suspect you didn't dig very deeply into the article and did not click any links to supporting information, like this:

http://eml.berkeley.edu/~dromer/papers/JPE_April06.pdf

The expected points based on yard line, down and distance are known quantities.

These numbers are based not only on the league average but each team carries its own numbers based on ITS success. Year before last we were actually MORE likely to convert 3-6 via the run than pass although there was not a great deal of difference. I did find this stat surprising. I have no idea what our numbers are this year but we have only one game to base it on so they would have to look historically and go back to last year which is a bit more dicey and less predictive.

Trust me they are very scientific about this with stats for down and distance for every situation including running between this G and T yada. They have a team of people providing this info.