4th Down No Problem: Go for it!

[Doomsday101]

There are always lots of factors to consider. That's why I simplified: You have a 45% chance of scoring a TD.

You are in danger of losing 5 yards for delay of game. WHAT DO YOU DECIDE TO DO?

Hell I'm not worried about the 5 yard game of delay Bailey can make that with ease. lol

 

[T-RO]

For anyone just joining us here is the question of the hour:

Take two average teams...Team A and Team B

What do you decide here:

4th and goal and the ball is on the three yard line. If you know there is a 45% chance of a TD...would you go for it or kick a field goal? Situation: tie score, early second half.

 

[gjkoeppen]

Tied game early 2nd half, 1st and goal at the 3?.............Go for it...play to win instead of playing not to lose at that point in the game which shows weakness

Using that scenario there's a 55% chance on not making it that will only fire up the other team. So in that same scenario lets say that team then marches down the field and scores a TD. So now both your offense that didn't get that TD and now your defense that just gave up a TD have some bad mojo going. On the other hand lets say the team kicked a field goal and took the lead and a fired up defense holds them to a 3 and out after the kickoff and gets good field position and moves the ball down and on a down other than 4th they score a TD and then have a 10 point lead. Which scenario is better. Foolish questions because anyone can make up anything to look good or bad and that's why coaches don't play this game. They go with the philosophy they have always used and leave these games for fans to play where there are no winners or losers.
.

 

[Doomsday101]

For anyone just joining us here is the question of the hour:

Take two average teams...Team A and Team B

What do you decide here:

4th and goal and the ball is on the three yard line. If you know there is a 45% chance of a TD...would you go for it or kick a field goal? Situation: tie score, early second half.

what is the score? are we talking low scoring game to this point? are teams having a hard time moving the ball in a defensive battle? or his is a high scoring game where neither team seems to be able to slow the other team down? That would make a difference to me.

 

[T-RO]

what is the score? are we talking low scoring game to this point? are teams having a hard time moving the ball in a defensive battle? or his is a high scoring game where neither team seems to be able to slow the other team down? That would make a difference to me.

10-10 early second half.

 

[Doomsday101]

10-10

I likely take the 3, evidently neither team is moving the ball up to this point and points are hard to come by. Higher scoring game where offense are moving at will, I get the sense 3 points is not going to help me. Like Steve Young said he knew they were in trouble in the playoffs vs Dallas when they kept kicking FG knowing FG where not going to help them beat Dallas.

It was also why Belicheck went for in deep in his own territory vs the Colts, he knew if he put it back in the hands of Manning they would lose since they had not been able to stop the Colts all day.

 

[T-RO]

Using that scenario there's a 55% chance on not making it that will only fire up the other team. So in that same scenario lets say that team then marches down the field and scores a TD. So now both your offense that didn't get that TD and now your defense that just gave up a TD have some bad mojo going. On the other hand lets say the team kicked a field goal and took the lead and a fired up defense holds them to a 3 and out after the kickoff and gets good field position and moves the ball down and on a down other than 4th they score a TD and then have a 10 point lead. Which scenario is better. Foolish questions because anyone can make up anything to look good or bad and that's why coaches don't play this game. They go with the philosophy they have always used and leave these games for fans to play where there are no winners or losers.
.

It seems you are very resistant to a simple question. And you are wrong: Coaches have to play this game ALL THE TIME. Decisions. Decisions. Decisions. That's half of what coaching is.

So your answer is... you kick the field goal?

 

[gjkoeppen]

There are always lots of factors to consider. That's why I simplified: You have a 45% chance of scoring a TD.

I assume you don't want to give up so early in the game and you are in danger of losing 5 yards for delay of game. WHAT DO YOU DECIDE TO DO?

This is foolish! Games aren't simplified, they're real. To answer your question as you just said yourself, 5 yards there means nothing to Bailey and just kick the damn field goal. I'm done playing your test tube what if game. Coaches coach according to what their philosophy is and conservative coaches do win championships.
.

 

[gjkoeppen]

It seems you are very resistant to a simple question. And you are wrong. Coaches have to play this game ALL THE TIME. Decisions. Decisions. Decisions. That's what coaching is.

So your answer is you kick the field goal?

Are you that slow? I've said a couple of times now that I would kick the field goal. I also told you why. Please read and stop this foolish game of test tube football. It proves NOTHING!
.

 

[T-RO]

OK, 4th and goal on the 3...decisions:

gjkoeppen...field goal
doomsday101...field goal
cowboy_ron...try for TD

Here's what I do...and why...

 

[T-RO]

From an analytics stand point this isn't a slam dunk...but from a game strategy standpoint it makes more sense to go for a TD

If you succeed...4 additional points

If you fail...you still have an advantage. When teams start from their own 2 or 3 yard line they usually don't go far and often end up punting to mid-field, which puts me right back in business. There is also chance for my defense to secure a safety.

What's important to look at is "Expected Points." Graph with explanation to come next.

 

[gjkoeppen]

It seems you are very resistant to a simple question. And you are wrong: Coaches have to play this game ALL THE TIME. Decisions. Decisions. Decisions. That's half of what coaching is.

So your answer is... you kick the field goal?

Yes coaches make decisions, decisions, decisions but they use ALL the information they have and what their coaching philosophy is not some simplified scenario. They don't play simplified games.
.

 

[T-RO]

Here is an example of where analytics are so valuable. They help make decision-making less emotional and biased.

The yellow line is (approximately) where the ball would end up if my team can't execute on 4th down. From that spot an opposing team has a *negative* point expectancy. In other words...statistically my team is more likely to score next.

So even 'failure' leaves me at an expected advantage.

*This graph is based on 2,400 NFL games.

 

[T-RO]

OK...for the bold...let’s play another round. Score: 14-14, early second half.

It’s 4th and 6. The ball on your opponent’s 42 yard line. You have a 43% chance of successfully converting.

What do you decide? I’ll check back later.

To spice this up...provide two answers, first if Dallas is offense, second if GB is offense. We’ll say opponent is Chargers.

 

[Cowpolk]

For anyone just joining us here is the question of the hour:

Take two average teams...Team A and Team B

What do you decide here:

4th and goal and the ball is on the three yard line. If you know there is a 45% chance of a TD...would you go for it or kick a field goal? Situation: tie score, early second half.

Punt that will confuse them

 

[MD2020]

MOST of the players on that roster was drafted by Chip Kelly (including the SB winning QB). One year wonders...Thats it!

Of the Eagles' starters that were in the Super Bowl, one defensive player (Malcom Jenkins) and two offensive players (Lane Johnson and Nelson Agholor) were brought in by Chip Kelly. And Jenkins was a free agent.

All other starters either came after Kelly or preceded him. And Nick Foles was both--drafted by Reid and brought back by Roseman.

 

[DHCBF66]

Of the Eagles' starters that were in the Super Bowl, one defensive player (Malcom Jenkins) and two offensive players (Lane Johnson and Nelson Agholor) were brought in by Chip Kelly. And Jenkins was a free agent.

All other starters either came after Kelly or preceded him. And Nick Foles was both--drafted by Reid and brought back by Roseman.

So you are saying Peterson brought in 50 new starter in 2 years?

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

I agree with most of what you said except making another blanket statement that teams should be passing teams. If a team has the O-line the Cowboys have and a back like Elliott and can use up a lot of clock with that running game and keep the other team's offense off the field and still win games, that is a smart approach. That also helps keep the Cowboys defense better rested which is better at the end of the game.
.

I think the NFL goes in cycles, for example we have seen the pendulum swing from AFC as power conference to now NFC, mostly because NFC teams were picking higher in the draft and coaching changes, etc.

same with offensive styles, they changed the rules to create more passing to have more scoring to attract more fans, teams learned that a 3-4 defense is more effective in pass rushing and its easier to find 3-4 OLBs than DEs and 4-3 defenses went towards, lighter faster DL and LBs for better pass rush and LBs that could run with TEs and WRs...now the pendelum is swinging back IMO, like you said.... the Defensive fronts are a little smaller and lighter and more susceptible to run game, so teams like dallas that started to build a bigger offensive line and heavy running are seeing success and we are seeing more teams go to that. for a few years the value of RBs were low, but now we are seeing RBs be valued and drafted higher in the draft.

it will probably continue to swing this way for a while and defenses will respond, change scheme and then it will swing back again.

 

[MD2020]

So you are saying Peterson brought in 50 new starter in 2 years?

No, just that some of the pieces were there before Kelly. Graham, Cox and Curry were on DL and Kelce was on OL before Kelly, for example.

Although I did forget Ertz, that was a Kelly pick.

I just wanted to correct the notion that this was primarily a Chip Kelly team that Doug Pederson took over. The secondary, rb and wr were heavily altered since Chip was fired.

 

[DHCBF66]

No, just that some of the pieces were there before Kelly. Graham, Cox and Curry were on DL and Kelce was on OL before Kelly, for example.

Although I did forget Ertz, that was a Kelly pick.

I just wanted to correct the notion that this was primarily a Chip Kelly team that Doug Pederson took over. The secondary, rb and wr were heavily altered since Chip was fired.

My point was that it was a solid team before Peterson took over, he did not walk in, wave a magic wand and turn scrubs into world champions. Another example is McVay, had a solid team land right on his lap!