4th Down No Problem: Go for it!

[McKDaddy]

Going for it on fourth down is not as easy as it sounds. You gotta have guts, and great defense to bail you out if you don't make it.

Certainly what you say has truth to it but at some point a coach also has to understand that you only have a certain number of possessions & sometimes ya gotta roll the dice. Better to go down swinging ....

No doubt it can & will backfire on you from time to time but I have become a firm believer in ya can't be afraid to win and to do that sometimes you gotta light the fuse.

You can also stack the odds in your favor. Good coaches see the situation may be coming & has the team & staff ready to go quickly when it arises. Don't dilly dally around, huddle up & come right back to the line to run the play (no subs, means defense has to be careful trying to sub). Put the other team under pressure. So many times i see our team give the opponent way too much time to read & react.

 

[PhillySpecial]

And what does he make the call based upon? Easy, his assessment of the variables beyond what the analytics specify. I'm not arguing that analytics isn't a valuable tool, but it's just one variable and a decision of what is the appropriate action involves considering all variables and then making a decision. Otherwise, simply eliminate the gameday play-calling and let a computer spit it out.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/02/sports/football/eagles-analytics-super-bowl-lii.html

This is a pretty decent article and easy to understand.

Lurie made analytics available to his coaches for the last 20 years. They just didn't use it. Pederson became more comfortable using analytics after studying it during the offseason last year.

Analytics by themselves isn't the entire answer. But when used in combination with the flow of the game, and knowing what information is pertinent to the situation and which information isn't can increase your odds of winning. You can have all the information available on a subject or situation, but if you don't know how to apply it, it's useless. And if you don't know which information is useful and which isn't, it won't help.

There's a place for analytics in the NFL. It just takes people who understand the information and how to apply it.

 

[McKDaddy]

I’d very much like to see who is ballsy enough to answer...what would you do?

And Adam...you are very much welcome to join in on this.


Score: 14-14, early second half.

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

Extra credit...same scenario w/these 2018 teams...assuming your best guess of conversion likelihood. It’s week 2 of season. All 4 teams are healthy.
Scenario 2a: Assuming Dallas at SD
Scenario 2b: Assuming GB at LA

Obviously your scenario doesn't give nearly all the info to make a fully informed decision so I'll do the best i can.
I would not go for it under either of these scenario's.
Reasons:

• Score & point in game indicates it is a pretty even affair.
• 6 yards to go is too much for the situation.
• Lot of time left, play for field position

But the answer changes if you give the same situation except that it is in the 4th quarter. The later in the game, the more willing you have to be to take the risk.

 

[Typhus]

I get tired of reading about what the Egirls have done, considering their track record, I don't want this team playing follow the leader... screw em.
All this team has to do to be successful is simply accentuate their strengths.
The Cowboys should be able to impose their will in the ground game, and if we cant do that then there is obviously a flaw much bigger than even the biggest doubter ever imagined.
The Defense needs to discover their strength, early indication is back 7,, hopefully, and coordinate the defensive game plan around that, and pass rush.
Sounds simple enough, if not, than 8-8, and fire the next scape goat.
Its simple, isn't it?

 

[JustChip]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/02/sports/football/eagles-analytics-super-bowl-lii.html

This is a pretty decent article and easy to understand.

Lurie made analytics available to his coaches for the last 20 years. They just didn't use it. Pederson became more comfortable using analytics after studying it during the offseason last year.

Analytics by themselves isn't the entire answer. But when used in combination with the flow of the game, and knowing what information is pertinent to the situation and which information isn't can increase your odds of winning. You can have all the information available on a subject or situation, but if you don't know how to apply it, it's useless. And if you don't know which information is useful and which isn't, it won't help.

There's a place for analytics in the NFL. It just takes people who understand the information and how to apply it.

This is my point exactly. Analytics provides information, but shouldn’t be the sole determination of what to do. And really, analytics isn’t really new although the volume of data available is. In the past it’s been called “tendencies”.

 

[Captain-Crash]

4th and inches, Garrett will go empty backfield...

 

[Doomsday101]

You could make the same arguments with 2 point conversion vs extra point. Odds last season was 55% success and FG at 94%

 

[PhillySpecial]

This is my point exactly. Analytics provides information, but shouldn’t be the sole determination of what to do. And really, analytics isn’t really new although the volume of data available is. In the past it’s been called “tendencies”.

Yeah, I think you have to be careful in how you apply the information you have. And what information to use and not use. But that's why you have an analytics department. The final decision rests with the HC.

 

[T-RO]

They got lucky

I get tired of reading about what the Egirls have done, considering their track record, I don't want this team playing follow the leader... screw em.
All this team has to do to be successful is simply accentuate their strengths.
The Cowboys should be able to impose their will in the ground game, and if we cant do that then there is obviously a flaw much bigger than even the biggest doubter ever imagined.
The Defense needs to discover their strength, early indication is back 7,, hopefully, and coordinate the defensive game plan around that, and pass rush.
Sounds simple enough, if not, than 8-8, and fire the next scape goat.
Its simple, isn't it?

Doing the right thing is doing the right thing...and it was the right thing long before Pederson and the ‘17 Eagles.

The Greeks—founders of western society—believed math was divine. I don’t know about that—but it might be the best truth we have in this world. There is a world of untapped benefit for those who will simply apply the math.

 

[T-RO]

A stronger defense would allow us to be more aggressive with those type situations.

In truth the math says it’s opposite of what you suggest.

if your defense is hopeless...the math is even more in favor of going for it on 4th down.

If you can’t stop a team from a team from driving 80 yards...why bother to punt? A punt = turning the ball over plus 36 yards of field position (on average). When your defense is inept those yards really don’t help you much. If your opponent is scoring 38 or 42...you’ve got to score like crazy to win and you won’t do it by conceding possessions.

In games where the defenses are dominating...then punting makes a bit more sense. Field position becomes more critical.

 

[Doomsday101]

Doing the right thing is doing the right thing...and it was the right thing long before Pederson and the ‘17 Eagles.

The Greeks—founders of western society—believed math was divine. I don’t know about that—but it might be the best truth we have in this world. There is a world of untapped benefit for those who will simply apply the math.

Even the professor at Cal who came up with this says their are unaccounted variables. Field position in a game matter drives that are over 80's yards percentage wise produce less than drives that you only need to drive the ball 40 yards. Again strength of opponent on 4th down, Philly defense won the 4th down battles by 78% of the time. If all you did was go for it 4th and 1 or 2 every time you are in that situation I seriously doubt you will win very often.

 

[gjkoeppen]

There are a lot more variables to consider than can be distilled into simple numbers and requires a coach to use his experience and knowledge to weigh the risks. Back a ways he did suggest that there would just be an app for that.

Again I think we agree that if a coach has to use a app to decide what to do he's in the wrong profession.
.

 

[Ranching]

Certainly what you say has truth to it but at some point a coach also has to understand that you only have a certain number of possessions & sometimes ya gotta roll the dice. Better to go down swinging ....

No doubt it can & will backfire on you from time to time but I have become a firm believer in ya can't be afraid to win and to do that sometimes you gotta light the fuse.

You can also stack the odds in your favor. Good coaches see the situation may be coming & has the team & staff ready to go quickly when it arises. Don't dilly dally around, huddle up & come right back to the line to run the play (no subs, means defense has to be careful trying to sub). Put the other team under pressure. So many times i see our team give the opponent way too much time to read & react.

The last six years I was a head coach, we had a package where we would read it from the press box and IIwould make the call from the sideline. Depending on defesed we would roll out pass, run, or quick kick. Worked every time. But, it was just Texas HS football, not the NFL. That's what everyone will say around here, so I'll just be quiet.

 

[T-RO]

Go back to our last playoff game:

Cowboys:
Packers: 4 TD / 2 FG / 3 Punt / 1 Turnover...3.4 points per possession
Cowboys: 3 TD / 3 FG / 2 Punt / 1 Turnover... 3.44 points per possesion

*Packers had one more possession in game...game winning FG

Neither offense had difficulty going on long drives

I can’t criticize our punting decisions in that game...but...

Consider these Garrett decisions:
4th down and 2 on GB 32...we kick a 50 yd field goal (first quarter)
4th and 3 on GB 33...we kick 52 yard field goal. (4th quarter, 35 sec left)

Statistically odds are 50% or better on converting first down on both these 4th down plays...and those FG attempts weren’t gimmies. I’m not super critical of those calls, but food for thought.

I’ll say this: In a game lik this where your opponent is scoring 3.5 points per drive...a 3 point field goal won’t help you much. In games like this a coach should be VERY aggressive in going for touchdowns.

 

[T-RO]

Again I think we agree that if a coach has to use a app to decide what to do he's in the wrong profession.
.

Good gawd that’s silly. Digital assistance is the norm for almost all professions...and has become commonplace in sports. Have you failed to notice all the tablets on NFL sidelines?

Making the smartest call in those situations involves calculating LOTS of data. Perfect job for a consultative app. And to spell it out...the guys communicating to coaches via headset...are using computers.

By your statement Doug Pederson, Super Bowl campion coach...who most certainly was consulting computing data...should be fired. Your statement is ignorant.

I’d fire a coach who didn’t use every helpful tool available.

 

[McKDaddy]

In truth the math says it’s opposite of what you suggest.

if your defense is hopeless...the math is even more in favor of going for it on 4th down.

If you can’t stop a team from a team from driving 80 yards...why bother to punt? A punt = turning the ball over plus 36 yards of field position (on average). When your defense is inept those yards really don’t help you much. If your opponent is scoring 38 or 42...you’ve got to score like crazy to win and you won’t do it by conceding possessions.

In games where the defenses are dominating...then punting makes a bit more sense. Field position becomes more critical.

Do i get my ballsy points for answering the question??

 

[gjkoeppen]

Go back to our last playoff game:

Cowboys:
Packers: 4 TD / 2 FG / 3 Punt / 1 Turnover...3.4 points per possession
Cowboys: 3 TD / 3 FG / 2 Punt / 1 Turnover... 3.44 points per possesion

*Packers had one more possession in game...game winning FG

Neither offense had difficulty going on long drives

I can’t criticize our punting decisions in that game...but...

Consider these Garrett decisions:
4th down and 2 on GB 32...we kick a 50 yd field goal (first quarter)
4th and 3 on GB 33...we kick 52 yard field goal. (4th quarter, 35 sec left)

Statistically odds are 50% or better on converting first down on both these 4th down plays...and those FG attempts weren’t gimmies. I’m not super critical of those calls, but food for thought.

I’ll say this: in a game like this you need to be VERY aggressive in going for touchdowns.

And there would be fans that would have jumped all of Garrett if either or both times the Cowboys didn't convert. Everybody gets it that you want to go for it but being a backseat driver/wannabe coach doesn't make you right. I'd rather have a coach that decides things based on his experiences and knowledge and using ALL relative info instead of some graph some geek made up showing this or that. I want a coach that follows his instincts from his experiences. I also notice that today you've raised what the odds are which leads me believe you're making them up as you go along. It's long past time to stop playing this silly game that doesn't change a single thing.
.

 

[Doomsday101]

Good gawd that’s silly. Digital assistance is the norm for almost all professions...and has become commonplace in sports. Have you failed to notice all the tablets on NFL sidelines?

Making the smartest call in those situations involves calculating LOTS of data. Perfect job for a consultative app.

By your statement Doug Pederson, Super Bowl campion coach...who most certainly was consulting computing data...should be fired. Your statement is ignorant.

The tablets on the sideline can only be used for still photos, not even allowed to use video only still shots

 

[gjkoeppen]

Good gawd that’s silly. Digital assistance is the norm for almost all professions...and has become commonplace in sports. Have you failed to notice all the tablets on NFL sidelines?

Making the smartest call in those situations involves calculating LOTS of data. Perfect job for a consultative app.

By your statement Doug Pederson, Super Bowl campion coach...who most certainly was consulting computing data...should be fired. Your statement is ignorant.

Hey less than an Einstein the tablets used on the sidelines replaced the actual hard pictures that used to get printed on the sidelines. They use the tablets to look at plays and what formations or defenses were used.
.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Didn’t a Harvard study show a team is better off going on fourth down 100% of the time than punting on fourth down 100% of the time?