4th Down No Problem: Go for it!

[T-RO]

The usable data is limited. Using data from previous seasons is inaccurate, because the teams have changed. Using the Cowboys as an example, we have a different LG, Tyron was injured for large portions and the LT using past seasons is different, we will have 2 different TEs, we have several new WRs, different position coaches training the players, we will supposedly have scheme changes as well. That's a lot of change in variables and doesn't even mention the changes for our opponents or other factors. Before you say you can still have accurate data based on past seasons consider the difference between our stats from 2016 and 2017, 35% is large and illustrates why using past seasons will inherently be inaccurate. Using 3rd down data isn't accurate, because again, it's a different circumstance. The best usable data is from a current season, because then you are using the same variables, but results derived from them will not be accurate because of sample size.

Small sample sizes can change wildly year to year. Meanwhile, league data on this kind of thing changes very little. As with other big data sets it’s far less variable. So the past 10 years of data (10 years x 32 teams X 80 plays per game) is extremely informative.

And third down conversion rates provide a very good proxy for fourth down conversion rates. Dynamics are basically the same.

 

[Roadtrip635]

The point isn't that NFL coaches should always go for it, or always follow the numbers regardless of the situation or opponent, it's that they clearly should go for it more often than they currently do. But we all know that coaches like Garrett are averse to risk and would rather lose passively than be aggressive and fail.

This is it, coaches should probably go for it more often than they currently do, depending on the team. I would like to see JG go for it a bit more often, but not get overly aggressive in going for it. This team is built for ball control and not putting itself into risky situations. We don't have a strong enough defense or explosive enough passing game to overcome those type of failures. A stronger defense would allow us to be more aggressive with those type situations.

 

[DHCBF66]

Well, my original contention was that most of the players, including the QB, were drafted by Kelly. Because that was objectively wrong.

But I still think you're selling the Eagles' rebuild a little short. While they had pieces, particularly on the DL, it wasn't a complete team. The following is a list of players who made significant contributions in 2017 that weren't on the Eagles when Pederson was hired:

QB: Wentz, Foles
RB: Blount, Ajayi, Clement
WR: Jeffrey, Smith
OL: Brooks, Vaitai, Wisnewski

DL: Barnett, Long, Jerrigan
LB: Bradham
Secondary: Mills, Darby, Robinson, McLeod Graham

Lot of new parts...

now list all the parts that were there!

 

[DHCBF66]

Who are "most" of these players that were drafted by Chip Kelly? Nick Foles was drafted by Andy Reid.

How many did Peterson draft?

 

[T-RO]

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

 

[gjkoeppen]

This is it, coaches should probably go for it more often than they currently do, depending on the team. I would like to see JG go for it a bit more often, but not get overly aggressive in going for it. This team is built for ball control and not putting itself into risky situations. We don't have a strong enough defense or explosive enough passing game to overcome those type of failures. A stronger defense would allow us to be more aggressive with those type situations.

What you said about the Cowboys offense and defense is true for the most part but what a lot of fans don't get is conservative coaches who play it safe are actually playing the odds. If the odds are at 45% to be successful to convert on a 4th down then the odds are really against him and on the other side of it if kicking a field goal is 99% successful the odds are on that side so the conservative coach will go with the odds and kick the field goal.
This T-RO with his graphs, during games coaches don't have graphs on the sidelines and if they ever started making them for games and started looking at them instead of relying on their experience and knowledge I'd say it's time to look for a new coach.

Every 4th down is different and has more variables than has been listed here and is something that has to be decided in just seconds and that comes from experience and whatever that coaches philosophy is not from looking at graphs.
.

 

[gjkoeppen]

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

Why are you playing this stupid silly game? You obviously have your opinion on what should be done in every instance but it makes no difference. You're not going to change a single NFL coaches mind on what they will do at any given time. This is like arguing about what color the uniforms should be or if anyone should watch NFL pregame ot FOX pregame. It's all stupid.
.

 

[Roadtrip635]

What you said about the Cowboys offense and defense is true for the most part but what a lot of fans don't get is conservative coaches who play it safe are actually playing the odds. If the odds are at 45% to be successful to convert on a 4th down then the odds are really against him and on the other side of it if kicking a field goal is 99% successful the odds are on that side so the conservative coach will go with the odds and kick the field goal.
This T-RO with his graphs, during games coaches don't have graphs on the sidelines and if they ever started making them for games and started looking at them instead of relying on their experience and knowledge I'd say it's time to look for a new coach.

Every 4th down is different and has more variables than has been listed here and is something that has to be decided in just seconds and that comes from experience and whatever that coaches philosophy is not from looking at graphs.
.

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.

 

[JustChip]

You aren’t making a lot of sense when you say that 2,400 games of data has should have no bearing on an in-game decision. Your logic is upside down.

We establish the odds of a coin flip (50/50) not on a small sample size but on big historical data...and the sheer physics of a properly balanced coin.

Similarly, it’s with big data that we can proceed with a more aggressive 4th down approach. We have 2,400 games—over 180,000 plays that establish the base odds.

You are basically flushing all data and saying...let’s just do it this way. You are saying, “We’ve always done it this way. Screw data.”

No, the probability of the flip of a perfectly balanced coin is totally dependent on the number of equally weighted possible outcomes of which there are only 2. The probability of the NEXT flip of a perfectly balanced coin is not in any way related to what the previous 1, 10, 100 or 1000 coin flips were of that same coin. Now, if you want to argue that the coin is not balanced because it is unlikely that a perfectly balanced coin will come up 10 heads in row, fine, that's a legitimate argument and might be more comparable to your football argument. However, to say the probability (a/k/a "odds") of a play in game X between teams Y and Z can predict the result in game A between teams B and C is plain wrong. Now, if you could repeat the exact same situation (same teams, same point in game, same personnel, same formation and play call, etc.) 100 times without any knowledge of the results of the previous plays, that would provide some reasonable prediction of the outcome.

 

[T-RO]

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.

There already is an app for that. The Eagles use one.

To be precise...might be a spreadsheet, a database, a module of an app...or a dedicated app. The principle is the same.

On 4th downs the Eagles’ data guy sends word down to Coach Pederson. They reduce the calculation down to green/yellow and red...convey it to Pederson and he makes a call.

The situations in which the Eagles decide to strike might seem random, but in fact they are quite calculated. And they're often decided before the start of the game -- or even before the start of the season. The approach is driven by an analytics team so involved in the operation that two members of the department -- including coaching assistant/linebackers coach Ryan Paganetti, a Dartmouth grad with a degree in economics -- communicate with Pederson in-game

After [Pederson has] made the third-down call the phones can be silent for a few seconds, and one of the guys might chime in and say, 'Hey Coach, if this ends up short fourth-and-2' -- I'm using fake terminology -- 'it's green, go for it. The charts say go for it,'" explained offensive coordinator Frank Reich. "Or, 'Hey, if it's anything less than fourth-and-3, we're good. Other than that, it's your call, Coach.' Or, 'Anything more than fourth-and-10, no.'

"The analogy I think of is kind of like a stoplight. There's green, there's yellow and there's red, and then there's shades of green, there's shades of yellow and then there's shades of red. So some of them are, 'Hey, it's green. Yellow, proceed with caution' -- and that's how it operates.”

http://www.espn.com/blog/philadelph...agles-secret-weapon-an-anaytics-fueled-attack

 

[T-RO]

Is Pederson an aggressive genius...or has the Eagles made an organizational commitment to analytical data-driven decision-making?

 

[JustChip]

There already is an app for that. The Eagles use one.

To be precise...might be a spreadsheet, a database, a module of an app...or a dedicated app. The principle is the same.

On 4th downs the Eagles’ data guy sends word down to Coach Pederson. They reduce the calculation down to green/yellow and red...convey it to Pederson and he makes a call.






http://www.espn.com/blog/philadelph...agles-secret-weapon-an-anaytics-fueled-attack

Is Pederson an aggressive genius...or has the Eagles made an organizational commitment to analytical data-driven decision-making?

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.

 

[T-RO]

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.

It’s safe to assume other coaches have similar apps/tools. Pederson is the one coach who is actually USING the data. I suspect that so far even Doug has been hesitant to go as aggressive as the app advises. He’ll be more emboldened next year.

Boys better be prepared for 4 downs!

 

[T-RO]

Consider if the ball is near mid-field and you sit 3rd and 12 or 3rd and 15. Generally speaking in the NFL if you sit 3rd and 12, 3rd and 15...your drive is dead. Doesn’t need to be that way.

It’s a huge potential advantage for an offense to have an aggressive 4-down policy.

With a 4-down philosophy...you can run it in such a scenario...setting up perhaps a 4th and 5. Of course short passes work great for an easy 8 or 10 yards, as defenses are all but conceding underneath passing.

 

[Roadtrip635]

Consider if the ball is near mid-field and you sit 3rd and 12 or 3rd and 15. Generally speaking in the NFL if you sit 3rd and 12, 3rd and 15...your drive is dead. Doesn’t need to be that way.

It’s a huge potential advantage for an offense to have an aggressive 4-down policy.

With a 4-down philosophy...you can run it in such a scenario...setting up perhaps a 4th and 5. Of course short passes work great for an easy 8 or 10 yards, as defenses are all but conceding underneath passing.

Careful or you'll be like the guy in the casino screaming at the roulette wheel, wondering why his Martingale system isn't working and you just lost next month's house payment. Statistics in real world applications don't always work out the way they do on paper.

 

[T-RO]

Careful or you'll be like the guy in the casino screaming at the roulette wheel, wondering why his Martingale system isn't working and you just lost next month's house payment. Statistics in real world applications don't always work out the way they do on paper.

I don’t gamble. Walking into a casino...I’ve already lost. Don’t like losing.

Never saw the fun in it. To each their own though JMHO!

 

[Cowpolk]

Is Pederson an aggressive genius...or has the Eagles made an organizational commitment to analytical data-driven decision-making?

They got lucky

 

[PhillySpecial]

How many did Peterson draft?

Peterson didn't draft anybody. But neither did Pederson. And it doesn't matter. You said Chip Kelly drafted most of the Super Bowl team. That isn't true. There may have been some collaboration between CK and Howie Roseman in drafting Lane Johnson and Zach Ertz. Chip Kelly was in charge of player personnel when Agholor and Hicks were drafted. And I know he wanted Beau Allen. The only starters drafted by CK were Agholor and Hicks.

 

[MD2020]

now list all the parts that were there!

OL: Johnson, Kelce, Peters (inj)
RB: Sproles (inj)
WR: Agholor
TE: Ertz/Burton/Celek

DL: Cox, Curry, Graham
LB: Kendricks, Hicks (inj)
Secondary: Jenkins

So, even counting the injured guys who didn't play in the Super Bowl, more contributors (18) joined the Eagles after Pederson was hired than were already here (14). Including the most important position on the team.

And that doesn't even count the new K and LS positions....

 

[PhillySpecial]

They got lucky

The results of the fourth-down bids have been overwhelmingly in favor of the Eagles. According to ESPN Stats & Information, they have scored a touchdown or field goal on 13 of the 18 drives in which they converted a fourth down, totaling 85 points (4.7 points per drive). The times they went for it on fourth down and didn't convert, the opposing team didn't score a single point on the subsequent drive.