4th Down No Problem: Go for it!

[AdamJT13]

1970’s was probably the end of the era when rushing game was more critical.

It was even before that. Bud Goode, one of football's first statistical analysts, was touting yards per pass attempt differential as the key to winning in the early 1970s, as well as the lack of correlation between yards per pass and yards per rush. There was a Sports Illustrated article about it in 1974, before Super Bowl VIII. That was more than 44 years ago. And yet many people still don't believe either one, or think they're some new phenomenon because of recent "rule changes."

 

[T-RO]

It was even before that. Bud Goode, one of football's first statistical analysts, was touting yards per pass attempt differential as the key to winning in the early 1970s, as well as the lack of correlation between yards per pass and yards per rush. There was a Sports Illustrated article about it in 1974, before Super Bowl VIII. That was more than 44 years ago. And yet many people still don't believe either one, or think they're some new phenomenon because of recent "rule changes."

Hey, Flat earth theory is appealing.

 

[Cowpolk]

These are scenarios I could see Dallas become much more aggressive in 2018.

4th and one foot, our own 41 yard line...go for it.
4th and two, opposing 44 yard line...go for it.
4th and goal...2 yards out...go for it.

The Eagles coaches let the analytics dictate last season...and the analytics suggest it’s a much smarter to be aggressive over conservative in 4th down decision-making.

Philly was crazy-successful w/this approach last season.

On top of the league-wide analytics we have invested in a premium o-line. I say we need to take more risk, press opponents and keep our offense on the field.

Are the stats used only the 1st and 3rd quarters like I've read later in the thread?

 

[Doomsday101]

Analytics-based decision-making doesn’t cost a coach a job if there is philosophical buy-in to the approach at the higher levels...and w/the owner.

It will put less educated fans in a tizzy.

If the move cost you game then it damn sure will cost you your job, those stats are based on a league avg, as mentioned SF could not stop anyone on 4th down giving up 83% that is a far cry from Philly who only gave up 22% meaning the opponent failed more times than not. Now why would I run the risk when punting the ball with a chance of putting them in a hole would benefit the team? I think there are times you should go for it but not based on some meaningless stat sheet. Who you are playing and the situation you are in plays a big part of a coach’s decision

 

[Roadtrip635]

Are the stats used only the 1st and 3rd quarters like I've read later in the thread?

I don't know what stats the Eagles used, but the stats he referenced about when teams should go for it were based on only the 1st and 3rd qtrs and also eliminated data where weather was a factor and if there was a large difference in the score (I didn't see what the author considered a large difference tho).

 

[LACowboysFan1]

The cowboys actually went for it quite a bit (19 times) on 4th down last season. The problem is they were only successful about 50% of the time.

Watching the games it's amazing how other quarterbacks, even a slow one like Brady, sneak the ball on 4th and 1 and make it. We have a 240 lb qb and on 4th and 1 we try a cute pass play or let the running back start from 3 yards off the line of scrimmage and expect to make it most of the time.

More qb sneaks would raise the percentage of made 4th and 1s, I have no doubt...

 

[LACowboysFan1]

We’re just going to cut our best WR, keep the same coaches, and Garrett is going to snap his fingers and suddenly become a strategic playcaller that’s aggressive on 4th down.

Cowboys have new coaches.

Just sayin'

Linehan calls the offensive plays, all Garrett has to do is tell Linehan he wants to be more aggressive on 4th down, don't see that it's that hard...

 

[LACowboysFan1]

When we have been successful running the ball we have also been aggressive on 4rth down and short. This is nothing new...

That holds true for every team, why would you run the ball in crucial situations if you can't run the ball in non-crucial situations? That makes zero sense, except for the once-in-a-while attempt to fool the defense....

 

[blueblood70]

When we have been successful running the ball we have also been aggressive on 4rth down and short. This is nothing new...

exactly in another attempt to rip the FO and coaching and using philly as yet another teet sucking fan admiring the enemy they dont realize that garett has been a lot more aggressive on 4th downs, onside kicks, fake punts etc etc the last few years.. it is hard to do this regularly when the defense on the other side is getting Gaffed.. difference between phillys aggressiveness is not statistics its knowing the defense can hold should your gamble fail..they have a championship D more than O..when we get better at Defense being able to actually stop teams in cruch time, im sure our O will call more aggressive plays. Our defense in the final two minutes and halves are horrible..when needed they cant hold teams late..

fact truth get over it stop loving the eagles or leave..jeez

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

These are scenarios I could see Dallas become much more aggressive in 2018.

4th and one foot, our own 41 yard line...go for it.
4th and two, opposing 44 yard line...go for it.
4th and goal...2 yards out...go for it.

The Eagles coaches let the analytics dictate last season...and the analytics suggest it’s a much smarter to be aggressive over conservative in 4th down decision-making.

Philly was crazy-successful w/this approach last season.

On top of the league-wide analytics we have invested in a premium o-line. I say we need to take more risk, press opponents and keep our offense on the field.

Philly was 17 of 26 on 4th downs.
Dallas was 10 of 19.

so statistically not that much different, given the number of 4th downs each team has during the year. I think a lot of it is dependent on which quarter, how much time, score, how the team is playing, who you are playing and down and distance.

so there is a difference of (drum roll) 7 total attempts. so 7 attempts in 16 games makes philly an aggressive offensive team? I think you are looking at the wrong stats for that.

people are making it sound like philly went for 50% of their 4th downs. the fact is they didn't.

with that said, philly had the highest number of attempts...there were others like Cleveland, Oakland, Miami, Giants, Denver all more than 20, only one of them had more than 10 conversions...and that was cleveland

and drum roll please...new England had all of 13 attempts, that's bilicheck the smartest coach ever with 8 superbowl appearances..... and I remember the argument couple of years back that bilicheck is such a gambler and he goes for it on 4th downs a lot.

btw, new Orleans had the highest converstion rate. 12 of 15.....

btw, Minn, the other team in the NFC championship game...had 7 4th down attempts..... again, just 7 but give them credit, they only converted 1!!!!

its not about analytics....because the numbers are very inconclusive....

 

[Roadtrip635]

If the move cost you game then it damn sure will cost you your job, those stats are based on a league avg, as mentioned SF could not stop anyone on 4th down giving up 83% that is a far cry from Philly who only gave up 22% meaning the opponent failed more times than not. Now why would I run the risk when punting the ball with a chance of putting them in a hole would benefit the team? I think there are times you should go for it but not based on some meaningless stat sheet. Who you are playing and the situation you are in plays a big part of a coach’s decision

Exactly, there are so many variables and not enough of a sample size to determine from a pure analytic standpoint when you should always go for it. What stat are you using to base these numbers on? You can't use a current season, there is no or very few samples until the season is played out, but by the end of a season those numbers are useless for the next season. You can't use the NFL average, last season teams ranged from 11%-80% success rate on converting 4th downs. Last year only one team went for it more on 4th downs than Philly, Green Bay. GB had a respectable 53% success rate, 1% higher than the Cowboys. GB converted 76% on away games, but only 18% at home. 18%! That's a huge variance, what stat should they use?

You can't really use past stats as a reliable indicator, because teams change from year to year. In 2016, the Cowboys converted 89%, pretty dang good, but it was only 9 attempts. In 2017, they converted 53%, still respectable, but a huge variance. We went for it almost twice as much last year versus the previous season. Maybe we went for it based off the previous years great percentage, but more likely out of need than want. In 2017, we only converted 45% in away games, half the rate from the year before.

What stat could we reliably use to predict success this coming season? Teams change every year, we should be more stable than last year, but there is no way to reliably predict with certainty. Williams should help, but he's a rookie and unproven, we've also lost Hanna and Witten, both were very good blockers and there's no way to predict with any kind of mathematical accuracy how their replacements will fare.

Those stats are a historical representation, but in this case, are dangerous to use to predict our future outcome. Stats and analytics can be useful, but you have to be able to interpret them, what they actually represent, when to use them and more importantly when not to use them. Fans see these analytical breakdowns and holler for their teams to be more aggressive because the generalized numbers say so, without actually knowing what the stats represent. Dolphins fans should scream to never go for it on 4th down unless they absolutely have to, over the last 3 seasons they only average 30%

 

[gimmesix]

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.

Totally agree on the defense. Philly can afford to because of its defensive strength.

Imagine the first time Garrett went for it in our territory, it backfired and the defense wasn't able to keep the opponent from scoring, which costs us the game. Fans would go ballistic. It would be Barry Switzer against the Eagles all over again.

 

[northerncowboynation]

How tall is that corn now?,,,you ought to update yer' shingle

I shall update. Supposed to be knee hi by the 4'th of July. It ain't the 4'th of July yet

 

[Doomsday101]

Totally agree on the defense. Philly can afford to because of its defensive strength.

Imagine the first time Garrett went for it in our territory, it backfired and the defense wasn't able to keep the opponent from scoring, which costs us the game. Fans would go ballistic. It would be Barry Switzer against the Eagles all over again.

I agree. I see people posting about having balls? It does not take balls to make stupid moves. Even the professor who came up with this finding said their are variables he can't take into account. From a mathematical stand point he could be right but as
Bill Cower said:

"It's easy to sit there and apply a formula, but it's not always the easiest thing to do on a Sunday," Cowher said. "There's so much more involved with the game than just sitting there, looking at the numbers and saying, 'OK, these are my percentages, then I'm going to do it this way,' because that one time it doesn't work could cost your team a football game, and that's the thing a head coach has to live with, not the professor.
"If we all listened to the professor, we may be all looking for professor jobs."

http://static.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/garber_greg/1453717.html


The findings of Romer's analysis:

• A team facing fourth-and-goal within five yards of the end zone is better off, on average, trying for a touchdown.
  
  

• At midfield, on average, there is an argument to go for any fourth down within five yards of a first down.
  

• Even on its own 10-yard-line -- 90 yards from the end zone -- a team within three yards of a first down is marginally better off, on average, going for it.

Sorry but if a coach is going for it from his own 10 yard line he deserves to be fired, this geek can talk all he wants but going for it from your own 10 yard line?

 

[JustChip]

These are scenarios I could see Dallas become much more aggressive in 2018.

4th and one foot, our own 41 yard line...go for it.
4th and two, opposing 44 yard line...go for it.
4th and goal...2 yards out...go for it.

The Eagles coaches let the analytics dictate last season...and the analytics suggest it’s a much smarter to be aggressive over conservative in 4th down decision-making.

Philly was crazy-successful w/this approach last season.

On top of the league-wide analytics we have invested in a premium o-line. I say we need to take more risk, press opponents and keep our offense on the field.

Yep, and that same aggressive approach based on analytics that Pittsburgh used to justify going only for 2 points didn't work. In fact, it cost them the game against the Cowboys in 2016. All this sabermetrics/analytics is great, but it has zero guarantee of success. It still comes down to execution. Philly was "crazy-successful" last season, but let's see how successful it is this year and going forward. Remember, the Wildcat was initially successful, but not sustainable. Defenses adjust.​

 

[Stash]

You better have faith in your defense to stop the other team if you are willing to go for it. I think there are many factors you look at what the situation is and who you are up against. There are some quality defense who can shut you down. I recall Switzer going for it with Emmitt Smith at RB vs Philly in our own territory and they nailed Smith for no gain, we turn the ball over and they would end up scoring and winning the game and Switzer caught holly hell for it.

I was at that game.

Froze my *** off to watch them end up giving the game away!

 

[Doomsday101]

I was at that game.

Froze my *** off to watch them end up giving the game away!

Did not mean to bring back bad memories. lol

 

[JustChip]

Philly was 17 of 26 on 4th downs.
Dallas was 10 of 19.

so statistically not that much different, given the number of 4th downs each team has during the year. I think a lot of it is dependent on which quarter, how much time, score, how the team is playing, who you are playing and down and distance.

so there is a difference of (drum roll) 7 total attempts. so 7 attempts in 16 games makes philly an aggressive offensive team? I think you are looking at the wrong stats for that.

people are making it sound like philly went for 50% of their 4th downs. the fact is they didn't.

with that said, philly had the highest number of attempts...there were others like Cleveland, Oakland, Miami, Giants, Denver all more than 20, only one of them had more than 10 conversions...and that was cleveland

and drum roll please...new England had all of 13 attempts, that's bilicheck the smartest coach ever with 8 superbowl appearances..... and I remember the argument couple of years back that bilicheck is such a gambler and he goes for it on 4th downs a lot.

btw, new Orleans had the highest converstion rate. 12 of 15.....

btw, Minn, the other team in the NFC championship game...had 7 4th down attempts..... again, just 7 but give them credit, they only converted 1!!!!

its not about analytics....because the numbers are very inconclusive....

Good post. Perception is no substitute for reality, but it does affect people's view of reality. Bottom line is that one can use any number of statistics to support their perception of reality. Most fans don't take the time to actually analyze data themselves.

 

[Stash]

Did not mean to bring back bad memories. lol

No worries! I blame Switzer!

 

[Doomsday101]

No worries! I blame Switzer!

Well at least Barry knows that the Professor at Cal thinks he was right and according to some here that is all that matters. lol