4th Down No Problem: Go for it!

[JustChip]

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.

The knee-jerk would be to go for it in your later scenario, but even in that scenario, it makes sense to kick the field goal to take the lead. Let's say you go for it and don't get it; since you've not been able to stop the other team, it's likely they'll drive the length and score and now you're behind and have to score to tie (if they scored a TD). If you kick the field goal, even if the other team then scores a TD, you win the game with a TD on the final possession.

I guess I liken it to going for a 2 point conversion to win rather than 1 point to force overtime after scoring on the last play of the game. I can't say there would never be a scenario where I wouldn't go for the 2 points, but as a general rule, I'm not risking the game on 1 single play after fighting for 60 minutes. In that vane, I would almost always kick the field goal to force the other team to score to win.

 

[JustChip]

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.

That * note is very important. The graph is based on a very large data group, but you're playing a single game between a pair of teams so there is a decoupling simply because of sample size. This one to me is not quite as clear-cut as the 4th and goal at the 3 of which I would almost always kick the FG. In this current scenario, I might go for it or I might not. It would depend on my feel for the game and how we had gotten to that point.

 

[T-RO]

The knee-jerk would be to go for it in your later scenario, but even in that scenario, it makes sense to kick the field goal to take the lead. Let's say you go for it and don't get it; since you've not been able to stop the other team, it's likely they'll drive the length and score and now you're behind and have to score to tie (if they scored a TD). If you kick the field goal, even if the other team then scores a TD, you win the game with a TD on the final possession.

Furthest thing in the world from a knee-jerk. Going for it there In scenario 1 is the most *rational* choice. Yet fear (conservatism) rules most coaching and fans minds.

If you don’t get 2.3 x as many points over the FG...you bury a team on it’s own 3 yard line...maybe 1 yard line. You are the team most likely to score next in that situation.

Is there a chance of a team stopping you and then going 98 yards? Yes. Sports like life is a calculated risk.

Funny anecdote: I grew up as a Rams fan. One year in the playoffs L.A. got down to the 1 yard line only to get stuffed. They bring on the field goal unit. Kick is blocked and returned By Vikings for a touchdown.

It’s a sport where anything can happen...best to play with supreme intelligence—with, not against your odds.

 

[T-RO]

Delete

 

[T-RO]

That * note is very important. The graph is based on a very large data group, but you're playing a single game between a pair of teams so there is a decoupling simply because of sample size. This one to me is not quite as clear-cut as the 4th and goal at the 3 of which I would almost always kick the FG. In this current scenario, I might go for it or I might not. It would depend on my feel for the game and how we had gotten to that point.

What more data do you need?

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.

Scenario 2a: Assuming Dallas versus SD
Scenario 2b: Assuming GB versus SD

 

[T-RO]

Other huge benefits of being willing to go for it on 4th down:

-Much better fortune when facing difficult scenarios...after penalty, sack... e.g. third and twelve you can use two short pass plays. You keep run threat as live option.

-You wear down opposing defenses

-You only need 2.5 yards per play, not 3.3 yards per play

 

[PhillySpecial]

The Eagles have won 1 SB. We have seen this before. A team comes from nowhere to win it all then they are done for the next 10 years. People are making off like Peterson is the next Belechick but he is far from it. MOST of the players on that roster was drafted by Chip Kelly (including the SB winning QB). One year wonders...Thats it!

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

 

[MD2020]

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!

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...

 

[JustChip]

What more data do you need?

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.

Scenario 2a: Assuming Dallas versus SD
Scenario 2b: Assuming GB versus SD

I need to know things like is this the first time in the game we’ve crossed mid-field, maybe my starting QB was knocked out the play before, etc. There are a plethora of variables. Just because an analysis of 2,400 games says that in 43% of those scenarios in those games it was better to go for it has no bearing on on this one play in this one game. Just because 10 coin-flips in a row resulted in 10 heads, the probability of tails on the next flip is still no more than 50/50.

 

[T-RO]

I need to know things like is this the first time in the game we’ve crossed mid-field, maybe my starting QB was knocked out the play before, etc. There are a plethora of variables. Just because an analysis of 2,400 games says that in 43% of those scenarios in those games it was better to go for it has no bearing on on this one play in this one game. Just because 10 coin-flips in a row resulted in 10 heads, the probability of tails on the next flip is still no more than 50/50.

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.”

 

[T-RO]

Swimming against the currents of cognitive dissonance...

 

[AdamJT13]

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.

 

[JD_KaPow]

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.

Dallas faced 4th-and-1 or 4th-and-2 outside their own 40 yard line 16 times last year.

They went for it 9 times (converted 7).
They kicked one FG, the game-winner against Oakland.
They punted 6 times:
They punted on 4th and 1 at their own 45, up 7 points with a minute left against Washington, who had no timeouts left. Easy call.
They punted when they were getting blown out by the Eagles and didn't have Zeke.
They punted 4 other times, all between the 40s, with 3 of those coming on 4th and 2. All of the punts were downed inside the other team's 20.

I think Dallas is overly conservative, but the situations you've chosen are not great examples. Dallas usually does go for it in those situations. When they don't, it appears that they pick the spots on the field where Jones is really good at burying the other team deep.

 

[AdamJT13]

I think Dallas is overly conservative, but the situations you've chosen are not great examples. Dallas usually does go for it in those situations. When they don't, it appears that they pick the spots on the field where Jones is really good at burying the other team deep.

I posted earlier about the only times we ever go for it on fourth down --

a) on fourth-and-1
b) when we're trailing by a huge margin (20 points or more) in the second half
c) late in the fourth quarter or overtime
d) when we throw a Hail Mary on the last play of the first half

There have been NO exceptions over the past seven seasons -- unless you include Chris Jones' two fake punts, which were his own calls.

That's right, our punter is more aggressive than our head coach.

 

[GMO415]

I'd like to see JG reach up his skirt and grab a pair.

 

[Roadtrip635]

There are other factors to consider that you just don't get. Has both or either team moved the ball well? Is the other team a pass first offense or a run first offense? If they're a run first offense that means there will be fewer opportunities to get the ball. Did either team get a score on a turnover or because of the turnover have a very short field? There are still so many other things that could and should factor into that decision But based on just what you said the smart choice is take the 3 points and the lead with that much time left. No need to chance coming away with no points which would fire up the other team and have a negative impact on your own team. Every situation is different and there are so many variables that haven't even been listed here and there is no handy dandy graph or spreadsheet to look at to get the right answer. Again it comes down to coaches and what their philosophy is. The NFL has had many conservative coaches that have won championships so to say risk takers win more is just your opinion and don't try to pass off your opinion as some kind of fact.
.

This guy gets it. There are many variables that weren't listed. Where was that 45% success rate derived from? Average team 1 vs average team 2 each with average team players 1-52 is only going to get you a hypothetical answer based on limited information, but it won't be a real answer, just a mathematical one. Games are not played on paper.

 

[T-RO]

I'd like to see JG reach up his skirt and grab a pair.

Garrett is typical of the majority of NFL coaches as far as risk. And as evidenced in this thread...far more fans are passively minded when it comes down to it.

We need Garrett to change—or we need someone else.

 

[Cowpolk]

I'd like to see JG reach up his skirt and grab a pair.

Perv

 

[T-RO]

Where was that 45% success rate derived from? Average team 1 vs average team 2 each with average team players 1-52 is only going to get you a hypothetical answer based on limited information, but it won't be a real answer, just a mathematical one.

The percentages were derived* from real NFL games...third down conversion rates from tens of thousands of plays...from all spots on the field.

Games are not played on paper.

They start on paper...or their digital equivalent. Rosters are formulated and playbooks conceived first on paper...or an iPad. It should be no different with these kinds of game decisions.

As I said pages ago...league average numbers provide a base...you then factor in game and team specifics. And I don’t believe the resulting game guide should be viewed as an absolute. A coach can choose a different course, but he should have a very good reason for departing from the advice of the data.


*I did approximate a tad.

 

[Roadtrip635]

The data isn’t limited to the current season and it isn’t limited to 4th down data. 3rd down conversions and historical data is informative and can factor in.

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.