Does any coach punt from the opponent's side more than Garrett?

[wick]

People hate data. Why, I don't know.

 

[arglebargle]

People hate data. Why, I don't know.

People ignore context. Why, I don't know.....

 

[Manwiththeplan]

It sure feels like Garrett punts a ton from the opposition's side of the field, and Sunday night was certainly no exception. We punted four times from Giants territory out of nine total drives. Those fourth downs:

• 4th and 3 from the Giants 43
• 4th and 2 from the Giants 44
• 4th and 7 from the Giants 42
• 4th and 20 from the Giants 42

The last drive is definitely a punting situation. I'm not sure what the numbers say about the 4th and 7, but I'd go for that with our offense. The first two should be automatic go for it situations unless there is a compelling game situation, which there was not at those points.

Given the Giants offense, all of these situations were punts. This isn't Madden, field position matters in close games

 

[Doomsday101]

When it is a low scoring game - field position is key to who wins so in this game and with the way our D was playing, you have to punt!

No doubt there is more than distance in making that choice.

 

[Kevinicus]

Given the Giants offense, all of these situations were punts. This isn't Madden, field position matters in close games

Maybe those decisions are why it was close in the first place?

Obviously, coaches have to consider other factors than what the percentages say because situations and teams are different. The article wick cited even says as much. However, I do agree in general that coaches, are way too conservative in areas like this. Teams get to be stuck doing things as they have been done, just because that's how it's been done, rather than actually thinking about it and using the available data to make informed decisions. It's why so many people are still returning kickoffs that go into the end zone instead of taking a knee every time. They constantly end up on the wrong side of the 25, but keep doing it anyway.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Of course teams should go for it when it's 4th and 2 at the opponents 43 yard line (not counting obvious game time & score combinations that go the other way).

And of course coaches don't go for it in those situations, because it goes against "the book" and they get far more criticism if they go for it and miss than they do credit if they go for it and make it. Coaches are incredibly risk averse, but they're incredibly risk averse for good reason. You don't have the fans and press jumping down your throat, and you don't get fired, if you punt and punt and lose a bunch of games by 10 points. They do jump down your throat, and you might get fired, if you go for it instead and win a bunch of those games, but you lose one by 20 points because your attempts happened to fail in that game. Coaches know this and make decisions accordingly.

That said, here's some data. From 2012-2016, the Cowboys ran 19 4th-down plays with 1-3 yards to go between midfield and the opponent's 37-yard line (I picked that because most teams won't try the 55-yard FG unless they have to). The Cowboys punted on 11 of those plays (58%). The league average was to punt 53% of the time on those plays (much lower than I expected!). Obviously, a lot depends on game situation, but the Cowboys under Garrett look about like the rest of the league. My own perception is that Garrett is very conservative but has gotten a bit less so over the last couple seasons. Not enough data here to prove it one way or another, though.

 

[AdamJT13]

Wick is correct -- teams would benefit by going for it more often on fourth-and-short (or even fourth-and-medium) in the opponents' territory. Scoring points and having possession of the football are far more important than field position. But NFL coaches are averse to risk, and Garrett is more risk-averse than most. Since 2011 (Garrett's first full season), we have the seventh-highest punt percentage on fourth downs between midfield and the opponent's 30.

Only two teams have gone for it on fourth down fewer times overall in those situations -- we've done it 20 times, the Colts 19 and the Chargers 17. Some teams have gone for it more than 40 times or even 50 times. Of course that depends on how many fourth downs each team faces in that territory, but the infrequency of our going for it contributes to the perception that we punt more than almost any other team in those situations.

 

[Bizwah]

I like the times Garrett has gone for it on fourth down.

Last year in overtime vs the Eagles was a good example. We were driving in overtime. We had the ball easily within Bailey FG range. Garrett goes for it, we make it, Witten catches the game winner.

He goes for it....but he's careful when he does.

I have no problem with us punting like we did on Sunday.

 

[DCBoysfan]

Maybe he should have taken Kyle Shannahan's (sp) approach..........oh wait.

 

[Doomsday101]

Dallas was 8-15 on third downs.

Yes there are times you do it and time you punt. It makes no sense vs a top defense to allow them the chance to change momentum and get the ball back in great field position. There is more than distance involved in making that descision and it why most coaches will punt. Looking at some meaningless stats that is combined with the worst defense in the league as well as the best defenses is not a great indicator to go for it, facing top defenses they will win the battle more times than not

 

[gmoney112]

With the Giants offense, the way our defense was playing, and having probably the best punter in the league at pinning opponents in their own 20, I have a hard time believing punting isn't the right option in that case.

That's how you win the field position battle.

I do wish we'd go for it more on 3rd and short deeper in opponents territory but I'd also rather win 19-3

 

[JD_KaPow]

Maybe he should have taken Kyle Shannahan's (sp) approach..........oh wait.

Teams should take Shanahan's approach. This is a perfect example of the issue facing coaches. The 49ers were playing a much better team (as they will be doing all season long). If he sits back and punts, punts, punts, they lose: maybe not by 20 points, but they lose. When you're facing a much stronger opponent, you should be adopting high-risk high-reward strategies. Those strategies increase your odds of winning, and they increase your odds of getting blown out. They decrease your odds of losing by a "respectable" margin, the kind that lets the coach avoid criticism but doesn't win games.

Conversely, if you're playing a much weaker team, you should adopt low-risk strategies and just beat them with talent. Variance is your enemy in these games.

 

[TNCowboy]

That's also a symptom of having a good ball control offense that doesn't make a ton of big plays. We get in that situation naturally more than anyone else. I'm always in a more aggressive mindset that what Garrett does, but it's hard to argue when your defense kept them pinned down most of the night.

 

[xwalker]

Data hardly qualifies as data? That's an interesting perspective. How about this?

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/upshot/4th-down-when-to-go-for-it-and-why.html

There are problems with that type of data.

Simple example:
The data is based on historical success/fail rates of going for it. The problem is that coaches go for it when they think they have a very high probability of making it; therefore, the data is heavily skewed to towards success.

If there was data available for the concept where teams followed the "chart" and always go for it if the chart indicates they should go for it, then that data would be significantly different and with much lower success rates.

You can't get the required data unless teams were already operating off the chart; however, you can't create an accurate chart without the data.

Football fans/coaches with a spreadsheet but no formal training in statistics can come up with a lot of faultly conclusions.

There are other problems with the analysis but the above example is one simple to explain reason that it's a problem.

-Disclosure: One of my degrees is in Mathematics.

 

[joseephuss]

Data hardly qualifies as data? That's an interesting perspective. How about this?

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/upshot/4th-down-when-to-go-for-it-and-why.html

The graph indicates that coaches most often punt in the same situations you called out Garrett for punting. That would indicate he doesn't punt more from the opponents side of the field than other coaches. He does what they all do.

 

[JD_KaPow]

There are problems with that type of data.

Simple example:
The data is based on historical success/fail rates of going for it. The problem is that coaches go for it when they think they have a very high probability of making it; therefore, the data is heavily skewed to towards success.

I expect that the vast majority of that data is from 3rd downs, not 4th downs (that's how this is typically done). And to the extent that there is 4th down data, much of it occurs when teams have to go for it (it's late and they're behind), not when they're choosing to go for it. And those situations would tend to skew the other way (if it's late and you're behind, that's usually because the other team is better than you, so the probability of making it is lower than average).

 

[wick]

Yes there are times you do it and time you punt. It makes no sense vs a top defense to allow them the chance to change momentum and get the ball back in great field position.

This is a poor argument. If you are playing a top defense, then you figure to have the ball on their side of the field fewer times (i.e. fewer scoring chances) and should thus maximize your opportunities by going for it.

 

[DCBoysfan]

Teams should take Shanahan's approach. This is a perfect example of the issue facing coaches. The 49ers were playing a much better team (as they will be doing all season long). If he sits back and punts, punts, punts, they lose: maybe not by 20 points, but they lose. When you're facing a much stronger opponent, you should be adopting high-risk high-reward strategies. Those strategies increase your odds of winning, and they increase your odds of getting blown out. They decrease your odds of losing by a "respectable" margin, the kind that lets the coach avoid criticism but doesn't win games.

Conversely, if you're playing a much weaker team, you should adopt low-risk strategies and just beat them with talent. Variance is your enemy in these games.

No they shouldn't, his approach allowed the Panthers a short field, and each time he lost on fourth down he put his defense right back out on the field preventing them from getting into any kind of rhythm. If you playing a better team you don't help them by giving them a short field.

 

[JBell]

Chris Jones makes me hate the decision much less. You know he's going to pin it inside the 10.

If he punts to the 15 or the 17, those 30 yards of field position aren't really worth it. A touchback definitely hurts you. But Jones finds that sweet spot consistently without getting too greedy and trying to coffin corner it inside the 5.

 

[JD_KaPow]

No they shouldn't, his approach allowed the Panthers a short field, and each time he lost on fourth down he put his defense right back out on the field preventing them from getting into any kind of rhythm. If you playing a better team you don't help them by giving them a short field.

If you're playing a better team you don't help them by giving them the ball, period. You need to pursue every chance of scoring to the maximum extent possible.