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

NextGenBoys

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,252
Reaction score
1,964
We watched the NE/KC game changed on 2 failed 4th down conversions.

And then we went on to not only win, but absolutely dominate the NYG offense holding them to under 300 yards and 3 points.

The right decision was made.
 

DCBoysfan

Hardwork and Dedication
Messages
7,142
Reaction score
3,403
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.

No, you need to put them in disadvantaged positions, such as pinning them back, not mid field. Each team will get opportunities to be on offense, the longer they have travel to score the better your defense will have the opportunity to succeed. Kyle's strategy contributed to his team being blown out.
 

Nightman

Capologist
Messages
27,121
Reaction score
24,038
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.
Fans love to second guess more than even the media....... coaches lose their jobs when it looks like they go against the book...... JG is also very conservative on top of that

But having and keeping the ball is so much more important than Field Position..... getting a First Down at the others teams 30-35 yd line is almost guaranteed points
 

dogunwo

Franchise Tagged
Messages
10,285
Reaction score
5,683
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.
Those are all punting situations. In a game where the opposing offense cannot move the football, you win field position and don't give up an easy FG.
 

xwalker

Well-Known Member
Messages
56,925
Reaction score
64,351
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
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).

Yes, the point is that it's easy to conceive of multiple ways in which the data is skewed. Once you know the data is skewed relative to what would actually happen, then the data becomes worthless because you can't quantify the skew.

A team would just have to guess and make an initial chart. Then they would have to go by the chart in all situations. After a full season, then they could make an updated chart based on that season's data. If they repeated that process for a few years, then they might eventually get reasonably accurate data for their team. The data would obviously not be accurate if applied to another team but it would be a starting point for other teams to make Rev 1 of their own chart.
 

dogunwo

Franchise Tagged
Messages
10,285
Reaction score
5,683
You go for it. There has been tons of analysis on this subject, and the first two should have been no-brainers.
Where is the data that you keep referring to? IIRC, the data was all statistical, not situational.
 

Shake_Tiller

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,438
Reaction score
1,563
NFL games predictably tend to be decided by unforced errors (turnovers, penalties, dropped passes). The aversion to going for it on fourth down probably stems from that experience. A failed fourth quarter attempt becomes roughly the equivalent of an unforced error. And coaches are human -- they prefer to avoid obvious second-guess opportunities. Look what happened to the Saints the other night -- they call a couple of timeouts trying to get the ball and a scoring chance before the half and wind up allowing a long TD drive.

Garrett is a conservative coach, but it was also obvious he was playing with the stronger hand. There wasn't a need to gamble. And 19-3 really is the only support he needs for his decisions.
 

ThreeandOut

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,866
Reaction score
4,210
Instead of being less conservative, Garrett actually should have been more conservative in this game and ran the ball with Zeke down at the goal line rather than trying three straight passes.
 

Doomsday101

Well-Known Member
Messages
107,762
Reaction score
39,034
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.

I don't think so nor do most coaches because the vast majority of the time they play for the field position. To pin the opponent by their own endzone. Had Dallas gone for it and not made it I can promise people here would be livid. It was not worth the risk.
 

CanadianCowboysFan

Lightning Rod
Messages
24,459
Reaction score
7,525
I think pinning the Giants down around their own 10 was the right thing to do. Why risk giving up great starting field position to the Giants? If we are trailing I would be more inclined to take the risk

Bingo they couldn't move the ball so pin them
 

Doomsday101

Well-Known Member
Messages
107,762
Reaction score
39,034
Playing with a lead, you pin them every time. It's not even really a question.

exactly why give them life? Only chance NY had was if their defense stepped up and made a big play why allow them the opportunity?
In the end by pinning them back the Cowboys ended up with great field position to start their drives.
 

Nightman

Capologist
Messages
27,121
Reaction score
24,038
exactly why give them life? Only chance NY had was if their defense stepped up and made a big play why allow them the opportunity?
In the end by pinning them back the Cowboys ended up with great field position to start their drives.
Except when they went 90 yards for points in the 3rd quarter
 

Maxmadden

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,143
Reaction score
4,369
  • 4th and 3 from the Giants 43
  • 4th and 2 from the Giants 44
Who has the data for the scoring percentages from the 43 yard line versus the 6 yard line and the 44 yd line versus the 9 yard line, which is what actually happened? Plus the percentage of returns that incur a receiving penalty to push them back half the distance? How does it change the momentum of the Game? As XW said most teams go for it when they think they can make it which skews the numbers.

There is just too much data that figures into each decision that is not even being considered when strictly looking at the percentages of going for it on 4th down.
 

Doomsday101

Well-Known Member
Messages
107,762
Reaction score
39,034
Except when they went 90 yards for points in the 3rd quarter

and got the 3. It is just harder for any offense to drive mistake free on 90 yard drives. NY needed their defense to give them a chance and Dallas was smart enough not to give them an opportunity to change the course of the game.
 

kumizi

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,210
Reaction score
5,612
Every Ivy league statistician will tell you that you should almost never ever punt when you're on the opponent's side of midfield.

NFL coaches are too scared to do the right thing. That's one reason Belichek is so successful. He know he won't get fired so he does whatever the F he wants.
 
Messages
18,213
Reaction score
28,520
Yes, the point is that it's easy to conceive of multiple ways in which the data is skewed. Once you know the data is skewed relative to what would actually happen, then the data becomes worthless because you can't quantify the skew.

A team would just have to guess and make an initial chart. Then they would have to go by the chart in all situations. After a full season, then they could make an updated chart based on that season's data. If they repeated that process for a few years, then they might eventually get reasonably accurate data for their team. The data would obviously not be accurate if applied to another team but it would be a starting point for other teams to make Rev 1 of their own chart.
Even this would not work I don't think.

Every year your offense has different personnel.

You could have a great QB for a couple of years. Then he retires and you have a scrub.

Or in the 3rd year you find a Zeke type RB that changes your equation.

You could have a rash of injuries to your o-line or receivers such that the HC may be more conservative.

I don't think there is a way of ultimately determining using math when you should or should not go on 4th down. The coach has to have a feel for his team and the circumstances they are in and make a final call.
 
Top