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

[CowboysFaninHouston]

and how many did we score during the 3rd qtr without the ball

if we play lax until the red zone then field position matters even less

that made asbsolutley no sense.

 

[JoeyBoy718]

Your odds are probably much higher stopping your opponent inside their own 10 than converting on 4th and long from midfield.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

It is very frustrating because everyone agrees with the data....... NFL coaches are way too conservative on 4th down

And we also agree that coaches ignore the data because of peer pressure

The real, trying to win book says to go for it but the fake media guide/book says to punt( but only when it fails)

I tell everyone this.......how do you feel when the other team has it at our 37 on fourth and 1 and lines up to go it.........you are nervous and anxious..... another score would be crushing..... but instead they try to get us to jump, take the penalty and punt........ we all exhale and say hell yeah we are getting the ball back......we held them........

NO ONE roots for them to go for it because we know the odds are in their favor..... the field position is so much less important than getting possession

who is everyone? I don't agree with the data. again you are making generic comments about everyone and then using it to back up your comments. the data is false. it clearly shows NFL coaches, avoid going for it on 4th down and short and punt. why? perhaps REAL LIFE, REAL GAME experience, not computer simulated model, with God knows what parameters feeding it for an article that clearly was trying to be skewed.

logic says you don['t go for it because you may have less thanb 50% chance of success. NE was 7 of 18 on 4th downs last year. how many 4th down and less than 3 opportunities? how may times did they punt? are you going to tell me you are going to take a computer modeling with unknown parameters, over an 8th time superbowl coach? seriously!!!

 

[rags747]

Actually I thought Garrett was kind of ballsy last year, he knew he had a dam good team behind him and he played to that going for it on several 4th down occasions.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Teams surely will use analytics more and more. And that will probably be a good thing. But football isn't baseball. Consider that the Texans averaged 5.9 yards per passing attempt last year and were the worst team in the league in this category. The Bills, the best in the league in this category, averaged 5.3 yards per rushing attempt. One could argue that teams should pass every down. Of course that's a silly conclusion, but you could make the numbers say that.

You can make the numbers say that if you're an incredibly bad analyst, sure. When we talk about using analytics more and more, we mean gathering and using data properly. In baseball, for years and years, teams valued guys who got a lot of RBIs or had a high batting average (but didn't do anything else) much too highly. They were using analytics, but they were using them badly. The point is that there's a lot of smart, sophisticated analysis that teams could be doing (especially with all the data that's available now), but they're clearly not doing it, or listening to it, in some areas.

In a vacuum, surely it's tempting to say teams ought never punt. By having four downs, a team need average only 2.5 yards/play to make a first down. It's easy to buy the argument that making the game a 2.5 yards/play exercise you're taking a lot of pressure off the offense.

Well, no, because it's an absurd argument, and we know that without having to look at emotion or intangibles or anything like that. There's a huge amount of variation in production per play that has to be (and can be) taken into account when preparing to make these decisions.

But football is a deeply emotional game, and many NFL games are decided by the mistakes the losing team makes rather than by the great plays the winning team makes. A fourth down failure is roughly the equivalent of a turnover (not exactly the same because you're also surrendering the ball by punting). But 40 yards of field position is no small thing.

Yes, a failed 4th-down conversion is costly in terms of field position, although not as much as 40 yards in most of the cases we've been talking about here. And that's what people focus on, because people are extremely risk-averse. But a successful 4th-down conversion is just incredibly valuable compared to a punt: you have the ball and a first down vs. the other team having the ball and a first down. The risk averse focus on the downside and try to avoid it. But a balanced risk calculation shows that going for it is the better play far more often than you would think by watching how coaches coach.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Your odds are probably much higher stopping your opponent inside their own 10 than converting on 4th and long from midfield.

The odds of converting 4th and 7-10 from midfield are between 30 and 40%. I don't know what the odds of pinning the opponent inside the 10 when you punt from there are (50% at best?), but the odds of stopping an opponent inside their 10 (3-and-out, safety, interception, etc.) are around 35%. So the odds of pinning them inside the 10 and stopping them there are generally lower than the odds of converting the 4th down.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Actually I thought Garrett was kind of ballsy last year, he knew he had a dam good team behind him and he played to that going for it on several 4th down occasions.

I thought so too. And late in 2014 as well (2015 never happened, so there's nothing to be learned there). Before that, his conservatism frustrated me greatly. I'm cautiously optimistic that he'll continue to move in the right direction.

 

[Kevinicus]

WOW. maybe if Dak was more accdurate then we would have had a TD instead of kick a field goal...on the one hand you criticized the coach for not going for it on 4th and long from mid field. on the other hand you criticized him for passing the ball when inside the 5..... he is risky, then he is not risky enough.... you just want to criticize, so go ahead, do and move on your merry way. your logic has zero olegs to stand on...it fell apart from the beginning.

Uh...did you mean to quote someone else?

 

[Skillit]

I hate to reduce it by saying 'football 101 says that if you can't kick a FG on 4th down, you are not down by more than 7 and not in the 4th....you punt.'

Not getting it--leaning your thin d line with a short field to protect is a way to let teams back into games.

You ever notice how awesome JG trick plays are?

Yea--that's because 98% of the time, he makes the conservative call.

 

[Nightman]

who is everyone? I don't agree with the data. again you are making generic comments about everyone and then using it to back up your comments. the data is false. it clearly shows NFL coaches, avoid going for it on 4th down and short and punt. why? perhaps REAL LIFE, REAL GAME experience, not computer simulated model, with God knows what parameters feeding it for an article that clearly was trying to be skewed.

logic says you don['t go for it because you may have less thanb 50% chance of success. NE was 7 of 18 on 4th downs last year. how many 4th down and less than 3 opportunities? how may times did they punt? are you going to tell me you are going to take a computer modeling with unknown parameters, over an 8th time superbowl coach? seriously!!!

Wow you are a little obsessed........Me thinks the lady doth protest too much

It is a discussion about game theory and not necessarily about JG....don't take it so personal

You prove our point when you talk about making 50% of 4th downs.......in this situation that is like getting a turnover at the other teams 35 yard line ...... that is huge and almost guarantees points

Field position has so much less impact on expected points than getting an extra possession....those are facts

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

This reads like a baseball fan from 1985 discussing the virtues of a sacrifice bunt.

No it doesn't lol.

 

[Shake_Tiller]

You can make the numbers say that if you're an incredibly bad analyst, sure. When we talk about using analytics more and more, we mean gathering and using data properly. In baseball, for years and years, teams valued guys who got a lot of RBIs or had a high batting average (but didn't do anything else) much too highly. They were using analytics, but they were using them badly. The point is that there's a lot of smart, sophisticated analysis that teams could be doing (especially with all the data that's available now), but they're clearly not doing it, or listening to it, in some areas.Well, no, because it's an absurd argument, and we know that without having to look at emotion or intangibles or anything like that. There's a huge amount of variation in production per play that has to be (and can be) taken into account when preparing to make these decisions. Yes, a failed 4th-down conversion is costly in terms of field position, although not as much as 40 yards in most of the cases we've been talking about here. And that's what people focus on, because people are extremely risk-averse. But a successful 4th-down conversion is just incredibly valuable compared to a punt: you have the ball and a first down vs. the other team having the ball and a first down. The risk averse focus on the downside and try to avoid it. But a balanced risk calculation shows that going for it is the better play far more often than you would think by watching how coaches coach.

I am generally distrustful of any discussion that includes pejoratives such as "incredibly bad analyst" and "absurd argument," but I'll choose to interpret this as an expression of your obvious passion. That said, I happen to be in a profession where similar arguments were made years ago and where traditionalists were deemed dinosaurs. In the end, the dinosaurs turned out to be correct. The analysts had to find another line of work. We shall see what we see when we see it. Generally I do think you're correct, in many cases. And I do appreciate your informed opinions.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

Except when they went 90 yards for points in the 3rd quarter

Did they even score a TD on that drive lol?

 

[Nightman]

In baseball, for years and years, teams valued guys who got a lot of RBIs or had a high batting average (but didn't do anything else) much too highly. They were using analytics, but they were using them badly.

The 'book' in MLB is almost 100% wrong....... Sacrifice bunts, intentional walks, stolen bases, pitching changes have been butchered for decades because of the 'book'

The shift, the idea of good strikeouts (lead to more HRs and less double plays) and throwing strikes are the new challengers to the old school

 

[jobberone]

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.

You'd be out of a job in a year or so. Look at our starting field position vs theirs and you'll have your answer. What's the success rate or what's the Sc% for a drive starting at their 5 or 10 vs 43? If you have a different score and game situation or even a change in momentum you want back then maybe you go for it or 4th and 2-3 but not 4th and 7.

 

[JD_KaPow]

I am generally distru****l of any discussion that includes pejoratives such as "incredibly bad analyst" and "absurd argument," but I'll choose to interpret this as an expression of your obvious passion. That said, I happen to be in a profession where similar arguments were made years ago and where traditionalists were deemed dinosaurs. In the end, the dinosaurs turned out to be correct. The analysts had to find another line of work. We shall see what we see when we see it. Generally I do think you're correct, in many cases. And I do appreciate your informed opinions.

None of that was targeted at you. You presented a case that you intended to be an example of bad analysis reaching a bad conclusion, and it was. That said, the analysts will be right about some things and wrong about some things, and as the years go by, we'll get closer to the truth. And the game will evolve accordingly.

 

[Nightman]

Did they even score a TD on that drive lol?

We didn't score either...... if we play bend but don't break then allowing them to go further means less time we have the ball and the chance to wear them down and score

We might be better off with a high risk high turnover D that gets us the ball back quicker....... shorter fields help with that both ways

Punt are just unforced turnovers..... they are self-inflicted drive killers

 

[Shake_Tiller]

None of that was targeted at you. You presented a case that you intended to be an example of bad analysis reaching a bad conclusion, and it was. That said, the analysts will be right about some things and wrong about some things, and as the years go by, we'll get closer to the truth. And the game will evolve accordingly.

Appreciate that. Actually I didn't take it as being aimed toward me. My point was that a discussion in which one side of an argument is being treated dismissively is usually one that isn't fruitful. I do very much agree with the points you make, though I also think football is a violent, emotional game in which the value of some decisions can be difficult to weigh. Being on the field, in a whirlwind, emotions swing wildly with negative events. Good analysis will have to be accompanied by respect for a coach's feel for the game and for what his team requires.

I built quite a successful business by being a contrarian when my competitors turned to a purely analytical/statistical model. And I had several analysts explain to me in great detail why I was doomed to failure. Instead my business became much more successful. It wasn't because the analysts and my competitors were wrong. It was because I saw a niche in offering something beyond numbers, probabilities, etc. I wasn't smarter than them. I wasn't "right," in an absolute sense. I was just different, and it worked.

It's that experience that makes me distrustful of absolutes -- a team shouldn't punt in this situation, or it shouldn't pass in that situation. Science has its place. So does art.

Again, I very much appreciate both your knowledge and your passion. It won't surprise me a bit if you turn out to be right.

 

[TheHerd]

We didn't score either...... if we play bend but don't break then allowing them to go further means less time we have the ball and the chance to wear them down and score

We might be better off with a high risk high turnover D that gets us the ball back quicker....... shorter fields help with that both ways

Punt are just unforced turnovers..... they are self-inflicted drive killers

I agree against even an average offensive team, but the Giants had to have a miracle to drive 90 yards for one FG. Continually forcing them to start at the 10 practically guarantees a win. If we're playing the Pats, Falcons, Packers, I might agree.

Garrett would not however. He'll punt 9 times out of 9 in that situation. That's one thing which separates coaches like the Emperor from the rest - he knows when the odds favor doing the unconventional and has the guts to act.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

We didn't score either...... if we play bend but don't break then allowing them to go further means less time we have the ball and the chance to wear them down and score

We might be better off with a high risk high turnover D that gets us the ball back quicker....... shorter fields help with that both ways

Punt are just unforced turnovers..... they are self-inflicted drive killers

We didn't score because of lack of execution. Dak had Dez wide open in the end zone and completely missed him. That's 7 points right there. 26 points is going to win you most games.