Pete Carroll's 4th quarter decision, from a poker perspective

[Vegas Vic]

Pete Carroll made the correct decision in going for it on 4th and short, late in the 4th quarter. As a poker player, you should be able to come to this conclusion, as the expected EV was higher than punting.

The chance of picking up the first down was high. Considering that Texas had been gaining HUGE chunks of yardage late in the 4th quarter, Carroll rightfully concluded that the highest percentage play was going for the fourth and short, ending the game, and not giving the Texas offense another play.

In short, Carroll is faced with a high percentage chance of picking up a first down and winning the game, as opposed to 25 yards worth of field position against a red-hot Texas offense that was gaining yardage in huge chunks.

Carroll absolutely made the right decision.

[Ben E Lou]

I like the decision to go for it, and the decision to give it to LW. He's been powering over them all night long, and his defense still hasn't slowed down VY. When everything's on the line, you take your chances with your strength, rather than hoping your weakness goes away.

[SackAttack]

On the other hand, the decision to go for it on 4th and short in the 1st quarter was asinine.

You've been one of the "take the points" guys when I gripe about my short FGs in IHOF, SD, and if ever there were a textbook example, it'd be a game where SC threw away a field goal and lost by three.

Right?

[Ben E Lou]

On the other hand, the decision to go for it on 4th and short in the 1st quarter was asinine.

You've been one of the "take the points" guys when I gripe about my short FGs in IHOF, SD, and if ever there were a textbook example, it'd be a game where SC threw away a field goal and lost by three.

Right?Oh, I definitely agree that one didn't make much sense at the time. That early in the game, you go up 10-0.

[Ragone]

I totally agree with Sackattack on that point.. take the 3 points.. you are playing Texas.. not washington state.

I honestly feel like usc totally disrespected texas with that 1st quarter call, and it came back to bite them in the end

[SackAttack]

Oh, I definitely agree that one didn't make much sense at the time. That early in the game, you go up 10-0.

Especially when there's every possibility of the game being a shootout. Take your points, keep pushing on defense, and maybe you get lucky and open a can of USC-vs-OU whoopass.

But you don't let 'em back into the game, and turning the ball over with a one-score lead kept Texas in the game. If we were talking about a situation where it were already 17-0 or 21-0 for USC, then I'd say go for it. Put the nail in the coffin as early as possible. Against a good offense, even 28-0 isn't necessarily safe, as we saw the other night.

But up 7? Take your three, kick it deep, and let your defense get you the ball back.

[cthomer5000]

Especially when there's every possibility of the game being a shootout. Take your points, keep pushing on defense, and maybe you get lucky and open a can of USC-vs-OU whoopass.
I think he hadn't really thought it through. The negative of getting stuffed on 4th was more than not scoring points - it was a huge emotional boost to Texas to shut them down and seize a nice chunk of momentum. A missed field goal would have been fairly neutral, and a made field goal probably would have sent a slight sense of panic into Texas.

Aside from some overall suspect play-calling early, I thought it was probably the only "bad" decision USC made. Texas' only real tough decision was the decision to go for it on 4th and 1 early in the game, and i thought that was pretty much a coin flip from a strategy perspective.

[Kodos]

Aside from some overall suspect play-calling early, I thought it was probably the only "bad" decision USC made.

Well, that and the pitch by Bush. :)








(I know you were referring to coaching decisions...)

[stevew]

Well, that and the pitch by Bush. :)








(I know you were referring to coaching decisions...)

I missed most of the game, but I did hear that Bush had a Randel El-esque pitch.

[KWhit]

I agree with VV completely on the 4th qtr play call. I also agree with Sack that the earlier 4th down play was the wrong decision.

[TroyF]

Pete Carroll made the correct decision in going for it on 4th and short, late in the 4th quarter. As a poker player, you should be able to come to this conclusion, as the expected EV was higher than punting.

The chance of picking up the first down was high. Considering that Texas had been gaining HUGE chunks of yardage late in the 4th quarter, Carroll rightfully concluded that the highest percentage play was going for the fourth and short, ending the game, and not giving the Texas offense another play.

In short, Carroll is faced with a high percentage chance of picking up a first down and winning the game, as opposed to 25 yards worth of field position against a red-hot Texas offense that was gaining yardage in huge chunks.

Carroll absolutely made the right decision.

I disagree for a lot of reasons (one being you had the potential to put Texas inside the ten, you only give them the 25 net yards if you blow the punt badly.

Lets look at the play calling in that four play series:

1) Run for two yards.
2) Incomplete Pass
3) Run for 5 yards.
4) Run for one yard.

What is out of place there? Two things really stand out to me:

1) The incomplete pass stopped the clock, an inexcuseable thing to do in that situation.

2) The run on 3rd and 7 was essentially a give up play. Even as good as USC was running, you can't expect to have a 7 yard run and 3rd in long in that situation.

So you essentially concede that you're punting with a passive play call on third down, then you decide to get aggressive on fourth. The mindset boggles me. You could argue in poker terms that by getting 5.5 yards on the third down run it was the equal of hitting a card on the river, but I didn't like the call or the series of play calls from the start.

[Kodos]

I missed most of the game, but I did hear that Bush had a Randel El-esque pitch.

At least Randle El was an option quarterback, so it seems understandable that the urge to pitch the ball might be there.

[Butter]

You could argue in poker terms that by getting 5.5 yards on the third down run it was the equal of hitting a card on the river, but I didn't like the call or the series of play calls from the start.

I think the 3rd and 7 run for 5 1/2 yards would actually be more like picking up a straight/flush draw on the turn to go with your middle pair, then paying a lot (by going for it on 4th and 2) to stick around to the river to watch your meaningless 2 of nothing hit.

Or maybe I put too much thought into this.

[Huckleberry]

Actually, Butter, what's funny is I had the same thought as you.

I consider it a situation where USC was in the big blind and everybody limped in. They hit low pair on the flop but everyone checked around and they saw a free card on the turn. That turn card gave them the open-ended straight/flush draw. All of a sudden it made sense to call the single bet to see the river card.

[mtolson]

I like the decision to go for it, and the decision to give it to LW. He's been powering over them all night long, and his defense still hasn't slowed down VY. When everything's on the line, you take your chances with your strength, rather than hoping your weakness goes away.

I agree with the call to go to LW, but I think it was odd that whole series with Bush being on the bench. I would have put him in the backfield with LW just to keep the defense on their toes. It became very predictable on which back was going inside and which was going outside. Put them both in, spread the defense out and bust LW up the middle.

[timmynausea]

Sure, from a poker perspective it makes sense. From a monopoly perspective it is ludicrous, though.

[Ben E Lou]

I agree with the call to go to LW, but I think it was odd that whole series with Bush being on the bench. I would have put him in the backfield with LW just to keep the defense on their toes. It became very predictable on which back was going inside and which was going outside. Put them both in, spread the defense out and bust LW up the middle.That's an excellent point.

[I. J. Reilly]

2) The run on 3rd and 7 was essentially a give up play. Even as good as USC was running, you can't expect to have a 7 yard run and 3rd in long in that situation.

So you essentially concede that you're punting with a passive play call on third down, then you decide to get aggressive on fourth. The mindset boggles me. You could argue in poker terms that by getting 5.5 yards on the third down run it was the equal of hitting a card on the river, but I didn't like the call or the series of play calls from the start.
Completely disagree that the mind set changed. I think the 3rd down call proves that they were trying to get a manageable yardage for 4th down. It was a good risk/reward call: best case is what happend, pick up 5 yards and put you in position to pick up the 1st down with a power dive play. The worst case scenerio for that play call was getting stuffed in the backfield, which simply gives your punter more field to work with. The fact that they threw on 2nd down simply means that they trusted their offensive line to pick up 7 yards in two plays.

[Desnudo]

Sure, from a poker perspective it makes sense. From a monopoly perspective it is ludicrous, though.

Like trying to pair up the utilities?

[timmynausea]

Like trying to pair up the utilities?


Yes! I like the cut of your jig, Desnudo.

[AgustusM]

1) The incomplete pass stopped the clock, an inexcusable thing to do in that situation.


This was the really bad call IMO - not only was it an incomplete pass but it was a screen to the backup FB. On a team as talented as USC - why are you trying to put the ball in this guys hands? surely a screen to say Reggie bush makes more sense don't you think?

[Desnudo]

Yes! I like the cut of your jig, Desnudo.

Good! Let's go get a Fresca.

[TroyF]

This was the really bad call IMO - not only was it an incomplete pass but it was a screen to the backup FB. On a team as talented as USC - why are you trying to put the ball in this guys hands? surely a screen to say Reggie bush makes more sense don't you think?


Yes. Again, from a poker perspective, the series of calls is what was bad. Hell, I'm learning in poker you can make the wrong move and succeed and make the right move and fail. It happens. But if you can make your pre flop decisions consistently solid, you'll win more than you lose.

Well, before the "showdown" so to speak, I think USC played it all wrong. That put them in the "coin flip" to begin with.

If they were confident they could get four or five yards on a running play with White and third down and weren't conceding the punt, why not run the play on second down, kill the clock and give yourself TWO chances at getting 1.5 yards?

OK, I'm done with the poker analogies. I suck with them anyway. I still think that series of calls were horrible and that directly led to the loss of the game for USC.