Football Strategy Question

[st.cronin]

Ok, I forget the exact scenario, but in the madness of the Colts-Steelers finale, there was a very questionable punt that I would like to examine.

Roughly the situation was this: 3:30 left, 4th and 5, ball on the Indy 40, score 21-10.

I see the risk reward ratio like this: You're probably playing a soft defense anyway, so the length of the field is not really a big deal. If you punt, best case scenario is you make a long field for the Colts. If you go for it and fail, your defensive situation is still very strong - they have to score VERY quickly, and then get the ball back.

If you go for it, and make it, you basically win the game. And that seems like a decent shot.

I think Cowher absolutely made the wrong decision, but it seems like all teams play that endgame scenario the same way. Anybody see things differently?

[RPI-Fan]

...You're probably playing a soft defense anyway, so the length of the field is not really a big deal. ...

I buy into this because of the quoted part. I think this point is exaggerated when you're up against a very accurate QB like Manning (who will get from 20 yard line to the 40 very easily).

[st.cronin]

I buy into this because of the quoted part. I think this point is exaggerated when you're up against a very accurate QB like Manning (who will get from 20 yard line to the 40 very easily).

That's actually what happened. The punt went into the end zone for a touchback, and the first play from the 20 had the Colts past where they would have had the ball if the Steelers had thrown an incomplete pass.

[Maple Leafs]

I think you punt there, and you do it with the assumption that your punter can pin them. Which he didn't.

[Desnudo]

Ok, I forget the exact scenario, but in the madness of the Colts-Steelers finale, there was a very questionable punt that I would like to examine.

Roughly the situation was this: 3:30 left, 4th and 5, ball on the Indy 40, score 21-10.

I see the risk reward ratio like this: You're probably playing a soft defense anyway, so the length of the field is not really a big deal. If you punt, best case scenario is you make a long field for the Colts. If you go for it and fail, your defensive situation is still very strong - they have to score VERY quickly, and then get the ball back.

If you go for it, and make it, you basically win the game. And that seems like a decent shot.

I think Cowher absolutely made the wrong decision, but it seems like all teams play that endgame scenario the same way. Anybody see things differently?

If you read Tuesday Morning QB on NFL.com, he constantly harps on not punting in these scenarios. I think he uses the term "fraidy cat punt."

[ice4277]

If you read Tuesday Morning QB on NFL.com, he constantly harps on not punting in these scenarios. I think he uses the term "fraidy cat punt."
Isn't that usually in a shorter yardage situation though?

[Draft Dodger]

4th and 5, I probably punt too.
4th and 1 or 2? I'd consider it. Something worth thinking about too, though, is the morale boost a 4th down stop would give to the Colts.

[GrantDawg]

4th and 5, I probably punt too.
4th and 1 or 2? I'd consider it. Something worth thinking about too, though, is the morale boost a 4th down stop would give to the Colts.
You're right on this. You take the chance to gain 20 and maybe pin them inside their own 10, rather than give them good field position and momentum.

[CraigSca]

Football is a game of momentum, but I sure do wish there was a way to statistically measure its impact. I'm more of an outside the box kind of thinker when it comes to football. 4th and goal at the 1, and I think I would rarely, if ever, kick the FG, but many coaches would with the "you have to get some points" kind of mentality.

4th and 5 is kinda long...that would be the only thing holding me back. Of course, recent (selective) history suggests you punt - see the Rose Bowl for an example.

[Desnudo]

Isn't that usually in a shorter yardage situation though?

I think it has more to do with field position. I think 4th & 5 is short enough that you consider taking a shot. I don't know what the exact percentage of punts are in that situation that go for touchbacks, but basically you are saying the benefit of taking a shot outweighs the 15-20 yard gain you get from a punt. Yes, there's a chance of popping one inside the 10, but how often does that actually happen?

Edit: probably less often than gaining five yards on one play.

[sabotai]

Pittburgh punter had 22 punts inside the 20 during the regular season. He had a total of 67 punts. So that's about 33%. Now consider that some of those punts had no realistic shot at getting inside the 20 (punting well within own territory). I think it's reasonable to say that he had 40-50% of his punts go within the 20 when he had a decent shot at putting it there.

[Desnudo]

Pittburgh punter had 22 punts inside the 20 during the regular season. He had a total of 67 punts. So that's about 33%. Now consider that some of those punts had no realistic shot at getting inside the 20 (punting well within own territory). I think it's reasonable to say that he had 40-50% of his punts go within the 20 when he had a decent shot at putting it there.

So say he had a 50/50 shot of getting inside the twenty, what are the chances of completing a play for five yards? I'm not sold on one or the other, I just think the conventional wisdom here hasn't been thoroughly thought through.

[sabotai]

So say he had a 50/50 shot of getting inside the twenty, what are the chances of completing a play for five yards? I'm not sold on one or the other, I just think the conventional wisdom here hasn't been thoroughly thought through.
"A play for 5 yards" is a little too generic. I dunno what the 4th down conversion rate is for, say, 4th and more than 2. Pitt's 4th down conversion rate was 41.7% (5 for 12), but I'd imagine most of those were 4th and 1 or 2 attempts. Those are different beasts than 4th and 5.

But just try to imagine what football would be like if 50% of plays went for 5 or more yards.

[Desnudo]

I don't think going for it has to equal the 50/50 chance though. It just has to exceed the % chance of scoring difference (in this case a field goal?) that results from the different field positions. If that makes any sense.

Or % Chance of scoring x .5 versus % Chance of first down x % chance of scoring.

By scoring, I mean the other team scoring from a particular field position.

[st.cronin]

The reward for going for the first down and making it is that you win the game. Big reward. By punting, regardless of where you pin the Colts, they still have a chance. Small reward.

[ZXTT]

Roethlisberger had a sore arm and hand - they only passed a couple of times in the second half. That could certainly factor into going for it on 4th and 5. Cowher went for it on other occasions, so he wasn't playing Marty-ball.

[Maple Leafs]

Don't forget, the Steelers were having success blizting Manning. If they pin him within the 10, they have a decent shot at a safety and/or the thread of a safety can ruin his playcalling. And in fact, they did drive him back to the two.

[Huckleberry]

Of course, recent (selective) history suggests you punt - see the Rose Bowl for an example.
I disagree with this example. I still think Carroll absolutely made the correct decision. If he converts that 4th down the game is over. If he punts Texas gets the ball back with all 3 timeouts and more than 2 minutes left. The Texas offense was rolling. Furthermore, Carroll understood that his team ranked 117th in D-1A in net punting this year. Another factor advising him to go for it. Finally, LenDale White had run for at least 3 yards on 22 of his 23 runs before that play, and he had easily converted other short yardage situations that game.

Simply put, I don't see how it can be argued he made the wrong decision.

Of course, 4th and 5 in the NFL is a completely different situation. As you say I don't like the fact that it seems to be an automatic punt in that situation simply because everyone else does it. But that doesn't mean it isn't the wrong play, only that the reasoning is wrong.