4th & 1 Discussion

[Feared]

Re: 4th & 1 Discussion

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/up...pgtype=article

According to this article, a coach should go for it on 4th and 1 no matter what. The argument being... "Near your own goal line, going for it on fourth-and-1 is better than punting: You’ll probably make the first down; if you don’t, your opponent will have good field position, but a punt would have given your opponent pretty good field position anyway."

This doesn't make sense at all.

Pinning your opponent inside their own 5, especially at Home where your Crowd noise should really impact their play calling, and snap cadence. Isn't a good strategy?

I've seen games change momentum off of a Safety, or Turnover from a backed up Offensive if you needlessly give the ball away at Midfield that's 20 yards and instant FG range for most teams with their kickers. Where as 90+ yard drives are very, very rare in the NFL; even with elite QBs.

[kehlis]

Re: 4th & 1 Discussion

This doesn't make sense at all.

Pinning your opponent inside their own 5, especially at Home where your Crowd noise should really impact their play calling, and snap cadence. Isn't a good strategy?

I've seen games change momentum off of a Safety, if you needlessly give the ball away at Midfield that's 20 yards and instant FG range for most teams with their kickers. Where as 90+ yard drives are very, very rare in the NFL; even with elite QBs.

I don't agree with the point of that article but the part of the post you bolded that you said doesn't make sense actually does to a degree and didn't have anything to do with punting from midfield.

It said that if you are backed up in a short to go situation you actually might as well go for it because either way you are going to get either a first down or give it to them around midfield which to your point is 20 yards away from field goal range.

My counter to that point however is that you are more likely to be giving up a touchdown versus a field goal if you don't make it.

[Feared]

Re: 4th & 1 Discussion

I don't agree with the point of that article but the part of the post you bolded that you said doesn't make sense actually does to a degree and didn't have anything to do with punting from midfield.

It said that if you are backed up in a short to go situation you actually might as well go for it because either way you are going to get either a first down or give it to them around midfield which to your point is 20 yards away from field goal range.

My counter to that point however is that you are more likely to be giving up a touchdown versus a field goal if you don't make it.

Right don't know how I misread that; and yes I would say as a Coach/play caller it's not worth the risk of giving up 7, you have to have faith in your Defense holding to 3.

[Cardot]

Re: 4th & 1 Discussion

you have to have faith in your Defense holding to 3.

But not the faith in your offense to get 1 yard?

[wwharton]

Re: 4th & 1 Discussion

But not the faith in your offense to get 1 yard?

On one play when you couldn't get many yards the 3 plays before that? Why should you?

I really need someone to explain why so many think it's easy to get one yard when a defense is playing to stop the run. It really seems like everyone going by these stats or saying it's easy is assuming the other team will play the same D on 4th and 1 that they'd play on any other down... besides maybe 3rd and 1... maybe.

[dsallupinyaarea]

Re: 4th & 1 Discussion

On one play when you couldn't get many yards the 3 plays before that? Why should you?

Amateur math alert. But using the same recency bias and small sample, there's a counter:

You don't need many yards on 4th & 1. If you're at a 4th & 1, that means you gained 9 yards on the previous 3 plays, so that's 3 yards per play. If you gained 3 yards per play on the 3 previous plays, why can't you gain 1 on the next?

I really need someone to explain why so many think it's easy to get one yard when a defense is playing to stop the run. It really seems like everyone going by these stats or saying it's easy is assuming the other team will play the same D on 4th and 1 that they'd play on any other down... besides maybe 3rd and 1... maybe.

I guess the assumption is made because, on average, the worst offenses in recent memory average 3 or 4 yards per play. If the defense loads up to stop the run, run a play to counter that. I mean... coach instead of auto-piloting your decision making. I don't understand why 4th down carries this mythical extra degree of difficulty. It's just football. If you average more than a yard a play on any other down, you should be able to get it on 4th down. Will you fail sometimes? Sure. But the data is OVERWHELMINGLY in favor of going for it.


<O</O
The real discussion to be had is something like 4th and 4 or less. 4th & 1 is basically solved, one off scenarios aside, as far as optimum strategy is concerned.<O</O

[gerg1234]

Re: 4th &amp; 1 Discussion

Watching the Bears defense all season, I would encourage them to go for it on 4th and 1 every time.....but,

Watching the Bears offense this season, I would encourage them to punt.

But then again, with the Bears special teams, you're risking giving up a punt return TD.

Moral of the story, we suck.

[Cardot]

Re: 4th &amp; 1 Discussion

I really need someone to explain why so many think it's easy to get one yard when a defense is playing to stop the run. It really seems like everyone going by these stats or saying it's easy is assuming the other team will play the same D on 4th and 1 that they'd play on any other down... besides maybe 3rd and 1... maybe.

I never said it was easy. But depending upon the situation, it may be easier than stopping the opponent in today's offensive oriented game. For example the highly debated 2009 NE vs. Indy game when Belichick went for it on 4th and 2 from the 28. I liked the call. Manning had been carving the NE defense in the 4th quarter. Brady picking up a fourth and two seemed a little "easier" than preventing Manning from driving 70 yards. Not to mention the defense still did have a chance to prevent Indy from driving 28 yards.

[Blzer]

Re: 4th &amp; 1 Discussion

On one play when you couldn't get many yards the 3 plays before that? Why should you?

I really need someone to explain why so many think it's easy to get one yard when a defense is playing to stop the run. It really seems like everyone going by these stats or saying it's easy is assuming the other team will play the same D on 4th and 1 that they'd play on any other down... besides maybe 3rd and 1... maybe.

If they play for run-stoppage, there are many offensive strategies you can employ:

1) Obviously, go for the PA pass (open TE in the flat).
2) Anticipate blitz, catch them offsides/on heels.
3) QB run.
4) Fake FB dive, HB toss
5) 5-wide, press your luck.
6) Fake punt/field goal.

I actually belong more in the camp that two-point conversions are not gone for enough either, but that's more difficult to campaign for with such little room to do anything with (only twelve yards of field play in front of you).

[dsallupinyaarea]

Re: 4th &amp; 1 Discussion

I actually belong more in the camp that two-point conversions are not gone for enough either, but that's more difficult to campaign for with such little room to do anything with (only twelve yards of field play in front of you).

FWIW, most sports analytics sites/people claim the 2 pt conversion is severely underused.

[Cardot]

Re: 4th &amp; 1 Discussion

But the data is OVERWHELMINGLY in favor of going for it.

Football fans and media are very unforgiving of aggressive strategy when it doesn't work. If you had a coach who made equally aggressive play calls over 5 games, with 4 times these decisions leading to a victory, and once a loss, most fans would lose their mind over the one defeat instead of recognizing the 80% success rate.

Conservative play calling doesn't get near the attention. A few weeks back, Pittsburgh was playing Tampa. Could have run out the clock with a couple first downs, but ran up the middle 3 times and punted giving TB a chance to win the game. Patriots did the same against the Jets and barely won with a blocked FG. Not much conversation about that. But when the Saints were aggressive in the same situation against Detroit, it was the post game talking point.

[wwharton]

Re: 4th &amp; 1 Discussion

Amateur math alert. But using the same recency bias and small sample, there's a counter:

You don't need many yards on 4th & 1. If you're at a 4th & 1, that means you gained 9 yards on the previous 3 plays, so that's 3 yards per play. If you gained 3 yards per play on the 3 previous plays, why can't you gain 1 on the next?



I guess the assumption is made because, on average, the worst offenses in recent memory average 3 or 4 yards per play. If the defense loads up to stop the run, run a play to counter that. I mean... coach instead of auto-piloting your decision making. I don't understand why 4th down carries this mythical extra degree of difficulty. It's just football. If you average more than a yard a play on any other down, you should be able to get it on 4th down. Will you fail sometimes? Sure. But the data is OVERWHELMINGLY in favor of going for it.


<O</O
The real discussion to be had is something like 4th and 4 or less. 4th & 1 is basically solved, one off scenarios aside, as far as optimum strategy is concerned.<O</O

That doesn't really answer the question though... it is the question. Defenses change based on down, distance and situation. So stats of the average distance gained per down is not a good one to use in analyzing these situations. Even in your first response, if we ignore the possibility they got 9 yards on a pass and say they ran up the gut, the same play isn't going to work the same way in a 4th and 1 situation as often as these stats make it seem. Data is far from overwhelming, and actually isn't clear at all.

And you say coach instead of going on auto-pilot and I would say that is exactly what they are currently doing. More on this, but Blzer had some detailed examples so I'll respond to both together.

I never said it was easy. But depending upon the situation, it may be easier than stopping the opponent in today's offensive oriented game. For example the highly debated 2009 NE vs. Indy game when Belichick went for it on 4th and 2 from the 28. I liked the call. Manning had been carving the NE defense in the 4th quarter. Brady picking up a fourth and two seemed a little "easier" than preventing Manning from driving 70 yards. Not to mention the defense still did have a chance to prevent Indy from driving 28 yards.

That wasn't necessarily directed at you. Plenty of people here have been saying things like offenses should be able to get one yard. Hell see above... and the article posted yesterday. I was on your side in that game you're talking about. I thought it was the right call then.

If they play for run-stoppage, there are many offensive strategies you can employ:

1) Obviously, go for the PA pass (open TE in the flat).
2) Anticipate blitz, catch them offsides/on heels.
3) QB run.
4) Fake FB dive, HB toss
5) 5-wide, press your luck.
6) Fake punt/field goal.

I actually belong more in the camp that two-point conversions are not gone for enough either, but that's more difficult to campaign for with such little room to do anything with (only twelve yards of field play in front of you).

1) I don't have stats but I'm sure a pass play lowers the success rate immediately bc it's not just about the defense stopping the play but also the receiver catching the ball, the QB getting the ball to them, etc.

2) This can, and does happen even now if the team ends up punting... don't think it applies to what we're talking about.

3) Not sure how this is different than any other run. I assumed QB dives were included in the assumed play calls on a 4th and 1 play.

4) Again still a run, and requires the defense guessing wrong to have success which takes a bit away from the "they should be able to get just a yard" theory

5) "press your luck" kind of says it all

6) This is only a possibility in certain areas, and also brings about risk bc of players being put in position to do things they don't often do.

Remember, I (only speaking for myself) am not arguing that teams should never go for it on 4th and short... especially 4th and 1. My feeling is there are too many variables to consider to make the blanket statement that teams just need to do it more... a lot more at that. But my question was to those who look at stats and say it's only 1 yard, as if teams will play the same D they would've played on 2nd and 1. The logical thought is to pass instead, which, by nature, is riskier than any run play... cancelling the thought that choosing that option keeps the idea as an automatic decision.

I actually agree more about the 2pt conversion. The immediate consequences of failing aren't on the same level as failing on a 4th and 1 in the situations I disagree with.

Football fans and media are very unforgiving of aggressive strategy when it doesn't work. If you had a coach who made equally aggressive play calls over 5 games, with 4 times these decisions leading to a victory, and once a loss, most fans would lose their mind over the one defeat instead of recognizing the 80% success rate.

Conservative play calling doesn't get near the attention. A few weeks back, Pittsburgh was playing Tampa. Could have run out the clock with a couple first downs, but ran up the middle 3 times and punted giving TB a chance to win the game. Patriots did the same against the Jets and barely won with a blocked FG. Not much conversation about that. But when the Saints were aggressive in the same situation against Detroit, it was the post game talking point.

Even though I'm arguing the other side, I still don't agree with doing crap because of being worried about fans and media. Not saying you're wrong, I think there are some cases and coaches where this does happen. But I agree that it's stupid.

[kehlis]

Re: 4th &amp; 1 Discussion

There were several instances of this last night in the Louisville/FSU game and both times it cost the offense for going for it.

First drive of the game Louisville drove down to the 2, went for it on fourth and goal and got stopped, no points (points they could have used in the end). To answer the follow up question, FSU did drive it to midfield so Louisville didn't flip the field at all and came out empty handed.


Later in the game with FSU trailing (can't remember exactly by how much at the time) had a fourth and on at midfield and got stopped.

Louisville got one first down and then were stopped and got a field goal. Points that at that time FSU couldn't afford to give up.


Now neither team made either attempt and both are averaging at least yards a play but defenses change on fourth down.

It's not automatic on fourth down just because you averaged three yard a play on the previous three downs.

[Cardot]

Re: 4th &amp; 1 Discussion

There were several instances of this last night in the Louisville/FSU game and both times it cost the offense for going for it.

But FSU also salted the game away late by throwing the ball on their last drive which got both the first down and the TD. The conservative approach would have been to dive up the middle, punt and "Have Faith in the Defense".

[dsallupinyaarea]

Re: 4th &amp; 1 Discussion

I don't think anyone is saying it's automatic (at least I'm not). And FWIW, I'm not results oriented about it. If I like the decision, I back it even if it fails. Because all a coach can do is analyze the data in front of them and make a call. The results fall where they fall. My problem is that I just don't think these coaches think about it much at all. I think they just take the path of least resistance.

I don't think there's many 4th & 1 game situations you can look at objectively and think "punting here gives us the best chance to win long term". Do some exist, sure. EJ Manuel anything and I'm punting. But if I have to see John Fox punt on 4th and short one more time, I might just turn the game off.