Fourth Down and Statistics

[Lord_Byron]

I didn't know where to post this, but since it's about football and we have some downtime, I figured this forum is as good as any. There's been a lot of discussion on the Buffalo sports talk which I listen to on punting strategy. We've all seen it, you're at the opponents 40 yard line and punt, pin them back on the 15 and two plays later they are back at the 40. Why did you punt.

Here's a NY Times editorial saying the Jets have nothing to lose and should become a 4-down team.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/25/upsho ... abg=0&_r=1" target="_blank

There's also a Twitter account that tweets in real time when teams statistically should go for it rather than punt:

@NYT4thDownBot

[hammb]

Been preaching this for years and I believe in it whole-heartedly. People criticized Babers for going for TDs rather than kicking FGs. Last week I got into a heated argument with Browns fans because they went on 4th & 1 rather than going up 9-0 on Jacksonville.

The conventional wisdom is WRONG. It's conservative and bent towards playing field position ball control football, which is NOT what is taking over the sport. You get 4 downs to gain 10, NOT 3. Yes, plenty of situations call for a punt, but to blindly punt because it's 4th down and you're not in FG range (and conversely kick the FG when you are) is just wrong. There are plenty of situations where the reward of going for it on 4th down far outweighs the risk which is just a field position difference.

My personal strategy/belief is that I NEVER punt on 4th & 3 or less on the good side of the 50.
I NEVER kick a FG on 4th & 1, unless it's late in game and 3 points is a win/loss variable.
I NEVER kick a FG inside the 10 unless it's late in game and 3 points is a win/loss variable.
I probably go for it on all 4th downs under 3 yards between the 40s, but I'm willing to think and debate about that.

Most football people will tell you that you cannot paint these white/black pictures on situations like I did, but I actually think there is value in doing so. As the article pointed out, going for it is usually the better mathematical decision. Moreover, I think having these hardfast white/black rules makes it easier to play that way for the 3 downs leading up to 4th down. One thing that upsets me just as much as teams blindly kicking the ball in situations I'd go for it, is playing like that is the strategy on 3rd down. IF you know that you're going for it on 4th down regardless it really opens up a range of plays on 3rd as well. Teams blindly act like 3rd down is their last chance to get that 10 yards they need, so they sell out for it. That's unnecessary when you could use 3rd down just to set yourself up for an easier 4th down.


The same rules apply to onsides kicks. Again I know Babers was criticized for an onsides kick earlier (IU?). I LOVE it. Unexpected onsides kicks have a RIDICULOUS conversion rate (I think I saw it listed north of 30% before). If you've got a 30% chance of an additional possession it FAR outweighs the 30-40 yards of field position you're giving up.

To me this really comes down to a difference in understanding of the game. In years past football has been seen/believed as a game to gain/occupy territory. In reality, football is a game to score & prevent points. Gaining/Losing territory is merely the means to that end. Teams should be playing to score points, NOT to gain and hold onto some yards.

[mscarn]

There's some high school team out there that does this and they do pretty well. Hopefully it will trickle up to the colleges and eventually to the NFL.

If Clawson and Babers have shown us anything it's that there's a bunch of different ways to win games. They're the two biggest clichés in the world but when you boil things down it really does come down to talent and execution.

For example, I dislike our tendency to run Greene straight up the middle so many times mainly because it rarely works as a play. If all the elements that make a play successful came together (blocking, formation, timing, what the other team anticipates, etc. ) and resulted in it being successful more often then my opinion would change. You've got to do what works best for your team and the players you've got.

[MarkL]

For example, I dislike our tendency to run Greene straight up the middle so many times mainly because it rarely works as a play.

That works really well when the pace is there. When we are in hurry-up mode, our run game is unstoppable. When you see the whole offense look at the sideline and wait for a play call to get in, the run game is ineffective. Or at least, that's how I see it.