4th and short

[Valuist]

Had an argument with a co-worker on this one. Trying not to take the results into effect. We all remember the Belicheck call from 2009 (I was actually at that game) against the Colts; 4th and 2 from his own 28 yard line. Even if they got the first down, I felt that was the wrong call. Too much risk, and too little reward. If the Patriots were on the Colts 45, it would've been a different story.

Fast forward to yesterday; its early in the game, and the Packers are at the Bengal 1; 4th and 1. McCarthy elects to kick the field goal. This is an instance of being overly conservative. The Packers have, arguably, the best offense in the NFL (or at least one of the top 3 or so). Good chance you get the 7 pts, and if not, you pin the Bengals back to their 1. The risk reward here calls for going for it. On Twitter, I saw a few tweets blasting McCarthy's decision at the time. Ironically, the decision could've cost GB the game, as they lost by four points.

[BetHorses!]

Had an argument with a co-worker on this one. Trying not to take the results into effect. We all remember the Belicheck call from 2009 (I was actually at that game) against the Colts; 4th and 2 from his own 28 yard line. Even if they got the first down, I felt that was the wrong call. Too much risk, and too little reward. If the Patriots were on the Colts 45, it would've been a different story.

Fast forward to yesterday; its early in the game, and the Packers are at the Bengal 1; 4th and 1. McCarthy elects to kick the field goal. This is an instance of being overly conservative. The Packers have, arguably, the best offense in the NFL (or at least one of the top 3 or so). Good chance you get the 7 pts, and if not, you pin the Bengals back to their 1. The risk reward here calls for going for it. On Twitter, I saw a few tweets blasting McCarthy's decision at the time. Ironically, the decision could've cost GB the game, as they lost by four points.


I like being aggressive on the road. Also if you fail, as you said they are pinned and you can hold them and get a FG next possession worst case scenario

[Robert Goren]

With the Packer running being what it is, running there is really an option. With a great running game it would be a no brainer. With a high flying passing game like the Packers have, the FG is probably the better way to go. You are probably have no better than a 70% chance with a pass. The coach knows what he has in his arsenal, maybe the Packers don't have a good play that will get them 1 yard 90-95% of the time.

[cj]

I agree, the Packers don't run the ball well, and they proved it later in the game when they were stuffed while going for it on 4th and 1.

[Valuist]

The Packers went something like 48 games without a 100 yard rusher, but now they've done it two weeks in a row, and with two separate backs (Starks and Franklin). So this season, they have run the ball well.

[TJDave]

I understand there is a similar Sabermetric-like theory in football that states you should never punt. I don't believe any owner or coach would ever have the cojones to test it, though.

[Valuist]

I understand there is a similar Sabermetric-like theory in football that states you should never punt. I don't believe any owner or coach would ever have the cojones to test it, though.

Yes I have heard that but the key is where you are on the field. To not punt on your own 20 on a 4th and 10 would be incredibly stupid and way too risky. But to not go for a TD on 4th and goal from the 1 with a high powered offense is being too conservative, IMO. And like Bet Horses said earlier, like the aggressiveness even more on the road. Great way to take the crowd out of the game. But the home crowd has to consider it a victory to stop GB at the 1 and have them elect to go for 3 instead of 7.

[RXB]

With the Packer running being what it is, running there is really an option. With a great running game it would be a no brainer. With a high flying passing game like the Packers have, the FG is probably the better way to go. You are probably have no better than a 70% chance with a pass. The coach knows what he has in his arsenal, maybe the Packers don't have a good play that will get them 1 yard 90-95% of the time.

70% x 7 = 4.9 points average
99% x 3 = 2.9 points average

Not to mention, if you don't make it on the gamble the other team will be taking over in the shadow of their own goal line in the vast majority of cases. So what argument is there to be made for the field goal try, unless it's a specific late-game situation where a FG is almost as good as a TD?

[BetHorses!]

I agree, the Packers don't run the ball well, and they proved it later in the game when they were stuffed while going for it on 4th and 1.

If you go for it from the 33 why not go for it from the 1?

[cj]

If you go for it from the 33 why not go for it from the 1?

I don't think they should have went for it from the 33 either.

[Stillriledup]

There are certain situation where its better to punt, but its all in context of the situation.

[bks]

As a rule, it's better to go for it more often than teams tend to on 4th down. Old habits die hard, but it'll change. It is changing (Chip Kelly, e.g.).

The one thing about football that just continues to vex me to no end is the lack of situational awareness on the part of head coaches. Common situation: you're team is up 3, the opponent gets a first down deep inside your territory (inside the 10, let's say), with 1:30 remaining in the game. Each team has 3 timeouts.

The OBVIOUS move is: start calling your timeouts on defense! With a goal to go situation, barring a defensive penalty that results in an automatic first down, you ensure that your team will get the ball back with over a minute to go either tied, or down four. If you let the clock run, you seriously risk losing the game. The only way this strategy can realistically bite you is if you get a turnover on 3rd down. Then the other team can call its timeouts and try to produce a 3-and-out, and get the ball back and try again. But still.

Another variant: two weeks ago the Chargers have the ball in a tie game at the eagle 30-35 yard line with 1:30 left in the game. 1st down. The move? CALL YOUR TIMEOUTS, EAGLES! The Chargers have plenty of time - you're not changing their odds much by calling yours, but by calling yours you at least give yourself a chance to get the ball back if your defense can hild them to a field goal try. IN other words, it's LIKE a goal line situation, since if th Chargers gain a 1st down they're heavy, heavy favorites to win. Play it like a first and goal.

Kelly doesn't do this, and the Chargers kick a late field goal to win with almost no time left.

[bks]

Here's another virtually unremarked-on phenomenon: it may be better to miss a field goal late in a game in certain situations than to make it.

Scenario: your team is up 3 points, 30-27, with 1:45 left. It's 4th down at the opponent's 25 yd line. You set up for a field goal to go up six pts. Two likely scenarios:

1. You miss; you remain up three.

2. You make; team goes up six.

Is scenario 2 always better? No. Think what happens next: In scenario 1, the opposing team will kick a field goal on the ensuing drive in virtually all 4th down situations from the 30-yd line on in. A coach will not risk losing when he can tie and play for overtime. Additionally, when the field goal is 40+ yds, there's a good chance of a miss and you win the game right there.

In scenario 2, however, the opposing team (which has been moving the ball against your defense all day, and which is now down 6) will go for the touchdown in every instance, and use all 4 downs in pursuit of it. That extra down is very powerful. You stand a better chance of losing the game in regulation (even though you're up 6) than you might in the scenario you are up just 3, since the opponent will only use 3 downs in pursuit of a touchdown when they approach the red zone.

I don't think any coach would admit it, and most might not even think of it, but you're sometimes in a better spot up 3 than 6 late in a game.

[Valuist]

Fezzik addresses this very subject at about the 3:30 or 4:00 minute mark. He also makes the point that if you miss on the 4th and goal, the opponent is pinned on the one, which over time, is worth about a point and a half.

http://pregame.com/pregame-forums/f/9/t/712653.aspx

[Robert Fischer]

He also makes the point that if you miss on the 4th and goal, the opponent is pinned on the one, which over time, is worth about a point and a half.

Another thing that is worth something, is the fact that when you have 4 downs to use, you now have a 4-play sequence(designed and starting with 1st down) with which to drive the ball into the endzone, (rather than 3).

Sounds redundant, but that is 1/3 more plays/design/etc.. than 3 downs.

One of the key effects, is that your running game(and play action, and mobile QB) becomes a bigger weapon than on 3-play red zone sequences.

A side example would be San Francisco (who's offensive coordinator Greg Roman is usually in the 'elite' discussion) when they probably cost themselves by misplaying red zone opportunities during last year's Super Bowl.

[RXB]

Fezzik addresses this very subject at about the 3:30 or 4:00 minute mark. He also makes the point that if you miss on the 4th and goal, the opponent is pinned on the one, which over time, is worth about a point and a half.

http://pregame.com/pregame-forums/f/9/t/712653.aspx

NFL & major college coaches are absurdly, self-defeatingly conservative in a lot of situations.

The rate of two-point conversion success in the NFL is almost 50%, so it actually makes sense in most cases to go for the TD on 4th down from the two-yard line. From the one-yard line it should be a no-brainer except for a very few isolated situations, yet so often they kick the FG-- which is a really bad decision.