Printable View
I don't think this has been posted. I found it to be a good article about statistics in football.
How Oregon Coach Chip Kelly Can Spark 'Moneyball' Revolution In NFL | ThePostGame
What the article doesn't address, though, is if a coach loses a game because they went for a fourth down conversion and didn't get it how bad that looks to fans, etc. Statistically, the right move or not, it will be considered poor coaching.
I love it, the games would certainly be more interesting
That was a very interesting article. Thank you.
I honestly hope football does get more "exciting" with go for it attempts. I've never understand why teams so easily give up on 4th and short. If you convert a 4th down, the defense will be absolutely gassed, thinking that they were off the field after stopping a 3rd down, and then failing to stop a 4th down.
I would love to see pro sports teams take more risks instead of playing bread and butter football. The most exciting moments are when trick plays happen, or something happens that you don't expect. I'd watch that anyday over the same pass to sideline and run up their throats.
it would make things more exciting.
He's no Jason Garrett though... right?
Maybe Kentucky can hire him
Big difference between the pros and college when it comes to this. Points are generally at a premium in the NFL. Squandering 3 points in the NFL can be huge. For Oregon - and they are probably the worst example - the offense will score ALOT so potentially giving up a drive isn't nearly as hurtful. I can't wait (if it all shakes out) for Oregon to score about 17 points against Alabama and get throttled. They just gave up 50 some points to USC and won. Alabama will control the ball, run it down their throats and easily win. Just one man's prediction.
I remember when Bellichick got blasted for going for it on 4th & inches at his own 30 against the Colts. All the "experts" incorrectly said he should have punted it.Quote:
Originally Posted by CyinCo
Agreed. Especially with teams that are content to give up decent chunks in the middle of the field. 20-30 yard punt and youre back there in a few plays anyways (so not a whole lot of loss by trying and failing on 4th down), when you couldve had one extra chance to keep the ball moving.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidoosh
Worst thing about the backlash on that: A lot of critics said, by going for it instead of punting, he was sending a negative message to his defense, "If we punt, I don't trust you hold them for a game-winning drive." When, in reality, it was putting major faith in the defense. "If we get first down, we probably win. If we risk and fail, it's up to the defense to come up big."Quote:
Originally Posted by Ficklone02
An aside: With the prevent-happy NFL, getting 30 or 40 yards of field position on a punt eats only about 45 seconds of clock anyway. Game circumstance is always a factor in these decisions, but assuming a punt is markedly "safer" is a fallacy.
Iowa State has one of the top statistics departments in the country. Maybe the athletic department / football program should hire a grad student intern to analyze the data in this and other types of game situations. Some interesting strategic insights might pop out.
There has been a lot of work in this area by "amatuer statisticians" who are football fans and mathematically inclined (like our own KHaal). Check out AdvancedNFLStats.com, FootballOutsiders.com, FootballStudyHall.com, SabermetricResearch.Blogspot.com etc for more. Really, really good stuff. There are also sites that focus on basketball that are good, but I don't read them nearly as often since I'm more of a football fan.
[QUOTE=cyclones500;3150519]Worst thing about the backlash on that: A lot of critics said, by going for it instead of punting, he was sending a negative message to his defense, "If we punt, I don't trust you hold them for a game-winning drive." When, in reality, it was putting major faith in the defense. "If we get first down, we probably win. If we risk and fail, it's up to the defense to come up big."
An aside: With the prevent-happy NFL, getting 30 or 40 yards of field position on a punt eats only about 45 seconds of clock anyway. Game circumstance is always a factor in these decisions, but assuming a punt is markedly "safer" is a fallacy.[/QUOTE
I think most also fail to realize that the last 20 yards of the field are the toughest for the offense, so especially in the Patriots case they weren't necessarily dooming themselves because they were up by more than a field goal.
I heart doesn't like it when ISU goes for it on 4th downs.
As Dial stated, it is Oregon. They are going to put up 50+ regardless.
I would like to see our 3rd down percentages VS. 4th down. Our 3rd down conversion rate is abysmal.