ISU should go for it on almost every 4th down

**StateThrowdown** · 11-17-2008, 08:15 PM

Originally Posted by CrossCyed

That'd be neutralizing our most effective player this year, actually.

haha! my thoughts exactly...

**MontyBurns** · 11-17-2008, 08:20 PM

If we go for it on 4th and short we would be better off with a fake punt than lining up the offense only to watch them go backwards.

When is the last time we tried a fake punt or fake field goal?

**Psyclone** · 11-17-2008, 08:55 PM

You need to also look at the statistics of opponents scoring on long drives versus short ones. Forgetting about ISU for a second, scoring on long drives is much less frequent, so going for it in bad field position is a big risk.

**StLouisClone** · 11-17-2008, 09:27 PM

Originally Posted by MadCy

Read that article attached, maybe this is what they were talking about?

That's it. It's a good read, and I think any coach should take 20 minutes to read Romer's analysis. It's interesting how his conclusions pretty much line up with how I would operate if I were a coach at ISU. You need to be more aggressive at ISU. I'll get to that later. How many coaches would be willing to:

- go for it every time on 4th and 3 or less when you are on your OWN end of the field.
- go for it every time on 4th and 9 or less when you are at your opponent's 33.
- go for it every time on 4th and goal when you are inside your opponent's 6 yard line.

The key to the whole article is that "aggression pays" and I think that's a big reason why offensive gurus like Pinkel, Mangino and Leach have been successful in the Big 12 and defensive gurus like McCarney and Prince have been less successful. The players seem to love coaches who take chances so it's really something that can snowball as we've seen happen at Texas Tech. I've always thought that Bob Stoops is pretty agressive for a defensive guy, and I really think Chizik will have to become the same way if ISU ever has a chance to become the next Tech. I just don't think ISU will be able to get the defensive recruits Chizik needs in his first few years to play a conservative style (ala the Big 10).

The key is also to make the most of every possession. That's especially important when your opponents have scored 35 or more points in EVERY Big 12 game this year except the CU game (28 points). By contrast, ISU has scored more than 35 points in ZERO games this year. Knowing that, there really is no reason to attempt as many FGs as ISU has attempted this year (23). That's way too many. It doesn't do much good to score 3 points when your Big 12 opponent is scoring an average of 4 points on every possession (296 total points on roughly 75 possessions). Are we trying to stay close or win the game?

I don't think Chizik is any more conservative than 80% of the coaches out there. I just want to see him move into the other 20%. Given what has happened this year, I'm somewhat optimistic that we'll see Gene re-evaluate things during the offseason and come out with a more aggressive approach in 2009. From where I sit, I can only hope!

**A-town Cy** · 11-17-2008, 09:47 PM

Brandtner only had 1 punt on Saturday.

**Flag Guy** · 11-17-2008, 09:49 PM

We need to be able to convert a 4th down before we start talking about going for it on 4th every time

**cyputz** · 11-17-2008, 09:53 PM

And we would have two more losses than we have today.

**kingcy** · 11-17-2008, 10:11 PM

Why so teams can get the stop and get a short field to score? I think you meant to say teams playing ISU should always go for it on 4th down, due to the fact ISU has yet to get a stop of 4th down this season. Heck chances are you will score a TD going for it on 4th against ISU.

**mplscyclone** · 11-17-2008, 10:48 PM

Not to change the subject too much, but I have an ideal strategy that this team hasn't really utilized yet. I probably should've posted it earlier when we started to struggle, but I thought the coaching staff would figure it out:

I think on Offense we should score on every possession. Our chances of winning would increase exponentially if we actually scored each time we had the ball.

On defense, we should try to stop the other team each possession. It's much harder to win if the other team is putting up points as well.....

Not to be too rude, but if we were all that good, we wouldn't have as many 4th downs as we've had... We've also not converted on several 3rd and 1 and 3rd and 2 situations. This team hasn't shown it can pick up a 4th down conversion...

**besserheimerphat** · 11-18-2008, 06:05 AM

Originally Posted by Psyclone

You need to also look at the statistics of opponents scoring on long drives versus short ones. Forgetting about ISU for a second, scoring on long drives is much less frequent, so going for it in bad field position is a big risk.

But if you didn't punt, wouldn't your long scoring drives increase?

**isuchicago** · 11-18-2008, 06:16 AM

saw the most ridiculous 4th down call this weekend. auburn was down 4 in the 3rd quarter and he went for it from his own 20.. made it by about an inch.. they still lost.. and i don't think thats a coincidence either.

**tazclone** · 11-18-2008, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by StLouisClone

That's it. It's a good read, and I think any coach should take 20 minutes to read Romer's analysis. It's interesting how his conclusions pretty much line up with how I would operate if I were a coach at ISU. You need to be more aggressive at ISU. I'll get to that later. How many coaches would be willing to:

- go for it every time on 4th and 3 or less when you are on your OWN end of the field.
- go for it every time on 4th and 9 or less when you are at your opponent's 33.
- go for it every time on 4th and goal when you are inside your opponent's 6 yard line.

The key to the whole article is that "aggression pays" and I think that's a big reason why offensive gurus like Pinkel, Mangino and Leach have been successful in the Big 12 and defensive gurus like McCarney and Prince have been less successful. The players seem to love coaches who take chances so it's really something that can snowball as we've seen happen at Texas Tech. I've always thought that Bob Stoops is pretty agressive for a defensive guy, and I really think Chizik will have to become the same way if ISU ever has a chance to become the next Tech. I just don't think ISU will be able to get the defensive recruits Chizik needs in his first few years to play a conservative style (ala the Big 10).

The key is also to make the most of every possession. That's especially important when your opponents have scored 35 or more points in EVERY Big 12 game this year except the CU game (28 points). By contrast, ISU has scored more than 35 points in ZERO games this year. Knowing that, there really is no reason to attempt as many FGs as ISU has attempted this year (23). That's way too many. It doesn't do much good to score 3 points when your Big 12 opponent is scoring an average of 4 points on every possession (296 total points on roughly 75 possessions). Are we trying to stay close or win the game?

I don't think Chizik is any more conservative than 80% of the coaches out there. I just want to see him move into the other 20%. Given what has happened this year, I'm somewhat optimistic that we'll see Gene re-evaluate things during the offseason and come out with a more aggressive approach in 2009. From where I sit, I can only hope!

I have no prblem going for it inside your opponents territory but it is just idiotic to do it in your own territory and it can change the game. just look at CU last year. that was a boenheaded call Hawkins made and changed the whole momentum of the game.

Whatever the case, we didn't' do well on 4th down this year so we hurt the odds. I like seeing the aggressive play though.

**StLouisClone** · 11-18-2008, 09:46 AM

You guys haven't been watching the same ISU team I have. Against Nebraska, we gave up the ball several times around midfield and NU did nothing with it. When we punted the ball inside their 20 yard line, NU went on three long scoring drives (92, 85 and 80). We've gotten very little reward this year from punting the ball. I'm not saying we should go for it every time, but certainly go for it in most situations when we are behind (as has been the case for most of the Big 12 season). That's the only chance we have to catch up. And as I pointed out, our defense seems to play pretty well when they start out around midfield.

I wouldn't take the same risk if we had the lead, but unfortunately, we haven't had very many leads. And we've blown the two leads we had (KU and CU) by trying to run out the clock rather than trying to score.

If you know your opponent is going to put up 35 points on you, you've got to do whatever it takes to try to score 35 points. When you only get 10 or 11 possessions in a game, you can't punt the ball 5 or more times (as we did against KU, BU, NU, OSU and CU). You will lose every time. I'd rather give ourselves a chance to win, no matter how small that chance may be.

**StLouisClone** · 11-18-2008, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by tazgolfv

I have no prblem going for it inside your opponents territory but it is just idiotic to do it in your own territory and it can change the game. just look at CU last year. that was a boneheaded call Hawkins made and changed the whole momentum of the game.

100% agree with you. CU was up 28-0 at the time and had very little to gain by going for it. On the flip side, if you are trailing 28-0, you absolutely have to go for it in that situation. The result might be the same, but it's a chance you have to take.

**StLouisClone** · 11-18-2008, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by tazgolfv

Whatever the case, we didn't' do well on 4th down this year so we hurt the odds. I like seeing the aggressive play though.

We're actually a lot better on 4th down this year (9/18 or 50%) than we are on 3rd down (35%). 50% ain't bad.

FWIW, our opponents are converting 12/14 or 86% on 4th down this year. Yikes! That's got to be the worst % in the country. I hope KSU's coaches aren't reading this board.