4th and 6 probabilities. would've been fine with call either way.

[Millhouse]

this is going to format weird. this calculator uses NFL values. I don't think we ever have a 97% chance of making a FG so the expected points are probably going to be closer.

this says your break even go for it odds of success would have to be 35%. knowing that our kicker is not anywhere near NFL caliber, maybe that breakeven drops to be the same as the 24% success rate of going for it.

if Shafer thought their odds of a TD was 33% and their odds of making the FG were <93%, it would've made more sense to go for it.

Stat Go4it Punt FG Att
Success Rate: 0.24 - 0.97
EP Success 6.6 0.21 2.6
EP Fail: 0.37 - 0.04
EP Total: 1.87 0.21 2.52
Break-Even: 0.35
Stat Go4it Punt FG Att
Success Rate: 0.24 - 0.97
WP Success 0.14 0.05 0.08
WP Fail: 0.05 - 0.06
WP Total: 0.07 0.05 0.08
Break-Even: 0.33

 

[retro44]

I would have taken the field goal as it would cut it to two scores and it still was in the first half and gives us a little momentum going into halftime,instead the FSU players were celebrating

 

[Millhouse]

I would have taken the field goal as it would cut it to two scores and it still was in the first half and gives us a little momentum going into halftime,instead the FSU players were celebrating

eh . if momentum is a thing, you can't ignore the chance that we would've been celebrating with more momentum with a TD

you don't need to be thinking about the number of scores before halftime. just maximize the expected points there. it really didn't make much difference either way, works out the same

 

[OburgCuse]

I would have taken the field goal as it would cut it to two scores and it still was in the first half and gives us a little momentum going into halftime,instead the FSU players were celebrating

The opposing view to that is do we think we stop FSU from scoring with 1:40 left (1 TO) and probably really good field position that we tend to give up after kicking off. It wouldn't have surprised me to give up a TD and even if they get a field goal it's a net of 0. If we don't score TD and get stuffed at 5 or so they weren't going to be nearly as aggressive and would be happy to go to half way it was.

 

[690West]

[QUOTE="Millhouse, post: 1161958, member: 78" just maximize the expected points there[/QUOTE]

I thank God everyday that you are in my life. Looks like the argument is close to moot with your numbers above.

 

[Millhouse]

[QUOTE="Millhouse, post: 1161958, member: 78" just maximize the expected points there

I thank God everyday that you are in my life. Looks like the argument is close to moot with your numbers above.[/QUOTE]

 

[CusefanATL]

Yeah, there was only 1 play... you gotta take the FG there.

This is especially obvious considering the 3 points:
1. we were getting ball in 2nd half
2. we were moving the ball well
3. our red zone offense stinks
3a. what we dont have is playmaking wr's... a fade is stupid - even though it almost worked, it was still a much lower percentage play.

but also... im OK with the 1st down run from the 10... but once youre at the 5 - you gotta go pass or get AAM out of the game. the 2nd and the 3rd down play calls (especially 3rd from the SEVEN!) were very very stupid.

 

[Millhouse]

Yeah, there was only 1 play... you gotta take the FG there.

This is especially obvious considering the 3 points:
1. we were getting ball in 2nd half
2. we were moving the ball well
3. our red zone offense stinks
3a. what we dont have is playmaking wr's... a fade is stupid - even though it almost worked, it was still a much lower percentage play.

but also... im OK with the 1st down run from the 10... but once youre at the 5 - you gotta go pass or get AAM out of the game. the 2nd and the 3rd down play calls (especially 3rd from the SEVEN!) were very very stupid.

i'm with you wholeheartedly on the fade. if fades work so well, why doesn't anyone call them anywhere else on the field?

given a choice between a fade and a fg, i'll take the FG. i was separating the decision to go for it from the decision to throw a fade

 

[leftytg]

Yeah, there was only 1 play... you gotta take the FG there.

This is especially obvious considering the 3 points:
1. we were getting ball in 2nd half
2. we were moving the ball well
3. our red zone offense stinks
3a. what we dont have is playmaking wr's... a fade is stupid - even though it almost worked, it was still a much lower percentage play.

but also... im OK with the 1st down run from the 10... but once youre at the 5 - you gotta go pass or get AAM out of the game. the 2nd and the 3rd down play calls (especially 3rd from the SEVEN!) were very very stupid.

what you fail to mention is that Syracuse hadn't shown themselves remotely capable of slowing down the FSU offense, let alone stopping it. What good is it to score 3 when you are continually giving up 7?

Also, the bolded is becoming a crutch on this board (not referring to you personally). Granted, Syracuse doesn't have the kind of high NFL draft pick "playmaking" talent at receiver that some other teams might have. But the receivers aren't terrible and, near the goal line, they are plenty capable of making plays. You don't need "playmakers" at receiver at the goal line so much as you need to be well coached - precise with your routes, with your timing, with accuracy throwing hte ball - and physical. Speed isn't such an issue over 6 yards, and Syracuse has big physical receivers, not to mention Custis. Rather than throw the fade, I'd have loved to see a well timed slant or quick out.

 

[CusefanATL]

what you fail to mention is that Syracuse hadn't shown themselves remotely capable of slowing down the FSU offense, let alone stopping it. What good is it to score 3 when you are continually giving up 7?

Also, the bolded is becoming a crutch on this board (not referring to you personally). Granted, Syracuse doesn't have the kind of high NFL draft pick "playmaking" talent at receiver that some other teams might have. But the receivers aren't terrible and, near the goal line, they are plenty capable of making plays. You don't need "playmakers" at receiver at the goal line so much as you need to be well coached - precise with your routes, with your timing, with accuracy throwing hte ball - and physical. Speed isn't such an issue over 6 yards, and Syracuse has big physical receivers, not to mention Custis. Rather than throw the fade, I'd have loved to see a well timed slant or quick out.

at that point we had dropped an easy INT by our best player which would have been a stop.

Anywho... you have to make the right decision. A 5-10% on a fade is not more points than a 90% chance on a FG.

As far as play making wr... Im talking about a guy to make a play. we dont have that. has nothing to do with speed or anything. im talking about a guy who can out will the other guy.

Ishmael has shown good flashes. but no one in their right mind thought that play was anything more than hope for a miracle when the pass went up.

 

[OrangePA]

what you fail to mention is that Syracuse hadn't shown themselves remotely capable of slowing down the FSU offense, let alone stopping it. What good is it to score 3 when you are continually giving up 7?

Also, the bolded is becoming a crutch on this board (not referring to you personally). Granted, Syracuse doesn't have the kind of high NFL draft pick "playmaking" talent at receiver that some other teams might have. But the receivers aren't terrible and, near the goal line, they are plenty capable of making plays. You don't need "playmakers" at receiver at the goal line so much as you need to be well coached - precise with your routes, with your timing, with accuracy throwing hte ball - and physical. Speed isn't such an issue over 6 yards, and Syracuse has big physical receivers, not to mention Custis. Rather than throw the fade, I'd have loved to see a well timed slant or quick out.

Certainly that was a concern for me - that following the FG the Noles would take the KO and march down the field.

But, they did not march down the field following the fourth down miss.

 

[CusefanATL]

what you fail to mention is that Syracuse hadn't shown themselves remotely capable of slowing down the FSU offense, let alone stopping it. What good is it to score 3 when you are continually giving up 7?

Also, the bolded is becoming a crutch on this board (not referring to you personally). Granted, Syracuse doesn't have the kind of high NFL draft pick "playmaking" talent at receiver that some other teams might have. But the receivers aren't terrible and, near the goal line, they are plenty capable of making plays. You don't need "playmakers" at receiver at the goal line so much as you need to be well coached - precise with your routes, with your timing, with accuracy throwing hte ball - and physical. Speed isn't such an issue over 6 yards, and Syracuse has big physical receivers, not to mention Custis. Rather than throw the fade, I'd have loved to see a well timed slant or quick out.

and yes, a well time slant would have been much better IMO.

as would have been a roll out with 2 wrs doing outs and the te coming across the field.

 

[CusefanATL]

Certainly that was a concern for me - that following the FG the Noles would take the KO and march down the field.

But, they did not march down the field following the fourth down miss.

That just cant be a reason to go for it or kick it. you have to have some faith in the Defense. And even if you dont, that shouldnt influence that type of decision

 

[Millhouse]

Certainly that was a concern for me - that following the FG the Noles would take the KO and march down the field.

But, they did not march down the field following the fourth down miss.

i don't know the college rule about where the ball is placed after a missed field goal

in the calculator i used, it's nfl rules (placed at the 20 if kick was missed inside the 20) which makes the result biased a little towards going for it. (missing the kick hurts more)

but i doubt it makes a really big difference with so little time left anyway

 

[CU44SE]

i don't know the college rule about where the ball is placed after a missed field goal

in the calculator i used, it's nfl rules (placed at the 20 if kick was missed inside the 20) which makes the result biased a little towards going for it. (missing the kick hurts more)

but i doubt it makes a really big difference with so little time left anyway

Nfl is spot of kick, college is spot of snap

 

[OrangePA]

That just cant be a reason to go for it or kick it. you have to have some faith in the Defense. And even if you dont, that shouldnt influence that type of decision

Agreed.

Should have cut the lead to 15 points and gone to the locker room waiting to receive the second half kick off.

 

[690West]

Agreed.

Should have cut the lead to 15 points and gone to the locker room waiting to receive the second half kick off.

I guess this is where we're going to have to agree to disagree. I want my coaches in 2014 making decisions on expected probability, not faith. Especially with the data now available to us. This exact play ended up being a wash in terms of who's right and wrong. In the long run, meathead coaches use faith, successful one's use math. I'll hand it to OPA, it looks like in this thread's example, a FG wouldn't have been terrible.

 

[CusefanATL]

I guess this is where we're going to have to agree to disagree. I want my coaches in 2014 making decisions on expected probability, not faith. Especially with the data now available to us. This exact play ended up being a wash in terms of who's right and wrong. In the long run, meathead coaches use faith, successful one's use math. I'll hand it to OPA, it looks like in this thread's example, a FG wouldn't have been terrible.

but expected probability from the 6... with a 1st time qb... against the #1 team in the country.

And then a fade! Cmon... the chances were close to zero of converting that.

This coming from a guy who wants to go for just about every 4th down.

 

[690West]

but expected probability from the 6... with a 1st time qb... against the #1 team in the country.

And then a fade! Cmon... the chances were close to zero of converting that.

100% correct. Fade was brutal. I think with all the variables surrounding trying to BEAT florida st, not keep it close, you go there. Not to mention, it was probably 50/50 that we make that chippy FG. lol, I'm only half kidding.

 

[CusefanATL]

100% correct. Fade was brutal. I think with all the variables surrounding trying to BEAT florida st, not keep it close, you go there. Not to mention, it was probably 50/50 that we make that chippy FG. lol, I'm only half kidding.

I will say, I pretty much knew on the 2nd down run that this was 4 down territory in Shafers mind... I just think that after only gaining a yard back on 4th, the plan should have changed.

 

[skurey]

Should have gone for the TD. Excellent decision by HCSS. Funny how everyone cries about the coach knowing more and to trust him except when it doesn't help their argument.

 

[Millhouse]

Why does there have to be an answer either way? Sometimes it works out where no choice is obviously better than the other

 

[rrlbees]

this is going to format weird. this calculator uses NFL values. I don't think we ever have a 97% chance of making a FG so the expected points are probably going to be closer. this says your break even go for it odds of success would have to be 35%. knowing that our kicker is not anywhere near NFL caliber, maybe that breakeven drops to be the same as the 24% success rate of going for it. if Shafer thought their odds of a TD was 33% and their odds of making the FG were <93%, it would've made more sense to go for it. Stat Go4it Punt FG Att Success Rate: 0.24 - 0.97 EP Success 6.6 0.21 2.6 EP Fail: 0.37 - 0.04 EP Total: 1.87 0.21 2.52 Break-Even: 0.35 Stat Go4it Punt FG Att Success Rate: 0.24 - 0.97 WP Success 0.14 0.05 0.08 WP Fail: 0.05 - 0.06 WP Total: 0.07 0.05 0.08 Break-Even: 0.33

Serious question.

I love your posts about all the data analytics. I read all of them because I think data can always tell us something and help form opinions.

But do you have like, a real job?

 

[Millhouse]

Serious question. I love your posts about all the data analytics. I read all of them because I think data can always tell us something and help form opinions. But do you have like, a real job?

That was just ripped of a website advancednflanalytics took less than a minute

If I do anything in excel it's just cut and paste slapdash

 

[CusefanATL]

i'm with you wholeheartedly on the fade. if fades work so well, why doesn't anyone call them anywhere else on the field?

given a choice between a fade and a fg, i'll take the FG. i was separating the decision to go for it from the decision to throw a fade

I still don't like going for it in that case from the 6. I guess I just don't see it as a 33% chance we are going to get the td, no matter what the play is. If it were from the 1, maybe the 2 - different story.