Fourth And Six Before Halftime

[OrangePA]

Sorry Millhouse.

Thought Scott made a bad decision both on third down and fourth down with about 90 seconds to go in the half.

Throw to the endzone on third down.

And get the three points on fourth down - close it to a two-score game at halftime.

I do feel however that earlier in the second quarter Scott should have gone for it on fourth down - at about midfield with two or three to go? (Don't recall all the details).

 

[Chris02M]

Sorry Millhouse.

Thought Scott made a bad decision both on third down and fourth down with about 90 seconds to go in the half.

Throw to the endzone on third down.

And get the three points on fourth down - close it to a two-score game at halftime.

I do feel however that earlier in the second quarter Scott should have gone for it on fourth down - at about midfield with two or three to go? (Don't recall all the details).

is scott thye offensive coordinator now too? 3 points weren't going to cut it in that spot

 

[690West]

Sorry Millhouse.

Thought Scott made a bad decision both on third down and fourth down with about 90 seconds to go in the half.

Throw to the endzone on third down.

And get the three points on fourth down - close it to a two-score game at halftime.

I do feel however that earlier in the second quarter Scott should have gone for it on fourth down - at about midfield with two or three to go? (Don't recall all the details).

The problem with your argument is that we lost by 18. Which means of course we shouldn't have taken 3. It means his decision was dead on. The rest of the game doesn't change at all if we have 3 points there, IMO

OPA, I do agree with you on the other short 4th around midfield

 

[Chris02M]

Lester talked about this sequence, He was told they were going for it regardless on 4th down that's why he called a run

 

[OrangePA]

The problem with your argument is that we lost by 18. Which means of course we shouldn't have taken 3. It means his decision was dead on. The rest of the game doesn't change at all if we have 3 points there, IMO

OPA, I do agree with you on the other short 4th around midfield

If they take the three they close the game to 15 points at half and get the ball to start the second half.

You accumulate points early stay within distance of the lead.

You can't look backward from the end of the game in assessing a decision with 90 seconds to go in the half in my opinion.

 

[OrangePA]

Lester talked about this sequence, He was told they were going for it regardless on 4th down that's why he called a run

I heard that.

That makes the third down call more understandable, but not taking the points that early in the game, knowing that you get the ball right back at the beginning of the second half - down by two scores - does not make sense to me.

 

[OrangePA]

is scott thye offensive coordinator now too? 3 points weren't going to cut it in that spot

No.

He's the head coach.

I presume he makes the decision on whether to kick or not and presumably is listening on the offense phones while the third-down is call is being made.

Regardless, the reference to Scott Shafter was essentially a reference to the coaching decisions that were made at that point in the game.

 

[rrlbees]

is scott thye offensive coordinator now too? 3 points weren't going to cut it in that spot

He's not the OC but he makes those kinds of decisions, whether to kick a FG, go for it, punt.

 

[TheCusian]

I heard that. That makes the third down call more understandable, but not taking the points that early in the game, knowing that you get the ball right back at the beginning of the second half - down by two scores - does not make sense to me.

No way. We were clearly outmatched defensively. Had to score TD's.

 

[KaiserUEO]

Yesterday was a scrimmage, you go for it.

It also shows confidence in the players.

No reason to kick there.

Your argument only makes sense if they lost by 3, which was NEVER going to happen.

 

[OrangePA]

No way. We were clearly outmatched defensively. Had to score TD's.

So, a team that is clearly outmatched tries to squeeze a TD in from a compressed red zone when three points and the ball are waiting for it on the other side?

Nope.

Disagree.

Take the points, get the ball and work in space where the FSU athletic advantage is not as pronounced.

 

[OrangePA]

Yesterday was a scrimmage, you go for it.

It also shows confidence in the players.

No reason to kick there.

Your argument only makes sense if they lost by 3, which was NEVER going to happen.

Disagree.

Yesterday was a match.

And the Orange could have won with fewer mistakes.

Your coach your team by making clear that you have confidence. Going for it that early was an indication of a lack of confidence.

That early on you accumulate points and get the ball back after halftime.

 

[fairfaxcuse]

Sorry Millhouse.

Thought Scott made a bad decision both on third down and fourth down with about 90 seconds to go in the half.

Throw to the endzone on third down.

And get the three points on fourth down - close it to a two-score game at halftime.

I do feel however that earlier in the second quarter Scott should have gone for it on fourth down - at about midfield with two or three to go? (Don't recall all the details).

Not picking on you, but this post shows why it would be nice to use basic stats to support decision making. Too often, coaches are making calculations based on their own feelings, which are poorly calculated. In this case, if you think you have a 50/50 shot of making it, going for it is the right decision based on expected value because it maximizes your points over the game (50% of 7 points is 3.5 points, which is greater than the 3 points from a fg).

In short, if you think that the probability of SU scoring a TD there was less than 40%, it was a bad decision. Otherwise, it was at least an "even" or good bet.

I suspect millhouse's point is we should use data to show whether coaches are making risky vs. non-risky decisions. Generally, we'd find some of the norms coaches accept, like punting on 4 and 3 at midfield, which you also note above, is the equivalent to hitting a 17 in blackjack in Vegas...you still have a chance but its a pretty bad bet.

 

[upperdeck]

i think the correct call was to kick the FG as we were getting the ball back and we were moving it pretty well. i also think that had we scored a FG the crowd wouldnt have been happy and that had we scored a TD the crowd would have been crazy excited going to the half. .

the fact we struggle to score in the red zone makes it a tough call to take points.

its much easier as fans to be aggressive when the failure means much less and we forget all our bad decisions yet rip every call a coach makes.

much like people think they knows what coming before every bad play call.. sit down and mark up every call before it happens in a game. then think the D is doing the same. you cant always call what you want sometimes its about calling what the D doesnt expect

much like the run on 3rd down. its 3rd down and the D is expecting a pass, buy you know you are going for it on 4th. you can call the pass against a likely pass defense and blitz or try to sneak a run through a hole.. didnt work, but not a bad call. now if you know you are going to kick then its a worse call.

 

[KaiserUEO]

Disagree.

Yesterday was a match.

And the Orange could have won with fewer mistakes.

Your coach your team by making clear that you have confidence. Going for it that early was an indication of a lack of confidence.

That early on you accumulate points and get the ball back after halftime.

Yesterday was a 'match' in that they looked like a P5 team.

Good teams force mistakes.

Going for it, showed confidence,keeping would've showed weakness, disgrace and not rising to the challenge.

Your last line is true, but didn't apply to yesterday's counted scrimmage.

 

[RMH44]

Sorry Millhouse.

Thought Scott made a bad decision both on third down and fourth down with about 90 seconds to go in the half.

Throw to the endzone on third down.

And get the three points on fourth down - close it to a two-score game at halftime.

I do feel however that earlier in the second quarter Scott should have gone for it on fourth down - at about midfield with two or three to go? (Don't recall all the details).

I agree, especially considering we get the ball to start the 2nd half. You have to take the three in that situation.

 

[Chip]

I think the problem was the 3rd down call. Having red zone struggles like we're having doesn't afford you the chance to try to get 2 or 3 to make it 4th and 3. Take both shots to the end zone.

Millhouse, in the gameday thread, actually said he would have been fine taking the 3 and going into the half with that momentum. He probably deleted it.

 

[OrangePA]

Yesterday was a 'match' in that they looked like a P5 team.

Good teams force mistakes.

Going for it, showed confidence,keeping would've showed weakness, disgrace and not rising to the challenge.

Your last line is true, but didn't apply to yesterday's counted scrimmage.

Unforced mistakes - illegal motion on third and one by Hickey for example. The many drops including two dropped INTs. Those were mistakes that were not "forced" by FSU.

The fact is that an Alabama would have kicked the FG on fourth down.

Indeed, any top ten team would have kicked the FG at that point in the game.

Going for it was an expression of weakness.

Sorry but I see it very differently than you do.

 

[elkeed]

You don't beat FSU with field goals. We needed a touchdown. A fg would provide no momentum, but 6 would have given the boys a tremendous boost going into the clubhouse and allow them to believe they score again to open the half.

 

[OrangePA]

You don't beat FSU with field goals. We needed a touchdown. A fg would provide no momentum, but 6 would have given the boys a tremendous boost going into the clubhouse and allow them to believe they score again to open the half.

Yes, and returning the opening KO for a TD would have provided a great deal of momentum.

But the odds were against that happening.

And the odds were at end of the first half that the Orange would get the three points and not get the TD.

And there was no doubt that the Orange would get the ball to open the second half.

Given the odds and the stage of the game, going for the TD in a compressed red zone against that team was a mistake in my opinion.

 

[Orangetradition44]

Disagree on this one, PA. FSU was scoring every time they got the ball.. We needed a touchdown. If it doesn't work out, we have them on the 6th yard line.

And it almost worked.

I may have agreed with you if not for our RZ issues. We were trying to get a monkey off our back.

Sorry Millhouse. Thought Scott made a bad decision both on third down and fourth down with about 90 seconds to go in the half. Throw to the endzone on third down. And get the three points on fourth down - close it to a two-score game at halftime. I do feel however that earlier in the second quarter Scott should have gone for it on fourth down - at about midfield with two or three to go? (Don't recall all the details).

 

[Chris02M]

He's not the OC but he makes those kinds of decisions, whether to kick a FG, go for it, punt.

but doesn't call offensive plays

 

[skurey]

Once again to the cliche spouting "go by feel" crowd. Football is a zero sum game. The decisions can be measured using math, not your lame feelings. There are right and wrong decisions, not "go with your gut."

 

[Alsacs]

I give Shafer credit for that call. He told the team/fanbase he was trying to win a game we had no chance to win. We didn't execute but that decision by Shafer was exactly what I wanted to see him from HCSS. Our defense was not stopping FSU offense so he knew trading 3 for 7 wasn't going to work. I liked the decision and won't say anything negative about yesterday. We were competitive and didn't embarrass the program as 38-20 was a good result.

 

[690West]

If they take the three they close the game to 15 points at half and get the ball to start the second half.

You accumulate points early stay within distance of the lead.

You can't look backward from the end of the game in assessing a decision with 90 seconds to go in the half in my opinion.

You are correct about not looking back. I'm saying that if you know the other team is going to statistically put up Xish number of points, it's an easy decision to take that itty bitty risk there. It's a +EV play there based on all variables. Of course most players, fans, or coaches who've been around for awhile have no clue what EV even is so of course all the meatheads still in this profession usually take 3 there. (Not calling OPA a meathead. Lol) Research and statistics be damned! Thankfully shafer made an un-meathead move. It didn't work but that point is moot. It was the correct call IMO.