The Scott Shafer Show (before Duke)

[Millhouse]

If your coaches are stuck in the "we're going to punt on 4th down no matter what" mindset, the play calling is likely to be different than if you have to get the first down. 4 plays to get 10 yards vs 3. I would think that unless you force people to operate in that environment, it's easy for them to regard it as some weird fantasy world heard of only in rumors. The sense I get from 2-minute drills is that the offense runs quickly but conventionally, with the only difference being that you "go for it" on 4th. There has to be another mode, where time isn't the issue, and you work toward manageable distance on 4th down instead of 3rd.

cognitive dissonance. coaches love running the ball and keeping the other teams offense off the field. but they giving up downs and possessions by punting

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Then don't fail. Seize the victory, or go home.

I don't want my coach fretting over "what if we don't make it" in that position.

A loss is easier to take if you at least tried to win it.

This is spot on.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

If your coaches are stuck in the "we're going to punt on 4th down no matter what" mindset, the play calling is likely to be different than if you have to get the first down. 4 plays to get 10 yards vs 3. I would think that unless you force people to operate in that environment, it's easy for them to regard it as some weird fantasy world heard of only in rumors. The sense I get from 2-minute drills is that the offense runs quickly but conventionally, with the only difference being that you "go for it" on 4th. There has to be another mode, where time isn't the issue, and you work toward manageable distance on 4th down instead of 3rd.

I'd love to see a scrimmage of a game where the coaches agree that the only kicks will happen on kickoffs.

 

[CIL]

True. Coaches have a visual aid chart to help them determine whether to go for 2 or not depending on the score, so that they don't have to think about the math behind the logic. Why can't they have a similar cheat sheet for when to punt or not based on down / distance?

Lots of them do. It's up to them to use it.

I don't know the math used for the NY Times Milly linked, but I have a feeling a bit of it is flawed. You should do for it 4th and 3 on your 4, but not the 5? Doesn't make sense. In fact, the 4 probably allows for a toss sweep, maybe not so much the 3, right McDonald and Hunt?

 

[Millhouse]

Lots of them do. It's up to them to use it.

I don't know the math used for the NY Times Milly linked, but I have a feeling a bit of it is flawed. You should do for it 4th and 3 on your 4, but not the 5? Doesn't make sense. In fact, the 4 probably allows for a toss sweep, maybe not so much the 3, right McDonald and Hunt?

here's the link to the original article, i just grabbed a jpg - this one doesn't have a jpg to embed, it's an applet or something

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/upshot/4th-down-when-to-go-for-it-and-why.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0

you're mostly screwed punting from your 3 yard line anyway so mathematically, i can see plenty of short yardage where you should just go for it. even if you love punts, it gives you a chance to punt later with better field position.

baby steps, the real low hanging fruit is in from the 40 to the opp 30

 

[upperdeck]

I think framing it as "taking chances" isn't accurate.

The old fashioned "safe" punt is often riskier. Taking chances shouldn't take sides between offense and defense. Depending on your defense to stop a 1st down can be taking a greater chance than depending on your offense to convert a 1st down.

if you think your offense cant go more than 30-40 yds then going for it gives you a higher chance of having to do that than punting does. I was in the stands thinking it was time to go for it.. i was not down on the field watching my FR QB make mistake after mistake. you keep using these numbers to support something that isnt even defined in the numbers.. the BOT has numbers saying that teams do X from Y position and Z results. but what it doesnt do is ignore the plays that dont matter. it doesnt ignore results that skew the data, it doesnt ignore the results on 4th and 5 for a team down 25 because the D doesnt care what its 4th string does, it doesnt ignore throwing for the endzone on the last play of the game or half. it doesnt ignore the results of teams that had no chance to win because of talent.

and If SU had one player who played mistake free almost every game like Tim Duncan maybe we would be more like San anontio and less like the knicks.

 

[upperdeck]

here's the link to the original article, i just grabbed a jpg - this one doesn't have a jpg to embed, it's an applet or something

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/upshot/4th-down-when-to-go-for-it-and-why.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0

you're mostly screwed punting from your 3 yard line anyway so mathematically, i can see plenty of short yardage where you should just go for it. even if you love punts, it gives you a chance to punt later with better field position.

baby steps, the real low hanging fruit is in from the 40 to the opp 30

and his report supports why punting makes more sense even if you ignore what he says.. we have below avg in almost every spot , the big thing is that we have no data to support that his ideas would work since we have no sample data of anyone willing to try it and lose their 5 million a yr job coaching by the numbers. you can count on one hand teams that go for it in there deep zone early in a game most of the year. being successful 2 of 5 doesnt not mean it will equate to 20 of 50..

 

[Millhouse]

if you think your offense cant go more than 30-40 yds then going for it gives you a higher chance of having to do that than punting does. I was in the stands thinking it was time to go for it.. i was not down on the field watching my FR QB make mistake after mistake. you keep using these numbers to support something that isnt even defined in the numbers.. the BOT has numbers saying that teams do X from Y position and Z results. but what it doesnt do is ignore the plays that dont matter. it doesnt ignore results that skew the data, it doesnt ignore the results on 4th and 5 for a team down 25 because the D doesnt care what its 4th string does, it doesnt ignore throwing for the endzone on the last play of the game or half. it doesnt ignore the results of teams that had no chance to win because of talent.

and If SU had one player who played mistake free almost every game like Tim Duncan maybe we would be more like San anontio and less like the knicks.

spurs aren't a good example because they have a good player. oooook

"give me an example of a team with terrible players that wins because of math AHA YOU CAN'T DO IT"

the david romer study that started all of this uses first quarter data so you're not getting biased by 4th and 5 down 25.

why do you think that you're smart enough to ignore a hail mary but no one else is? come on.

where is your data supporting kicking there?

why is your default to kick?

 

[Full_Rebar]

SU ran the ball on the play previous to the punt to make it a manageable 4th down. Shafer called for a fake punt, which looked like it was stopped, but was bailed out by the NC State time-out...and then he decides to punt, why?

So he was willing to go for it with a fake, knowing that NC St could get the ball there, but when they called a to, he couldn't send his offense back to go for it? The whole sequence is just baffling to me.

 

[Millhouse]

SU ran the ball on the play previous to the punt to make it a manageable 4th down. Shafer called for a fake punt, which looked like it was stopped, but was bailed out by the NC State time-out...and then he decides to punt, why?

So he was willing to go for it with a fake, knowing that NC St could get the ball there, but when they called a to, he couldn't send his offense back to go for it? The whole sequence is just baffling to me.

how would you feel if you were an offensive player?

meatheads love talking momentum but they can't possibly imagine an offense saying What, you think dixon can do it but we can't?

 

[upperdeck]

spurs aren't a good example because they have a good player. oooook

"give me an example of a team with terrible players that wins because of math AHA YOU CAN'T DO IT"

the david romer study that started all of this uses first quarter data so you're not getting biased by 4th and 5 down 25.

why do you think that you're smart enough to ignore a hail mary but no one else is? come on.

so now you think its ok only equate stuff that happens in the first quarter is the same as decisions that happen late in the 4th. players make plays, coaches coach, the better the team the more likely they make better plays late, so lets only use numbers when the game is not in doubt and players are not tired and score is less of a concern.

any we all know SU is not that far from a terrible so why do you want to use numbers to support this stuff.
the worse the team the more I think you need to throw caution to the wind. I think some of the decisions are because SS thinks the kids can pull it off way more than most here do.

 

[Millhouse]

so now you think its ok only equate stuff that happens in the first quarter is the same as decisions that happen late in the 4th. players make plays, coaches coach, the better the team the more likely they make better plays late, so lets only use numbers when the game is not in doubt and players are not tired and score is less of a concern.

any we all know SU is not that far from a terrible so why do you want to use numbers to support this stuff.
the worse the team the more I think you need to throw caution to the wind. I think some of the decisions are because SS thinks the kids can pull it off way more than most here do.

you're impossible.

you complain that the data includes score effects.

i say no it doesn't.

then you complain that it doesn't include score effects.

the worst call in football history was against Maryland. he punted down big later in the game even though the numbers overwhelmingly say you should go for it even if the score is tied in the first quarter. he is clueless and you are incredibly deferential to meatheads

 

[Full_Rebar]

how would you feel if you were an offensive player?

meatheads love talking momentum but they can't possibly imagine an offense saying What, you think dixon can do it but we can't?

Exactly. Not to mention that the fake was a simple hand-off to AAM. Send the offense back out and run it to wide side of the field out of a spread formation.

 

[Upstate]

Is the NYT 4th Down Bot available to be the OC?

 

[upperdeck]

you're impossible.

you complain that the data includes score effects.

i say no it doesn't.

then you complain that it doesn't include score effects.

the worst call in football history was against Maryland. he punted down big later in the game even though the numbers overwhelmingly say you should go for it even if the score is tied in the first quarter. he is clueless and you are incredibly deferential to meatheads

not me.. you are backwards. you are stating that by only using stuff that happens in the beginning of the game you are removing the bias, i says its actually creating more.

 

[Forza Azzurri]

On the punt answer, he thought maybe they could get an interception or a fumble.

I swear some of these guys are reading from a script.

I wonder if he noticed they were an unforced overthrow away from a 90 yard TD pass. They never think of that possibility.

No. What he is saying, without saying it, is that he likes the chances of his defense getting a three and out better than the chances of his O getting a first down and, if the O does not pick up the first, it has changed field position as the opponent now has the ball out by the 40 rather than, hopefully, somewhere around the 10.

Taking it a bit further, with a three and out, the O should get the ball somewhere around midfield vs somewhere around their own 20 if they had gone for it and not made it.

And, given that he already seems to not have much confidence in the O, it follows that he thinks the shorter the field he can give his offense, the better off they are.

The turnover mention is just filler.

You don't have to like it. You don't have to agree with it. But that is what he is saying.

 

[Millhouse]

No. What he is saying, without saying it, is that he likes the chances of his defense getting a three and out better than the chances of his O getting a first down and, if the O does not pick up the first, it has changed field position as the opponent now has the ball out by the 40 rather than, hopefully, somewhere around the 10.

Taking it a bit further, with a three and out, the O should get the ball somewhere around midfield vs somewhere around their own 20 if they had gone for it and not made it.

And, given that he already seems to not have much confidence in the O, it follows that he thinks the shorter the field he can give his offense, the better off they are.

The turnover mention is just filler.

You don't have to like it. You don't have to agree with it. But that is what he is saying.

none of this stuff holds up at all.

short fields are good. that's why you go for it when you're already in the short field. no one ever says short field when it comes to going for it. only when you punt.

even if your odds of getting a 3 and out are better than converting, they have to be a lot better because you will lose field position compared to having the ball at the 37.

If he thinks his defense is so lights out, why did he want to fake? if he's so sure fake punts work, we should do them more often. we don't so right there is proof that he doesn't think fakes have a high conversion rate.

so clearly he didn't think his defense had a really high likelihood of getting a 3 and out

they scored 2 TD in 2 consecutive possessions, then he tells his offense that he prefers a fake punt, then he tells them he prefers a punt. the offense responds to the coach telling them that they suck by scoring 3 pts the rest of the way