why is morris getting the ball on pivotal 3rd and 2?

[TheCusian]

Everyone understands why coaches operate this way. I think fans can stop accepting this behavior. It's not unfair to ask coaches to make choices that improve their teams' chances of winning.

Agreed.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I agree with all that - (and have pointed out why coaches go conservative despite obvious situations that run to the contrary because the system rewards conservative calls financially) - but when you go for it and miss it, it usually provides a giant wave of momentum for your opponent. It feels like a turnover.

That's what's so fascinating about it though - there's weird psychology going on. Teams have accepted punts. It's the turnover that doesn't hurt their feelings the same way a fumble or interception does. For some reason a turnover on downs is this deflating thing, but why? Coaches talk about limiting turnovers, then happily punt on 4th and 1 at their opponents 45. It's hilarious.

I think you can condition a team a certain way that they have the mentality that they understand that above all else, they value possession of the ball. It's both the best offense and the best defense.

End of the day, right now, football coaches say they value the ball but their behavior suggests otherwise. It's a good thing every game has one winner and one loser, because that sometimes let's them win in spite of their decisions.

 

[TheCusian]

http://freakonomics.com/2011/11/20/football-freakonomics-is-momentum-a-myth-2/

it's interesting that they mention the Bills comeback game as the ultimate story for momentum. when really, they were just a great offense that went for it on 4th down and kicked onside.

it's only highly debated by people who don't read

and the idiots who bring up momentum are one sided about it. "if we fail, they'll get momentum." "yeah but if we succeed we'll get momentum?" "HUH???"

http://grantland.com/features/bill-barnwell-theory-momentum-football/

teams that get the ball after a 4th down stop score less than teams that get the ball after a turnover or punt (which is a turnover). some of that might be the lousy field position if meatheads are willing to go for it only near the goal line but momentum should overcome that if it exists

The Freakonomics story and research are flawed in just the way that I've pointed out - as the comments show:

"Surely this argument fails to take into account the fact that sport involves humans. A coin toss is a random event, a sporting sequence is not. If a team has pulled off a spectacular play three times, the fourth may well be “sprinkled with fairy dust” in that this team will be disproportionately confident of repeating the feat, while their opponent will be fearful of a repeat occurrence and possibly demoralised. I would have thought this would make a repeat far more likely, but please correct me if I’m wrong."

Plus their hypothesis was that "it's given too much credit" - that's a far cry from "it doesn't matter" or "it doesn't exist".

Which is exactly the same point the Barnwell (I listen to both his NFL podcast and the Freakonomics podcast every week) raises at the end of his article:

"For whatever these studies are worth, none of them definitively proves that momentum doesn’t exist. What they each suggest is that, in a place where it seems obvious that there would be some record of momentum, little or no record of momentum exists. That can be up to a fault in the study’s methodology or the circumstances of the sample, among other things. In any case, if momentum were quite as obvious as the sports world makes it out to be in these situations, it would appear in one of the studies above."

I'd also ad that with younger athletes, given less time to prepare and hone their craft and still swayed more heavily by their peers and emotion (rather than reason) - are more prone to swings in emotion and the crowd (you know - momentum) - than their older NFL counterparts. It's part of what makes the games more fun and upsets more likely.

Nice try, though. I'm familiar with the data. My reading - and comprehension - are fine.

 

[Millhouse]

That's what's so fascinating about it though - there's weird psychology going on. Teams have accepted punts. It's the turnover that doesn't hurt their feelings the same way a fumble or interception does. For some reason a turnover on downs is this deflating thing, but why? Coaches talk about limiting turnovers, then happily punt on 4th and 1 at their opponents 45. It's hilarious.

I think you can condition a team a certain way that they have the mentality that they understand that above all else, they value possession of the ball. It's both the best offense and the best defense.

End of the day, right now, football coaches say they value the ball but their behavior suggests otherwise. It's a good thing every game has one winner and one loser, because that sometimes let's them win in spite of their decisions.

Rex Ryan is another meathead

4th and 2 down 8 with 10 min left, kicks a fg

all they want to do is delay having to go for it as long as they can. that's their dumb objective. which they ended up needing to do on a 4th and 5 later

 

[TheCusian]

That's what's so fascinating about it though - there's weird psychology going on. Teams have accepted punts. It's the turnover that doesn't hurt their feelings the same way a fumble or interception does. For some reason a turnover on downs is this deflating thing, but why? Coaches talk about limiting turnovers, then happily punt on 4th and 1 at their opponents 45. It's hilarious.

I think you can condition a team a certain way that they have the mentality that they understand that above all else, they value possession of the ball. It's both the best offense and the best defense.

End of the day, right now, football coaches say they value the ball but their behavior suggests otherwise. It's a good thing every game has one winner and one loser, because that sometimes let's them win in spite of their decisions.

I agree. I think it's just apart of the games history and fabric enough that it prevails. It will take fans and a coach or two at a high level winning that way to change the thinking.

 

[Millhouse]

The Freakonomics story and research are flawed in just the way that - as the comments pointed out:

"Surely this argument fails to take into account the fact that sport involves humans. A coin toss is a random event, a sporting sequence is not. If a team has pulled off a spectacular play three times, the fourth may well be “sprinkled with fairy dust” in that this team will be disproportionately confident of repeating the feat, while their opponent will be fearful of a repeat occurrence and possibly demoralised. I would have thought this would make a repeat far more likely, but please correct me if I’m wrong."

Plus their hypothesis was that "it's given too much credit" - that's a far cry from "it doesn't matter" or "it doesn't exist".

Which is exactly the same point the Barnwell (I listen to both his NFL podcast and the Freakonomics podcast every week) raises at the end of his article:

"For whatever these studies are worth, none of them definitively proves that momentum doesn’t exist. What they each suggest is that, in a place where it seems obvious that there would be some record of momentum, little or no record of momentum exists. That can be up to a fault in the study’s methodology or the circumstances of the sample, among other things. In any case, if momentum were quite as obvious as the sports world makes it out to be in these situations, it would appear in one of the studies above."

I'd also ad that with younger athletes, given less time to prepare and hone their craft and still swayed more heavily by their peers and emotion (rather than reason) - are more prone to swings in emotion and the crowd (you know - momentum) - than their older NFL counterparts. It's part of what makes the games more fun and upsets more likely.

Nice try, though. I'm familiar with the data. My reading - and comprehension - are fine.

two can play the stupid storytelling game. you lack imagination. why is it only demoralizing to not convert a 4th down? it can just as easily be demoralizing to not try.

anyone can tell a bullsh!t demoralization story about any outcome

no evidence that momentum is a thing. sorry i can't prove a negative

 

[Millhouse]

That's what's so fascinating about it though - there's weird psychology going on. Teams have accepted punts. It's the turnover that doesn't hurt their feelings the same way a fumble or interception does. For some reason a turnover on downs is this deflating thing, but why? Coaches talk about limiting turnovers, then happily punt on 4th and 1 at their opponents 45. It's hilarious.

I think you can condition a team a certain way that they have the mentality that they understand that above all else, they value possession of the ball. It's both the best offense and the best defense.

End of the day, right now, football coaches say they value the ball but their behavior suggests otherwise. It's a good thing every game has one winner and one loser, because that sometimes let's them win in spite of their decisions.

coaches are too stupid to review data. most people who play football, destroy their brain, and then think that such a risky profession is the best path for them aren't that bright. so when faced with the question "what choice maximized our chance of winning?" they have no answer. so they substitute a stupid worthless question they think they can answer. "what choice maximizes the amount of time where we have any chance at all of winning"

if they had any self awareness, they could simply recognize that they're not that smart and stick to the things they're good at (teaching young men to injure other young men's brains) and leave the math to people who know it

 

[TheCusian]

two can play the stupid storytelling game. you lack imagination. why is it only demoralizing to not convert a 4th down? it can just as easily be demoralizing to not try.

anyone can tell a bullsh!t demoralization story about any outcome

no evidence that momentum is a thing. sorry i can't prove a negative

It's not about being right or wrong - it's not black and white. That's why both stories could't prove or disprove it's existence. They could only say that it doesn't play the same disproportionate part that "players and pundits" say it does (whatever loose metric that is).

To answer your first question: It's demoralizing because of the the history and tradition of the sport. Going against the norm and failing is more demoralizing than going with the norm and failing. Psych 101.

 

[donniesyracuse]

The first NFL or major college coach (I realize it has been done at other levels) that uses data to inform 4th down decisions will have an advantage until the rest of football catches up. That coach will be elevated to genius status. I wish Shafer was that guy. It would bring valuable national recognition to the program.

 

[Millhouse]

It's not about being right or wrong - it's not black and white. That's why both stories could't prove or disprove it's existence. They could only say that it doesn't play the same disproportionate part that "players and pundits" say it does (whatever loose metric that is).

To answer your first question: It's demoralizing because of the the history and tradition of the sport. Going against the norm and failing is more demoralizing than going with the norm and failing. Psych 101.

part of the history and tradition of the sport is thousands of fans with intact brains booing and walking out during your traditional punt. which is demoralizing

all this stuff is BS. if stupidity is tradition, scrap tradition

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I dream of the day when a coach goes completely ape on the sideline when they see their opponent get ready to punt, gathers his offense, and barks at them "They're not scared of you! They feel safe just giving you the ball. They don't think you can do anything with it! They have a made a very stupid mistake, because this drive ends with us ramming the ball in for a touchdown! Now go out there and show them just how stupid they are!" And then after that offense goes out, the coach gathers their defense and says "They're afraid of you! They just needed two measly yards, and they knew they couldn't get it against you, so they gave the ball away! We have them right where we want them! Next time you're out there, hit someone and remind them why they gave up against you!"

Hellacious beating ensues.

 

[TheCusian]

coaches are too stupid to review data. most people who play football, destroy their brain, and then think that such a risky profession is the best path for them aren't that bright. so when faced with the question "what choice maximized our chance of winning?" they have no answer. so they substitute a stupid worthless question they think they can answer. "what choice maximizes the amount of time where we have any chance at all of winning"

if they had any self awareness, they could simply recognize that they're not that smart and stick to the things they're good at (teaching young men to injure other young men's brains) and leave the math to people who know it

That's kind of loose logic that boils it down to "right and wrong". Both questions are valid. You need both time and opportunity to win games. It's the balancing act of those two things that makes the 4th Q of most tight games worth watching.

 

[Millhouse]

That's kind of loose logic that boils it down to "right and wrong". Both questions are valid. You need both time and opportunity to win games. It's the balancing act of those two things that makes the 4th Q of most tight games worth watching.

keeping the ball gives you more time and more opportunity

 

[IthacaBarrel]

for meatheads (and I have moved on from bitching about the punting phenomenon because it won't change) I think once on the opponents side between the 30-50 you should just go for it on 4th unless you are not trying to score a TD. Plain and simple just do it. On your side of the field punt unless circumstances demand otherwise, which is the gray area. The circumstances confuse the shitte out of these guys

With our kicking game anything over a 40 yarder I bet odds are stacked versus a 4th and 3 conversion

 

[TheCusian]

keeping the ball gives you more time and more opportunity

At a higher risk. Losing the ball on downs can put you at a larger disadvantage, no? Again - not black and white. That's why coaches struggle with the decision - if it were easy and obvious everyone would do it.

 

[TheCusian]

I think for meatheads (and I have moved on from bitching about the punting phenomenon because it won't change) but I think once on the opponents side between the 30-50 you should just go for it on 4th unless you are not trying to score a TD. Plain and simple just do it. On your side of the field punt unless circumstances demand otherwise, which is the gray area

With our kicking game anything over a 40 yarder I bet odds are stacked versus a 4th and 3 conversion

Agreed.

 

[Millhouse]

At a higher risk. Losing the ball on downs can put you at a larger disadvantage, no? Again - not black and white. That's why coaches struggle with the decision - if it were easy and obvious everyone would do it.

going for a 4th and 2 down 18 on the other teams 46 with 20 min left is as easy and obvious as it gets. which is why i think that shafer might be really stupid and probably shouldn't be part of "everyone"

 

[TheCusian]

going for a 4th and 2 down 18 on the other teams 46 with 20 min left is as easy and obvious as it gets. which is why i think that shafer might be really stupid and probably shouldn't be part of "everyone"

Finally, a fair criticism without the generalizations .

 

[SWC75]

Having a new series of downs is overrated after you've given the ball back to your opponent and have given them a chance to score. You might get that new series of downs after they hung 7 on you. It seems way better to just get a new series of downs by making a play to gain the yardage you need and never giving your opponent the chance to score. Punting in the hopes of similar field position for a new series of downs later in the game is just another way for coaches to justify conservative thinking. It spreads out the number of chances that if something goes wrong on a single play, they've got other plays to compensate. That's not great. Basically coaches say they prefer having 3 chances to go 10 yards, instead of one chance to go 4 yards or less usually. Which is weird - the average play nets much better than that. You will get what you need more often than not.

I get that hitting people and tackling is what makes football fun to play, but strategically, playing defense should be a last resort. You're conceding control and positioning yourself to be reactive instead of active. You can't score without the ball. Coaches love being afraid of the ball.

You seem to be treating a successful fourth down play as a given but a good defensive stand as something you can't rely on. You can't rely on either. You have to make the best judgement you can. And having four downs to make ten yards vs. one down to make whatever yardage is not overrated. keep in mind that the first thing that happens when a play starts is that the ball goes backwards, several yards now that we are doing seemingly everything from the shotgun or the pistol. Fourth and inches is fourth and 2-3 yards plus those inches. it's not an "average play".

Our original dispute was whether a Ryan Norton field goal attempt, (for 40+) was a better option than a Riley Dixon punt, so you weren't talking about going for it on fourth down anyway.

Basically both extreme positions on punts: always do it or never do it; are unrealistic. It's always going to be more complicated than that.

 

[SWC75]

I agree with all that - (and have pointed out why coaches go conservative despite obvious situations that run to the contrary because the system rewards conservative calls financially) - but when you go for it and miss it, it usually provides a giant wave of momentum for your opponent. It feels like a turnover.

What, exactly is the difference between a fumble on fourth down and getting stuffed on fourth down? None, really. And a punt surrenders the ball but doesn't it 35-40 yards down field. What's the difference between a failed fourth down try and giving up a 35-40 yard play on the other team's first play after a punt. Again, none. You should have the same opinion of that failed fourth down attempt that you would of the 30-40 yard play or a turnover on your fourth down play.

It doesn't mean you never go for it. You've just got to understand the risk you take when you do. Every decision you make is a calculated risk. You can't ignore the upside or the downside.

 

[Millhouse]

You seem to be treating a successful fourth down play as a given but a good defensive stand as something you can't rely on. You can't rely on either. You have to make the best judgement you can. And having four downs to make ten yards vs. one down to make whatever yardage is not overrated. keep in mind that the first thing that happens when a play starts is that the ball goes backwards, several yards now that we are doing seemingly everything from the shotgun or the pistol. Fourth and inches is fourth and 2-3 yards plus those inches. it's not an "average play".

Our original dispute was whether a Ryan Norton field goal attempt, (for 40+) was a better option than a Riley Dixon punt, so you weren't talking about going for it on fourth down anyway.

Basically both extreme positions on punts: always do it or never do it; are unrealistic. It's always going to be more complicated than that.

it's not that complicated. the work has already been done. it only gets complicated when you start concocting phony psychology to justify that irrational learned fear in your gut

it's easy to come up with crude rules of thumb in favor of going for it that are better for you than crude rules of thumb in favor of kicking.

don't punt past midfield unless it's 4th and 5 or more

if you're starting to worry about running out of time, go for it on 4th and 3 or less once you hit your 40

if you're starting to crap your pants about running out of time, go for it anywhere.

unless a FG wins you the game at the buzzer, go for it on 4th and goal from the 3 or less

IGNORE that it might seal the victory for the other team. the objective is not to maximize the time where you have a tiny chance. the objective is to maximize the chance you win. if that means the game might effectively end at 3:45 instead of 3:50 pm, so be it.

you could do much better than this with a chart, but as crude as this is, it'd be an improvement

 

[OttoinGrotto]

You seem to be treating a successful fourth down play as a given but a good defensive stand as something you can't rely on. You can't rely on either. You have to make the best judgement you can.

That's the thing, I'm actually not treating either one thing as a given. I'm playing the odds of both. Go with the odds.

 

[Scooch]

At a higher risk. Losing the ball on downs can put you at a larger disadvantage, no? Again - not black and white. That's why coaches struggle with the decision - if it were easy and obvious everyone would do it.

It was "obvious" for decades that RBI and wins were critically important baseball stats... until it became obvious that they weren't.

Innovation often happens when things that are obvious are proven not to be.

 

[TheCusian]

It was "obvious" for decades that RBI and wins were critically important baseball stats... until it became obvious that they weren't. Innovation often happens when things that are obvious are proven not to be.

Agreed. So if the preponderance of evidence exists in statistical data - where are the p5 coaches doing it? Why hasn't it become the new norm?

 

[donniesyracuse]

Agreed. So if the preponderance of evidence exists in statistical data - where are the p5 coaches doing it? Why hasn't it become the new norm?

For the same reason that MLB managers didn't embrace extreme infield shifts until recently.

John and Suzyn still think it's a bad idea lol