Billo screwed BC against Nebraska just now by going for 2 and not making it. Now they need a TD being down 5 instead of a FG to tie. It happens all the time.
Last edited:
Fine line between "aggressive" and "stupid"
- Thread starter blion72
- Start date
They only went for 2 once, so they are down 5 instead of 4. What BoB did was by far and away the smart move. Missing it that late in the game cost BC nothing.
Do you know of a 4 point FG that I am unaware of?
Do you know of a 4 point FG that I am unaware of?
When I saw KSU getting ready to go for the 4th down, I thought to myself that they better be damn sure they were going to get the first down. The downside of their not making the 1st was that Pitt got back into the game.
WFT Commanders go for on 4th it a lot, a lot, and I’m okay with it. Overall, very much a plus situation for them. But I really thought KSU should have punted.
They were down 20-2 by 18 points. If Billo goes for the extra point on the first TD, they are down 20-9. At that point, if you score another TD, you have the option of going for 2 to put you down 3.
But because Billo went for 2 and missed, they are down 20-8 and the option of a FG is gone. That seems like a dumb mistake by Billo, but I’m sure he is more up on the analytics than I am.
So you are saying he was going to have to go for two and make it, so he should wait to do it on the second score. Why? Do you like losing 20-9 better than 20-8.
You are further ahead knowing you are going to need two TDs sooner than later. Thats why you do it early in the 4th instead of waiting. Again, missing the two didn't hurt them at all.
You are further ahead knowing you are going to need two TDs sooner than later. Thats why you do it early in the 4th instead of waiting. Again, missing the two didn't hurt them at all.
I think your logic is flawed. Down 20-2, BC needed 3 scores. BC gets a TD to get to 20-8. If BC goes for 1 to put them down 11, they retain the option of going for a FG much later into the game. Depending on how the game plays out, it may make sense to make a FG try late in the 4th quarter if you still have that option.
By failing to make the 2 point conversion when down 20-8, you have taken the FG option off the table much earlier in the game than you needed to.
You want to know where you stand as early as possible, so that you know if a FG will help you later down the line, or if you're all in on scoring TDs (same logic why you always choose defense in OT when given the choice). O'Brien played it exactly as he should have. Thankfully, more and more coaches have figured this out.
This really goes back to the old "falacy" of an 8 point game being a "one score game", and treating it the same as a 7 point game. There is a big difference between how a coach should approach a one score game and how he should approach an 8 point game or a two score game. The earlier you can learn if you make the two point conversion, the better for you so that you can plan accordingly.
Ok. I guess we will just have to disagree on this one. There is an opportunity cost to decreasing your FG optionality by missing a two-point conversion earlier in the game. Analytics does not appear to factor in that lost opportunity cost.
And you don't think there is an "opportunity cost" to learning if a FG helps you? What good does a FG do in an all point game in you end up scoring a really late TD but miss the two point conversion? You want to know if that FG will help you, otherwise you'd go for it on 4th down and pass up the FG.
Since if you lose you're going to get crucified either way, might as well pull out all of the stops in the playoffs.
Knowing earlier takes plays off the table - if you HAVE to go for two because you missed earlier, you can’t surprise another team with a fake FG since it’s only really effective when you can actually surprise the other team. Sure - 4th and 1 or less is a no brainer. But, for every inch past the LOS the chances of converting drops. Again, since every play is different (tiredness of players, personnel, position of ball on field, play called, defense called, etc.) the outcomes shouldn’t be based or predicted on the aggregate.
Playing it safe as the weaker team is generally not going to help overcome the disparity between the two teams. You're going to have to take some risks to level the playing field.
My opinion and logic. If you are a big underdog to a team, you are going to have to get lucky in some spots to win. Since you are an underdog, it's rare that you are going to straight up outplay them. It's why you see weaker teams go for 2 points after scoring a TD get within 1 late in a game to try to win it right there and not go to OT.
Just wanted to note that Cincy went for it on 4th and 2 from Denver 28 instead of "taking the points". They subsequently scored a TD. I'm sure it will be forgotten, but had they not made the first down and lost the game by 3, they would get crucified.
I thought the 4th down call was reasonable , even if it didn’t work (it did end up working).
But the Cincy coach also stupidly didn’t run out the clock and kick a field goal with about 20 seconds left in regulation. The game went into OT as a result, but Cincy ended up winning.
The point is that nobody will bring up that play at all, but it was key to the victory. But you can be certain that the talking heads would be roasting Taylor for that call if they lost.
Somewhat agree on burning time at the end, but Denver had a time out left so I think there would still have been at least 30 seconds left? Makes it kind of a close call, but lean towards burning clock as you said.
Stay the course until your forced is my motto.
No need to pass up points or chase points until it is do or die time. That is my stance regardless of outcome/analytics included.
Dont make winning any harder than it has to be.
No need to pass up points or chase points until it is do or die time. That is my stance regardless of outcome/analytics included.
Dont make winning any harder than it has to be.
Grant, I think we agree in general with game strategy. I’m ok with going for it on 4th and short if analytics dictate and your team is proficient in short yardage. I thought CJF’s 4th down decision against SMU and Cincys 4th down decision were fine.
But too many coaches outsmart themselves when taking or not taking points. In the Cincy game, I would much rather be up 3 with 20-30 seconds left and my opponent with no timeouts than up 7 with 1:30 left and my opponent with one timeout.
Total sidebar, but seemed like the best thread for this. Second time I've seen this in the last few days. Cardinals 4th and 10 at rams 40 and rams intercept at the 11. How does a pro dB not know to bat it down in that situation? Obvious analytics say that decreases chance of victory.
I have a bet on Arizona so I'm thrilled!
I have a bet on Arizona so I'm thrilled!
It’s killed me forever, but I’ve finally come to grips with the fact that there are probably a handful of football players on earth that care about the team enough to turn down the INT. As they are all celebrating, I’m thinking “wow, that worked out great for Arizona”.
It’s only bad coaching or a failure when it doesn’t work. This is just dumb luck coaching. I think this is how it works according to those who want to not take calculated risks. It’s hysterical people are arguing against using this data….but it’s not surprising here.
Using data and analytics to make informed decisions is for bad coaches if you listen to an idiotic group on this site who are stuck in the last century.
I agree with you sir.
Several posters in this thread are conflating outcomes with decisions. In the academic literature this is commonly referred to as Outcome Bias.
A successful outcome does not mean a decision was a good one.
Whether a decision is good or bad depends on how the decision was made, not on the outcome.
Really? Do you really think if this were true any coach would do it? Why would they?
Blind faith in analytics. Lack of understanding of game flow and lost opportunity cost. Football coaches aren’t rocket surgeons.
Nor are many fans who think analytics are only used when they don't like the result of a play. Pssst, coaches have been using analytics and data to show trends with teams for a long time now. Apparently you want an uninformed coach who plays it safe, doesn't use data, and just feels it out with his gut only.....seems about right. Don't study opponents, situations, or anything that can assist you.....just do what Joe would have done. I hate to tell any moron still arguing against coaches using data to make informed decisions.....that part of the game is here to stay. The fact that people argue one play out of about 65 a game as the reason not to use analytics speaks volumes as to where this country is currently.
I'd also love to know how you geniuses figure out when he's not using them versus when he is. Is it anytime he goes for it on 4th down or just if any play fails. You have no idea what actually goes into most of the decisions, but you know when it doesn't work after the fact. The Dunning Kruger syndrome myopic fans have is the stuff of legends.
Last edited:
Yes, because it takes much more to be a drywaller…and drywallers sitting on their couch certainly have a better understanding of game flow than a D-1 level coach who’s done the job his entire career.
So it's better to have blind faith in old football dogma that's never actually been proven to be true? (Ex. Always take the points! )
Fwiw, I have always advocated using analytics as a tool and not a crutch. If football coaches aren't rocket surgeons they should certainly use them as such.
Just so we have a record of things, Kirk Ferentz twice punted on 4th and short when I'm pretty sure analytics would have said go for it. He played it "safe", punted and ended up losing by 3.
He lost because his offense sucks. Probably the exact reason why he decided to not have his offense go for it on 4th down.
Offense looked fine in the first half. There was a variety of reasons why they lost. If a coach like Franklin would have gone for it and not made it in those situations, he would be skewered. But nobody notices when a coach plays it safe and the team loses.
If Franklin doesn’t go for it, he gets skewered for “turtling up”. Hindsight coaching is never wrong.
I like the call to punt. He played to his team's strength which did get him the ball back with great field position. They just couldn't move the ball into field goal range to take advantage.
It was absolutely foolish. both times.
On the last punt, Iowa got the ball back, but with less time and fewer time outs.
And they lost!