Fine line between "aggressive" and "stupid"

[blion72]

it is very easy to watch second guessing of coaches making decisions that seem very risky when things don't workout. already we see a few post-game interviews challenging coaches for decisions that backfire. IF you want to second guess a decision you don't wait for the outcome.........you do it before the play.

so far every coach that is going through this has said "we want to be aggressive". The word aggressive has a positive connotation, and kind of covers for what is going on - i.e. have you ever heard a coach say we want to be cautious and not take chances? A coach is taking a calculated risk that the chance of successful outcome will net more than the chance of failure and what that outcome entails. More coaches seem to use the words "the analytics supported the decision". There is a fine line between being aggressive and being stupid, and historic analytics do not a

An example from the Kansas State game on 4th down try. KS goes for it on 4th down and 1 around their own 30. Their analytics told them that through the season they have made the 1st down at a X rate to more than makeup for the downside of failure - i.e. giving up a score. Their analytics however are not real time in the game, and not taking into account the true chance of failure against Rutgers at that moment. In any game, the real time odds can be quite different than the season experience.

 

[Midnighter]

it is very easy to watch second guessing of coaches making decisions that seem very risky when things don't workout. already we see a few post-game interviews challenging coaches for decisions that backfire. IF you want to second guess a decision you don't wait for the outcome.........you do it before the play.

so far every coach that is going through this has said "we want to be aggressive". The word aggressive has a positive connotation, and kind of covers for what is going on - i.e. have you ever heard a coach say we want to be cautious and not take chances? A coach is taking a calculated risk that the chance of successful outcome will net more than the chance of failure and what that outcome entails. More coaches seem to use the words "the analytics supported the decision". There is a fine line between being aggressive and being stupid, and historic analytics do not a

An example from the Kansas State game on 4th down try. KS goes for it on 4th down and 1 around their own 30. Their analytics told them that through the season they have made the 1st down at a X rate to more than makeup for the downside of failure - i.e. giving up a score. Their analytics however are not real time in the game, and not taking into account the true chance of failure against Rutgers at that moment. In any game, the real time odds can be quite different than the season experience.

Right. Because while it may be true that in a season a team could convert 4th downs with a success rate of X, it doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Going for it on 4th down against better teams/defenses stinky lowers your chances of success.

 

[Midnighter]

it is very easy to watch second guessing of coaches making decisions that seem very risky when things don't workout. already we see a few post-game interviews challenging coaches for decisions that backfire. IF you want to second guess a decision you don't wait for the outcome.........you do it before the play.

so far every coach that is going through this has said "we want to be aggressive". The word aggressive has a positive connotation, and kind of covers for what is going on - i.e. have you ever heard a coach say we want to be cautious and not take chances? A coach is taking a calculated risk that the chance of successful outcome will net more than the chance of failure and what that outcome entails. More coaches seem to use the words "the analytics supported the decision". There is a fine line between being aggressive and being stupid, and historic analytics do not a

An example from the Kansas State game on 4th down try. KS goes for it on 4th down and 1 around their own 30. Their analytics told them that through the season they have made the 1st down at a X rate to more than makeup for the downside of failure - i.e. giving up a score. Their analytics however are not real time in the game, and not taking into account the true chance of failure against Rutgers at that moment. In any game, the real time odds can be quite different than the season experience.

Right. Because while it may be true that in a season a team could convert 4th downs with a success rate of X, it doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Going for it on 4th down against better teams/defenses certainly lowers your chances of success

 

[olelion]

If events involving human behavior could be modeled, the stock market would have to close, Human behavior is too random.

 

[Grant Green]

Right. Because while it may be true that in a season a team could convert 4th downs with a success rate of X, it doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Going for it on 4th down against better teams/defenses stinky lowers your chances of success.

it is very easy to watch second guessing of coaches making decisions that seem very risky when things don't workout. already we see a few post-game interviews challenging coaches for decisions that backfire. IF you want to second guess a decision you don't wait for the outcome.........you do it before the play.

so far every coach that is going through this has said "we want to be aggressive". The word aggressive has a positive connotation, and kind of covers for what is going on - i.e. have you ever heard a coach say we want to be cautious and not take chances? A coach is taking a calculated risk that the chance of successful outcome will net more than the chance of failure and what that outcome entails. More coaches seem to use the words "the analytics supported the decision". There is a fine line between being aggressive and being stupid, and historic analytics do not a

An example from the Kansas State game on 4th down try. KS goes for it on 4th down and 1 around their own 30. Their analytics told them that through the season they have made the 1st down at a X rate to more than makeup for the downside of failure - i.e. giving up a score. Their analytics however are not real time in the game, and not taking into account the true chance of failure against Rutgers at that moment. In any game, the real time odds can be quite different than the season experience.

The defense you are going against can also be factored into the analytics, so it's not really a vacuum. In any sort of statistics, there is variance of course. The analytics you use in any given situation may not be exact, but if your methods are good enough, then they balance out in the long run.

 

[Grant Green]

I'll add one more thing. It's human nature to largely see when an "analytics" decision fails and to conclude that analytics doesn't work. It is not human nature to remember when it succeeds, so people that view analytics negatively will always come to a conclusion that fits their agenda.

Example. Everyone remembers Franklin going for it on 4th and 1 from our own 20 and missing it. Nobody remembers the Baltimore Ravens doing it successfully against the Chargers from their own 16 and 39, when leading both times. They scored TDs on both drives and won by 7.

 

[Nothing Special]

At the risk of opening this can of worms again, K State went for 2 when down 11 after a touchdown and failed. Then, chased the point after the succeeding touchdowns. they went 1-3 on 2-point conversion attempts for 2 points. It left them with a 3-point lead at the end of the game allowing Rutgers the chance of a tying field goal. If they would have kicked the 3 extra points for 3 points, they would have had a 4-point lead forcing Rutgers to need a touchdown. It worked out for a 3-point win because Rutgers couldn't get in field goal range, but...

Being aggressive, using analytics vs. common sense?

 

[Nitt1300]

Fans will bit ch either way if a play goes wrong- which they sometimes do.

 

[SleepyLion]

The defense you are going against can also be factored into the analytics, so it's not really a vacuum. In any sort of statistics, there is variance of course. The analytics you use in any given situation may not be exact, but if your methods are good enough, then they balance out in the long run.

This is the part I always get stuck on, it needs to work this time, not in the long run. I guess if you still have many years on your contract, the long run is an option?

 

[Grant Green]

This is the part I always get stuck on, it needs to work this time, not in the long run. I guess if you still have many years on your contract, the long run is an option?

You can say this about any decision you make. If you decide to punt on 4th and short, you are gambling that it is going to result in winning the game, this time.

Or maybe look at it as a sample size of an entire season. If you make these little decisions that give you a 2 to 3% better chance to win, you may go 9-7 instead of 8-8. Example - Last season, the Packers did the old 'go for 2 points when you score a TD and are now down by 8 pts' (instead of XP) in one particular game. They won the game and made the playoffs by one game.

 

[Nittering Nabob]

You can say this about any decision you make. If you decide to punt on 4th and short, you are gambling that it is going to result in winning the game, this time.

This is where Ferentz football makes perfect sense. If you have a really good punter and respectable defense, the seemingly wise decision is to punt, flip the field and then take your chances.

p.s. Franklin is underinvesting in Punters and Place Kickers. JMO.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Right. Because while it may be true that in a season a team could convert 4th downs with a success rate of X, it doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Going for it on 4th down against better teams/defenses stinky lowers your chances of success.

Same thing as going for two.

 

[Grant Green]

This is where Ferentz football makes perfect sense. If you have a really good punter and respectable defense, the seemingly wise decision is to punt, flip the field and then take your chances.

p.s. Franklin is underinvesting in Punters and Place Kickers. JMO.

Sure, if you want to win 8-9 games per year and never really compete for a conference/national championship.

 

[Nitt1300]

This is the part I always get stuck on, it needs to work this time, not in the long run. I guess if you still have many years on your contract, the long run is an option?

Yep, coaches should only call that play that always works.

 

[LaJollaCreek]

Sure, if you want to win 8-9 games per year and never really compete for a conference/national championship.

Progress and analytics is for losers!!!! I see a ton of games where I'm like I wouldn't do that....but it's the new game. Some people can hob onboard or not. I get the ones that raise an eyebrow, but I also see more aggressive coaches winning too.

 

[Grant Green]

I see a ton of games where I'm like I wouldn't do that....

yeah, I get that. I think it's for two reasons. First, many of us were raised listening to unproven football dogma on tv ("never chase points", "take the points", "defense wins championships", play it safe and punt with 4th and 1 from midfield, cause it's better to pin them deep). We believed it because some old school NFL guy said it, so it must be true. I think the second part is human nature to focus on 'what happens if this fails', but not to think of 'what happens if this succeeds'.

 

[BobPSU92]

No one ever called me aggressive.

 

[SleepyLion]

Yep, coaches should only call that play that always works.

Obviously...
But I wasn't trying to be a smarta$$ (which is rare for me).
I was actually looking for an explanation for better understanding. Which I got. thanks @Grant Green.

Really coaches need to put players in position to call, or audible to, the play that will work for the look the opponent is giving. This is what happened in the fake punt this year in Wisconsin. The fake punt wasn't called, as in "fake it no matter what", it was called "if you see this formation/tell, etc. do it."

 

[Grant Green]

Obviously...
But I wasn't trying to be a smarta$$ (which is rare for me).
I was actually looking for an explanation for better understanding. Which I got. thanks @Grant Green.

Really coaches need to put players in position to call, or audible to, the play that will work for the look the opponent is giving. This is what happened in the fake punt this year in Wisconsin. The fake punt wasn't called, as in "fake it no matter what", it was called "if you see this formation/tell, etc. do it."

I think your last part is totally agreeing with the concept of analytics, although more to do with play calling than go/not go for it type calls. Make the call that gives your team the greatest probability of success (both in that singular play and the game as a whole).

 

[G3624]

Analytics is the justification, or black swan, if common sense, i.e. the justification of what one thinks.

 

[Blair10]

Harry Truman: “The Buck Stops Here”.

Enough with coaches using weasel phrases as an excuse for plain dumb decisions.

Top ready made excuses for bonehead coaching decisions:
- “Analytics said to go for it”
- “I was being aggressive”

There is a clear line when a coach decides to go for it on 4th down deep inside their own territory in the first quarter. It’s just a dumb thing to do, period.

 

[NewEra 2014]

At the risk of opening this can of worms again, K State went for 2 when down 11 after a touchdown and failed. Then, chased the point after the succeeding touchdowns. they went 1-3 on 2-point conversion attempts for 2 points. It left them with a 3-point lead at the end of the game allowing Rutgers the chance of a tying field goal. If they would have kicked the 3 extra points for 3 points, they would have had a 4-point lead forcing Rutgers to need a touchdown. It worked out for a 3-point win because Rutgers couldn't get in field goal range, but...

Being aggressive, using analytics vs. common sense?

Going for 2 points before the 4th quarter has been a pet peeve of mine. It typically works against the team doing it, whether they are ahead or behind in the game when they go for 2.

 

[LaJollaCreek]

Analytics is the justification, or black swan, if common sense, i.e. the justification of what one thinks.

No It’s simply the data that allows you to make a more informed decision. You still have your gut too if you don’t trust the data. Somehow people think data is a boogeyman.

 

[bbrown]

This is where Ferentz football makes perfect sense. If you have a really good punter and respectable defense, the seemingly wise decision is to punt, flip the field and then take your chances.

p.s. Franklin is underinvesting in Punters and Place Kickers. JMO.

this year Rilley's punting has been iffy but Blake Gilliken and Jordan Stout were pretty freaking good.

 

[rudedude]

Right. Because while it may be true that in a season a team could convert 4th downs with a success rate of X, it doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Going for it on 4th down against better teams/defenses stinky lowers your chances of success.

Wouldn’t that be a penalty going for it on 4 th down against better teams/defenses stinky anyway? I mean that could be considered sexual assault!

 

[Nitt1300]

Going for 2 points before the 4th quarter has been a pet peeve of mine. It typically works against the team doing it, whether they are ahead or behind in the game when they go for 2.

does it? you have stats on that?

 

[Midnighter]

Wouldn’t that be a penalty going for it on 4 th down against better teams/defenses stinky anyway? I mean that could be considered sexual assault!

Ha - weirdly autocorrected ‘certainly’ to ‘stinky’.

 

[Lion84]

This is where Ferentz football makes perfect sense. If you have a really good punter and respectable defense, the seemingly wise decision is to punt, flip the field and then take your chances.

p.s. Franklin is underinvesting in Punters and Place Kickers. JMO.

Be careful you are getting dangerously close to criticizing a coach which isn’t allowed here unless you were a part time pee wee football coach and then have the cred to do so.

 

[razpsu]

I'll add one more thing. It's human nature to largely see when an "analytics" decision fails and to conclude that analytics doesn't work. It is not human nature to remember when it succeeds, so people that view analytics negatively will always come to a conclusion that fits their agenda.

Example. Everyone remembers Franklin going for it on 4th and 1 from our own 20 and missing it. Nobody remembers the Baltimore Ravens doing it successfully against the Chargers from their own 16 and 39, when leading both times. They scored TDs on both drives and won by 7.

Franklin made the right call. But made the wrong call substituting. He didn’t allow for the quick go where the defense may not be set or calling a timeout and allowed the defense to sub in 2 huge gigantic indivuals right in the middle. They stuffed it. In real time I was saying that was a mistake to sub!!

 

[Moogy]

Harry Truman: “The Buck Stops Here”.

Enough with coaches using weasel phrases as an excuse for plain dumb decisions.

Top ready made excuses for bonehead coaching decisions:
- “Analytics said to go for it”
- “I was being aggressive”

There is a clear line when a coach decides to go for it on 4th down deep inside their own territory in the first quarter. It’s just a dumb thing to do, period.

Based on what?

"It just is" and "because I said so" doesn't work anymore in the age of information.

 

[Moogy]

Going for 2 points before the 4th quarter has been a pet peeve of mine. It typically works against the team doing it, whether they are ahead or behind in the game when they go for 2.

Show us the data you have to support your position.

 

[Moogy]

Right. Because while it may be true that in a season a team could convert 4th downs with a success rate of X, it doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Going for it on 4th down against better teams/defenses stinky lowers your chances of success.

Lowers your chances to what?

 

[Erial_Lion]

Franklin made the right call. But made the wrong call substituting. He didn’t allow for the quick go where the defense may not be set or calling a timeout and allowed the defense to sub in 2 huge gigantic indivuals right in the middle. They stuffed it. In real time I was saying that was a mistake to sub!!

I hadn't considered that aspect of it...but now that you say it, I agree completely.

 

[Erial_Lion]

Going for 2 points before the 4th quarter has been a pet peeve of mine. It typically works against the team doing it, whether they are ahead or behind in the game when they go for 2.

It would probably be more accurate to say that it probably works against teams doing it if they aren't successful...and if they are, you never think about it again.

 

[Erial_Lion]

Right. Because while it may be true that in a season a team could convert 4th downs with a success rate of X, it doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Going for it on 4th down against better teams/defenses stinky lowers your chances of success.

Keep in mind though that if you're playing against a better team, your chances of winning are lower, so you might need to take some chances and be more aggressive to give your team a chance of winning.

 

[Moogy]

This is the part I always get stuck on, it needs to work this time, not in the long run. I guess if you still have many years on your contract, the long run is an option?

Everything needs to work this time ... but a lot of times it doesn't. Otherwise, we'd have scoring on every play.

Not sure what your point is.

You chose to punt there, if you do chose to punt there, because you believe that gives your team the best chance to win. You're using "analytics" there, as well. Do you freak out if you punt and the other team drives it down to score? Do you blame the decision to punt? If you lose by less than a TD, do you look back on that decision to punt and say "wrong decision ... we could have converted on that play and scored?" and kick yourself?

You have a reason that you prefer to punt. It's a nebulous application of analytics, and it may just very well be wrong. But you're comfortable with it, right or wrong, just because "it's the way it is."

So if there's data that can inform your decision, so that you may make a better decision, wouldn't you welcome that? Otherwise, you're just engaging in superstition. If you don't punt here, bad things will happen! Boohoohahaha!

This isn't to say the decision here was right or was wrong ... it's to get you guys to actually see that using information and acquiring knowledge isn't a bad thing ... and even your "old" ways were trying to do that same thing ... they just may be wrong.

 

[Erial_Lion]

so far every coach that is going through this has said "we want to be aggressive". The word aggressive has a positive connotation, and kind of covers for what is going on - i.e. have you ever heard a coach say we want to be cautious and not take chances? A coach is taking a calculated risk that the chance of successful outcome will net more than the chance of failure and what that outcome entails. More coaches seem to use the words "the analytics supported the decision". There is a fine line between being aggressive and being stupid

For whatever reason, the conventional thinking is that "following analytics means that you're being more aggressive". I guess that's true in the sense that so many coaches have historically punted when they should have gone for it, went for 1 when they should have went for 2, etc. But when you say that "A coach is taking a calculated risk that the chance of successful outcome will net more than the chance of failure and what that outcome entails", you're really talking about something that goes into every decision that's made, whether it's an "aggressive" one or a "conservative" one...when you punt from your own 45 on 4th and inches, you're taking a calculated risk that the chance of success of punting here is better than what should be the obvious decision of going for it.

 

[SleepyLion]

Everything needs to work this time ... but a lot of times it doesn't. Otherwise, we'd have scoring on every play.

Not sure what your point is.

You chose to punt there, if you do chose to punt there, because you believe that gives your team the best chance to win. You're using "analytics" there, as well. Do you freak out if you punt and the other team drives it down to score? Do you blame the decision to punt? If you lose by less than a TD, do you look back on that decision to punt and say "wrong decision ... we could have converted on that play and scored?" and kick yourself?

You have a reason that you prefer to punt. It's a nebulous application of analytics, and it may just very well be wrong. But you're comfortable with it, right or wrong, just because "it's the way it is."

So if there's data that can inform your decision, so that you may make a better decision, wouldn't you welcome that? Otherwise, you're just engaging in superstition. If you don't punt here, bad things will happen! Boohoohahaha!

This isn't to say the decision here was right or was wrong ... it's to get you guys to actually see that using information and acquiring knowledge isn't a bad thing ... and even your "old" ways were trying to do that same thing ... they just may be wrong.

My point was to ask a question to get a better understanding. I got my answer.

 

[LaJollaCreek]

Be careful you are getting dangerously close to criticizing a coach which isn’t allowed here unless you were a part time pee wee football coach and then have the cred to do so.

 

[NewEra 2014]

does it? you have stats on that?

Well look at that. BC would only be down 3 points instead of 5 points right now if Billo hadn’t gone for 2 and not made it.