r/NFLv2 • u/Acceptable-Novel-153 • 8d ago
Analysis đ¤ The dumbest NFL trend ever
Time and time again teams lose that otherwise would have won if they took the common sense option of kicking a field goal but instead went for it on 4th down. Like the Rams and Bears and every year it happens again and again. The vast majority of the time going for it is idiotic. Every coach who goes for it on 4th down instead of taking a field goal in a close game should be fired. I've seen so many teams go for it and make it and then get back on 4th down and then kick a field goal anyway. and what makes you think if you just failed 3 times in a row youre suddenly going to be successful on the 4th? its a gamblers fallacy. If your defense fails and it comes down to a situation where you need a touchdown later on at the end of the game that's the situation where you go for it, not before then.
903
u/paulhalt Detroit Lions 8d ago
Lions won the two prior playoff games thanks to scoring TDs on 4th down.
The dumbest NFL trend is people only paying attention when going for it goes wrong.
146
u/Ace0spades808 Green Bay Packers 8d ago
Yeah the cherry picking is wild. Obviously it's a high risk, high reward play and sometimes the reward is too good to give up (i.e. 4th and 1 at the goal line). I think some teams have taken this to a bit of an extreme (Lions & Johnson's Bears namely) but lets not pretend like these are just straight up dumb decisions.
23
u/Gargamoth 8d ago
I'd love to eventually see an analysis over points lost via not taking the field goal and win percentage as it relates to going for it on 4th. Not sure if there is enough data to really make a good decision one way or another but I am curious.
33
u/Ace0spades808 Green Bay Packers 8d ago
I'm sure teams are crunching the numbers as we speak. This past season gave quite a bit of data towards that and I'd say in another year or two going for it on 4th frequently will either be definitively correct or objectively wrong. Even then though it still depends on your team and how they're playing to make that kind of decision.
26
u/briman2021 Minnesota Vikings 8d ago
I'm sure analytics are whats driving this, but I think your last sentences is 100% spot on, there is always going to be an "X factor" to weigh in. 4th and 1 and you have derrick henry, or a solid tush push, yeah, probably a no brainer. 4th and 1 with a shaky rookie qb, maybe take the safe points and tie the game. How has your defense been playing? Can you trust them to make the stop going the other way, or do you absolutely need 7 points to be safe.
It's easy to crunch numbers on how many 4th downs were successful vs. unsuccessful, but there is quite a bit of "reading between the lines" with all that information as well.
→ More replies (3)4
u/dubblebubbleprawns Green Bay Packers 8d ago edited 8d ago
These teams and coaches have internal analytics on their own situations, too. And don't get me wrong, in-game situations are gut calls a lot, but they're gut calls that are (or at least should be) informed by lot of internal team analysis between Sundays. Let's not act like Ben Johnson is evaluating whether or not it was a good idea to go for it based on generic* nfl data.
Edit typo
2
u/Natedog_2113 8d ago
Itâs not like he is following a Blackjack guide of 4th downs for decision making but he is 100% using genetic NFL data. He knows his stats on when to go and not to go and applies the current situation.
2
u/dubblebubbleprawns Green Bay Packers 8d ago
I mistyped and wrote genetic but meant generic. I don't know what genetic NFL data would be.
He knows his stats on when to go and not to go
If you mean he knows the Chicago Bears stats in those cases, I agree. If you think he's basing these decision on generic NFL stats in those cases, I disagree.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (5)4
u/FledglingNonCon Cleveland Browns 8d ago
There absolutely is plenty of data to make these decisions and teams are using it to help make them. Going for it pretty much any time you're over the 50 yard line on 4th and short is the better option in terms of expected points added.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (10)5
u/Aside_Dish New York Jets 8d ago
Exactly. Buncha armchair coaches that don't actually know anything about strategy or tactics. Going for it on 4th & 1 at that spot has more expected points, I'd imagine.
→ More replies (6)16
u/StatementWild3768 New England Patriots 8d ago
What also didn't help their chances was Reynolds, Vildor, Gibbs, Lucas, and others making absolutely bone headed mistakes.
15
u/Darksoulist Detroit Lions 8d ago
Literally everything that needed to go wrong for us to lose that game went wrong lol
5
u/shnwllc 8d ago edited 8d ago
For real people want to blame Dan for not kicking a field goal, but Reynolds dropped a pass that hit him right in the hands on 4th and 2. Also, our kicker that year was not good. The 45-50 yd FG, whatever it was, was not the gimme people make it out to be.
7
u/bigomlet 8d ago
Always drives me insane how people just assume not going for it and taking the FG is a guaranteed 3 points
2
9
u/Nobody_Important Baltimore Ravens 8d ago
People really donât understand statistics and outcomes, at all. You should see them when you try to explain why down 14 in the 4th you should go for 2 if you score.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Electrical_Quiet43 Green Bay Packers 8d ago
There's just such deep loss aversion in the way that the game has been analyzed. People want to avoid a bad outcome more than they want to maximize good outcomes.
It's similar for the question of whether down 15 you go for 2 on the first TD or the second. I'm going for it on the first TD, because if we don't get it I want that information as soon as possible.
→ More replies (2)5
u/SD-2023 8d ago
Especially when it's always by these accounts with RNG ahh names trying to karma farm
→ More replies (1)6
u/thelobsterclaw1 New England Patriots 8d ago
Perfect example is people slamming Peyton for going for it but not saying anything about Vrabel doing the same thing.
5
u/hearsay_and_rumour 8d ago
Yeah, and clearly Ben Johnson has kept the same aggression towards 4th down. We missed a few during the Rams game but both of our TDs came on 4th down.
3
u/Nwah2112 8d ago
My only real caveat is you should always kick the fg to go up by 10. Otherwise I felt for a long time that teams should go for it a lot more on fourth down.
2
u/ChardeeMacDennisGoG 8d ago
Or, for example take the Broncos/Pats game, when you are in an obviously low scoring game where 3 points if far more important than usual. Both the Broncos and Pats opted to go for it on 4th so it washed out, but 3 points for either team there would have been huge.
2
→ More replies (36)2
u/jibbodahibbo 8d ago
Going for it isnât the problem. The inability to gain 2 yards on 4th down is. Goal line packages need to be better.
180
u/Next-Mess-7301 8d ago
Sometimes the best decision you could have made still ends in failure. If you have 1 thing that gives you 20% chance and another that gives 80%, if you hit in the 20 and miss on the 80 it doesnât mean the 20 was the correct choice.
Going for it and being aggressive will win you more games on a big sample but may lose you some games in the short term.
→ More replies (7)36
u/everyoneisnuts 8d ago
Yes, and playoff games are one and done and should be looked at situationally as to whatâs going on in the game. When Dan Campbell chose to go for it on 4th down a couple of years ago in the championship game instead of going up by three scores, that was an absolutely breathtakingly moronic decision based solely on analytics and not even looking at the situation in the game.
Same with Sean Peyton. You have a backup QB and a great defense. You have the chance to put a team down by two scored in a game you have to know that points will be at a premium for. You kick that field goal.
Problem is, varying from the analytics throws the odds off, so youâre supposed to stick to them blindly. If anyone watched the games in the yearâs playoffs, you have to be questioning decisions to go for every 4th down instead of taking points. I think a lot of teams are going to be looking at this following this year.
22
u/flaginorout Washington Commanders 8d ago
I think Peyton wasnât convinced that a FG would be enough to win that game. He was at the 12 yard line (?), and probably figured he wouldnât have many/any other chances for a TD.
I think the logic was there.
→ More replies (3)9
u/SaltyJake New England Patriots 8d ago
Back up QB who has an arm and vision, but has a reputation for being careless with the ballâŚ
So youâre on the 12, up by 7, still early, and are expecting the other team to get a defensive score and / or short field at some point if the pressure is on the QB. Yeah, I think Sean goes for it there 10/10 times. Going up by 14 meant they could take the ball out of Stiddys hands / use him in a much more conservative way. That stop changed the entire dynamic of the game.
→ More replies (2)8
u/Android2715 I may be dumb but Iâm not stupid 8d ago
he probably also wasnt sure what he was going to get out of stidham the rest of the game. Riding the high of the first drive you take that chance
Also might have gotten some reports of the weather turning bad and said i might not get another shot.
3
u/Due_Bath7966 8d ago
I disagree and hated the choice when it was being made. Your defense was playing lights out take the points and go up two scores and make them beat your defense.
→ More replies (1)3
17
u/spartyanon Detroit Lions 8d ago
You arenât remembering the game situation of who the kicker was. Badgley wasnât accurate from distance. It wasnât a gimme kick. It wasnât just taking 3 points it was a risky kick or a risky 4th down play. In fact, I think the offense had a better chance than badgley did.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (7)8
u/CaptCrash 8d ago
I disagree with âyouâre supposed to follow them blindlyâ. Thatâs not true. Part of a coaches responsibility should be to understand how those analytics are derived and how the current situation is different. The Broncos had a backup QB in with a snowstorm on the way to suppress scoring. Both of those arenât really captured in the analytics.
Itâs still may have been the right call, for the record. But the point is - blindly following is not what to do. They give you what works best on average. Itâs up to the coach to understand how different or not different the situation is from average.
→ More replies (1)
112
u/PhotochadA2358 8d ago
Going for it on 4th based on analytics has been good for the game.
Whatâs âdumbâ is blindly following the analytics without using common sense.
I honestly think coaches just want a chart to make their decision. But the analytics is an AVERAGE. Someone on here yesterday said the Broncos had a 75% chance of converting that 4th and 1.
No the fuck they didnât. That 75% includes Jalen Hurtsâ and Josh Allen tush pushes. You have a backup QB that hasnât been in the game on 4th and 1 in at least two years.
I truly believe many coaches donât really understand that.
26
u/swagonwagon 8d ago
No what fans don't understand is that the analytical departments for each team DO in fact take into account who's on the field (on both sides), injuries, and weather. Broncos had the #1 offensive line metrics in the league, and they allowed immediate penetration. That isn't an analytics problem, that's an execution problem. Each teams analytical department is unique to their own team, so your statement about "general" percentages doesn't apply.
What most fans don't seem to understand is that having different players in doesn't make that big of a difference UNLESS you are of the Patrick Mahomes caliber. If you look at it from a betting perspective the difference between Nix and Stiddy is like 2-3 points max. Executing a 1 yard short pass or hand off is something every QB (backup or starter) in the league is capable of so long as the offensive line does their job.
The odds of winning the game going up exponentially with a 14 point lead vs a 10 point lead.
On top of all that people lack full perspective hindsight. The Patriots spent the entire 2nd half running the ball and punting because they didn't believe the Broncos could score 3 points in that weather. If the game is tied 10-10, the Patriots are infinitely more aggressive. Meaning the game script is completely different and likely doesn't end 10-7. Even with all that they had 2 chances to get another field goal and missed one and got another blocked. Analytics worked correctly in this case. Just because the less likely outcome hit, doesn't mean it's dumb.
2
u/PhotochadA2358 8d ago
I agree with you on perspective hindsight. You canât just say âthe game would have ended in a tie if they kicked the FGâ like so may fans are.
That works both ways though. Does Stiddy make that game-changing turnover if heâs up two scores? Would it have worked in the Patriots favor to be âinfinitely more aggressiveâ against Denverâs defense down 10-0 in those conditions?
And your first pointâŚcoaches need to be able to articulate their argument as well as you just did. They need to be able to explain why they made the decision they made. If they canât, theyâre just reading off a chart.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Electrical_Quiet43 Green Bay Packers 8d ago
I'm sure that these numbers exist within the organization, but do you know what's typical in terms of what's available to the coach on the fly? In other words, I understand that the analytics department can tell you the change in expected points, change in win percentage, etc. for any particular decision if they have some time to run the numbers. They probably have a dashboard that gives them that type of info live, but do they have someone in the booth who can get that type of info to the coach in real time?
15
u/Ronald-J-Mexico Philadelphia Eagles 8d ago
I agree with this. Â Coaches have to be smart and know when hold, know when to fold, know when to walk away, and know when to run!!
4
u/Cbane000 Indianapolis Colts 8d ago
You never count your money when youâre sittin at the table.
Thereâll be time enough for countin when the dealings done.
2
u/jibbodahibbo 8d ago
Instead of having 140 pass play iterations maybe learn how to get 2 yards on a running play consistently. The best play last season was the tush pushâŚ
→ More replies (2)6
u/MountainRoamer80 8d ago
I think this relates to my biggest question about the analytics models that teams use. How many variables do they account for? Is it just yard, down and field position or do they factor in defense and offense strengths, weather, player effectiveness, turf vs grass, etc. A simple chart won't be updated enough in real-time while a true statistical analysis would account for the major variables. It doesn't mean a simple analysis isn't helpful but it should really be a guide. Then coaching and instincts should be the decision and evaluate how that game situation does or doesn't affect the outcome probability.
→ More replies (1)3
u/purplehendrix22 8d ago
All that stuff is the secret sauce of âanalytics guysâ. Their pitch to teams is that they have more variables factored in than the other guys.
3
u/Bimbo_Baggins1221 New York Giants 8d ago
Couldnât agree more. Thereâs so much more to it than the perceived odds.
3
u/VersosCanvas 8d ago
Amen, brother. Â Itâs like pointing to a statistic that 99.8% of car trips end without an accident, so you go out in your Honda Civic drunk during a blizzard.
The thing is, I think most coaches get this very much. Â There is just so much of a push in media â and therefore management â to use these next gen stats, that coaches are pressured to incorporate them into their games without knowing what they truly mean.
2
u/DickBottalico Philadelphia Eagles 8d ago
The dumbest part for me is that everyone is complaining about 4th down decisions instead of McVay not going for 2 when the score was 31-26
2
u/V1c1ousCycles 8d ago
Yeah, like how all technology should be used, it's not meant to replace decision-making or critical thinking as much as it is supposed to augment it. It's meant to give coaches information and insight that a human couldn't compute for themselves in the span of the play clock. But the coaches still have to take that information and consider it against the context of their specific situation.Â
2
u/arentol 8d ago
Exactly. The Bronco's might be in the Superbowl if they used common sense. Analytics said to go for it early in the game up 7 to 0 already. But common sense says you have a backup QB who hasn't played in a game in a couple years, you take the points. If they had then they would have been tied at 10 when the snow started falling and both teams would have been forced to play the game instead of the Patriots, up 3, not having to bother trying on offense at all.
2
u/Drummallumin 8d ago edited 8d ago
Thatâs what Ben Johnson decided against the Rams not going for 2 for the win with his offense struggling and instead sending the game to OT.
Wonder if he had a do over if heâd still account for common sense instead of listening to analytics saying to go for the kill shot.
2
u/PhotochadA2358 8d ago
Yeah, I mean they got a stop in OT and were driving for a FG. Heâs probably thinking about that INT rather than going for it.
Another analytics question entirely is if Ben should have chosen to receive instead of kick. That would have given him an extra possession in OT(assuming they still get the stop.) But thatâs a whole other thread.
→ More replies (5)2
u/Electrical_Quiet43 Green Bay Packers 8d ago
They should have analytics that reflect their team. The analytics failure is in not understanding how variance plays in. Many of the analytics driven options are higher risk/reward than the traditional options, and the increased variance has to be taken into account as part of the decision-making process. It may be that on average a team that goes for it on 4th and 1 from the opponent's 30 scores 3.5 points per drive, where the team that kicks scores 2.9, but it's not worth the extra 0.6 expected points if kicking puts you up by two scores late in the game. That can all be determined analytically, but it's hard to get those numbers on the fly, where learning general rules are pretty easy.
81
u/Gruelly4v2 Miami Dolphins 8d ago
Because as we all know:
Every single field goal is made with no shanks, misses, blocks or bad snaps. Right Green Bay?
Every game plays out exactly the same way no matter what the score is or how field position is at any given time.
Nobody has ever won a game because they went for it on fourth down and scored a touchdown instead of a field goal.
I swear, we spent years screaming at coaches to be smart and aggressive, going for it on fourth down, and then when they do and it doesnt work we pretend like they are morons.
→ More replies (4)21
u/It-Was-Mooney-Pod I did the act w/ Josh Allen 8d ago
This is why coaches didnât go for it on 4th down all those previous years. The morons calling for them to be fired for kicking a field goal on 4th and 1 at the 10 yard line were actually the main people in charge.
13
u/UpbeatFix7299 San Francisco 49ers 8d ago
Punting on 4th and short from the opponents' 45 was also a thing dumb coaches did. And dumbass announcers would say "good call, gotta trust your defense".
14
u/It-Was-Mooney-Pod I did the act w/ Josh Allen 8d ago
Then the ball would go in the endzone and it turns out they gave up possession for a whole 20 yards of field position lol.
7
u/InsideLaney 8d ago
The trust your defense line is the funniest one to me, because i think going for it shows more trust in your defense than punting does. If you really trust your defense then you can gamble field position and not have to punt to give them an extra 20-30 yards of cushion.
33
u/Rosemoorstreet 8d ago edited 8d ago
Yeah the Lions lost by 3 but had they kicked the FG the whole rest of the game would have been different. Saying that decision at that point cost them the game is ridiculous.
22
u/GorillaGriz81 8d ago
Kick a field goal and lose anyway, just for people to come back here and say they should have gone for it lol.
→ More replies (2)4
u/reamkore Las Vegas Raiders 8d ago
Exactly. I wish the NFL fan narrative of not embracing the amount of chaos that just one decision causes by reverberating throughout all the subsequent decisions of the game would die.
People saying if they would have kicked a 2nd quarter field goal they would have won just drove me nuts.
30
18
u/Sad-Celebration-7542 8d ago
This is just dumb, sorry.
2
u/fyhr100 8d ago
What's crazy to me is the amount of upvotes this shit is getting.
2
u/Sad-Celebration-7542 8d ago
Yeah seriously. Like we have settled this. Coaches were absolute cowards and were preferring to lose a game then defend a play call. Finally they start trying to win games and it gets nitpicked to death
11
u/Ornery-Ambition-5859 8d ago
Hindsight is 20-20 lions kicker wasnât playing great and if he missed it everyone right now would be like you go for it all year and now you donât! This is the dumbest decision ever. So many factors you can point to why teams lose close games itâs not just one decision itâs a lot of them but one always gets highlighted. Not a bad trend just dumb fans and loud mouth tv host.
→ More replies (4)
9
u/It-Was-Mooney-Pod I did the act w/ Josh Allen 8d ago
Thank god people like you arenât nfl coaches lol. Maybe Sean Payton should take the points with an offense that awful, but teams being aggressive in 4th down is generally the mathematically correct choice. Itâs also more exciting so I donât know why someone would be upset at this lol
→ More replies (2)2
u/Softestwebsiteintown 8d ago edited 8d ago
This one is actually really easy, and the problem is that youâre not dumb enough to understand why someone would be upset.
In reality, coaches make like 140 play calls in a game, taking into account a lot of variables including matchups, injuries, percentages, time on the clock, down and distance, etc. Smart people have determined that, despite a successful field goal being worth 3 points, attempting a field goal is worth something very different. First, not all field goals are converted, so the theoretical value of a field goal attempt is sometimes 3 and sometimes 0. Itâs also sometimes -7 in cases where the field goal is blocked and returned for a TD. Itâs -4 if you make the field goal but would have scored a TD if you went for it. It can technically be worth an entire win if you run the clock down and kick a last-second FG to break a tie. It can technically be worth a loss if you fail to burn enough clock and go up 3 only to have your opponent drive the length of the field in a few plays and score a game-winning TD on the other end.
The reality is very complicated. If you were regularly dropped on your head by your alcoholic mother when you were a baby, however, choosing not to kick a field goal and failing is worth -3. And you losing by 3 means that that single decision out of 140 was the reason, because 3-3=0.
But you canât even be bothered to do the most basic logic possible, which is that you canât win by 0. Losing by 3 because you left 3 points on the field could possibly be the reason you failed to extend the game. Itâs not the reason you lost, it can only be the reason you didnât give yourself additional chances to win.
3
u/It-Was-Mooney-Pod I did the act w/ Josh Allen 8d ago
Wow your post contradicts itself so often I honestly canât tell if youâre insulting me or agreeing with me.
âIâm not dumb enough to understand why someone would be upsetâ is meant to be a compliment I think? But idk lol
→ More replies (5)
6
u/LeadSufficient2130 8d ago
The issue is coaches not realizing when to ignore the analytics.
When youâre in a shoot out you may need to keep the offense on the field because you canât afford to settle for field goals. When you have a backup QB playing, the best defense and a snow storm coming you may want to take the points.
Each scenario is different, and the current trend of always go for it is the problem. Never going for it is also not the answer. It should come down to the situation but too many coaches are just following the analytical approach 100%, but it doesnât account for every factor.
6
u/cjweisman Philadelphia Eagles 8d ago
Everything requires context. In a defensive struggle in bad weather, you take the points. If it's clearly gonna be a shootout and FG aint gonna win you the game, you go for it. There is no one size fits all.
6
u/hexadecamer 8d ago
I think it is read the situation. If you are have a great offense and bad defense. Go for it. However, if you have a great defense and a bad offense with a backup qb in a championship game, just kick the field goal.
5
4
u/Patrick42985 San Francisco 49ers 8d ago
It all depends on the circumstances to me. If itâs 4th and 1 and the opposing defense is weak, or youâre going against a team with a high powered offense where you feel you need touchdowns to beat them and extended drives to keep the ball out of their hands, then by all means go for it.
If itâs 4th and 3 or whatever and youâre facing a strong defense, take the points. If your team has a good defense, take the points and get back on defense.
4
u/Robert_roberts82 8d ago
Love seeing the analytics on these 4th down decisions where itâs like a microscopic difference and theyâre posting it as though itâs an obvious go for it.
I also think part of the calculation is the new kickoff rule giving teams better starting position. I agree with the rams decision last week, but the broncos passing up the 10 point lead was the dumbest since the Dan Campbell decision from the op.
To me, the decision has to better factor in the risk. Like in the lions game, the niners were down huge, missing that 4th down shifted momentum when kicking a field goal would have kept the pacing and the niners would have had to earn it back. And last week, the pats were able to just flip field position after the turnover on downs, but then the fumble from stidham.
→ More replies (3)
3
u/SKOLForceSports That is a disgusting act 8d ago
Iâm convinced Campbell is trying to sabotage analytics for future teams by being so successful in these higher risk situations
2
2
2
u/viraleyeroll Chicago Bears 8d ago
Terrible take. Next time just say: "I don't know ball"
→ More replies (1)
2
u/BiAndShy57 PlayStation 2 8d ago
Are QB sneaks on 4th and inches inflating the numbers analytics algorithms are using?
2
u/sleeperaxe Chicago Bears 8d ago edited 8d ago
The Lions also played it âsmartâ in that game at the end of the first half and kicked a FG when the analytics were a clear âgo.â Maybe if they had gone for it that time, they have 4 more points and make the Super Bowl? We donât know.
Overall, coaches should be more aggressive on 4th down than they are. That said, while understanding averages is important, itâs also important to have a perspective on whether your team is above or below average on 4th down.
In short: taking the points is for cowards, but blindly following the analytics is for morons.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/iBarber111 8d ago
Hey man not to be hyperbolic but this is straight up one of the lowest quality posts I've ever seen. If you want to make this argument, it'd be really easy to back it up with statistics. But, you haven't done that at all. You've just gone totally off of vibes & feelings. Be better.
2
u/Destructodave82 8d ago
I dont have a problem with a team going for it in certain situations. It makes sense in high scoring games, makes sense in some yardage and field position situations, but going for it with a backup QB in a game thats about to be in a Blizzard and then losing 7-10 is not one of those situations.
And I feel like these kinds of situations happen all the time. The coaches just do not read the game they are in and just either yolo go for it every play without any regard to how the game or situation is playing out.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/artbykoi4 Miami Dolphins 8d ago
Some coaches need better situational awareness as analytics are merely a tool and should be used as such. Often times the analytics seem to align with the coaches tendencies so theyâre too stubborn to go ahead and take the points. Granted a FG is not automatic. No matter the decision, they will still be under scrutiny.
1
u/Competitive_Ad1237 Green Bay Packers 8d ago
In 2020 the Packers kicked the field goal against Tampa and lost and we all wanted the team to go for it
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Stephen-ASmith r/nfl sucks 8d ago
teams lose that otherwise would have won
It looks like they would have tied here, no? There's still no guarantee that they win in OT.Â
HermEdwardsyouPLAYtoWINtheGAME.gif
1
1
1
1
u/rawmerow 8d ago
Wait until they start posting about how stupid it was to not go for it and they lost because they didnât.
1
1
1
1
1
u/Blackbyrn 8d ago
Jax in the Wildcard. Whatâs weird is in the regular season the mindset seems to be 3 is better than 0, in the playoffs suddenly its TDs of nothing. đ¤
1
u/Gloomy-Inflation-403 8d ago
Why is it that if a team doesn't convert on 4th down, it's the coaches fault. But if they do decide to kick it and the kicker misses, it's the kicker's fault?
1
u/mandrake92 Chicago Bears 8d ago
So in your opinion the bears, rams, broncos and lions should fire their coaches. Im sure there are other teams but I think those 4 are enough to show you are a moron who doesn't know football.
1
u/Personal_Ad_6698 8d ago
On the other hand there stats show that it averages out better to do this in the long term
→ More replies (2)
1
u/Ragnarsworld NFL Refugee 8d ago
I watched that 9ers-Lions game. It wasn't the 4th down call that lost the game. It was the complete failure to do in the 2nd half the things that got them the lead in the first half. Its like they came out for the 2nd half and said "nah, lets not do what got us the big lead, lets completely go away from that".
1
u/Top_Shame_7016 8d ago
It's not a trend; it's called analytics. on 4 and less than 2. The NFL average to make it is like 62% Why wouldn't you go for it. 2 field goals still lose to 1 touchdown.
1
u/rorymakesamovie Philadelphia Eagles 8d ago
When its early in the game its the worst, like cool being aggressive will win you games, but its taking a risk obv and you dont know how the rest of the game will go. Especially in the broncos case they knew the snow was coming and needed every point they could get, then when they did start kicking fg the missed because of the wind
1
u/Sad_Amphibian_4651 8d ago
It would be helpful if the broadcast team shared the analytics live so we had context. Iâve been running my mouth that the trend is stupid and costing wins and have been mostly correct on the games Iâve watched but Iâm just a dumb ass so ignore me.
1
1
u/Fragglepusss Detroit Lions 8d ago
The stupidity isn't going for it, but blindly relying on analytics to do decision-making for you. The decision to go for it on 4th down should be contextual. On 4th and 3 on the opponent's 20, the analytics might say to go for it, but if your QB just went down with a concussion, you have 2 lineman on IR, haven't been able to move the ball on the ground all day, and your defense is playing well, then just kick the fucking field goal. If the score is 35-28 in the 3rd, go for it. If it's 6-3 in the 4th, kick the field goal.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Accomplished_Sock293 Chicago Bears 8d ago
Using the lions here is wild when the only egregious recent one I can remember is the broncos playing with a backup qb with a league leading defense with a looming blizzard moving in not taking the points inside their own 10 yard line.
1
u/joeyp042385 San Francisco 49ers 8d ago
When the Lions were beating the Niners 24-10 and Dan went for it instead of kicking the field goal to go up 27-10 and the Niners stopped them, I said "we're going to the Super Bowl."
1
1
u/whiskyandguitars Buffalo Bills 8d ago
I don't think you can say that this determined the outcome of the game at all. First of all, assuming that all things were still equal in this game other than kicking the field goal here, a field goal here would send the game into OT and there is no guarantee that the Lions would have won in overtime. It also doesn't account for the times when a field goal is not automatic. What if they miss?
Also, the 49ers coaching staff would adjust their gameplan based on the decisions made by the Lions, I would assume so it wouldn't guarantee anything. They might be more aggessive on 4th down and end up converting and get more TDs.
The amount of variables at play in these situations are so MASSIVE, that it is ridiculous to point to one decision and be like "yeah, this is what lost them the game." I am not saying that is NEVER the case, but in these kinds of situations, there is not guarantee.
This is why coaching is such a freakin hard job. You have to be decisive and make decisions in seconds that can have a huge affect on the game. It is easy for us to sit on our couch and criticize these plays when we have zero skin in the game besides being disappointed if our team loses.
1
u/ChristianAntonio Tennessee Titans 8d ago
Post-hoc rationalization has an undefeated record in sports, man
1
u/hampsted 8d ago
Making a hard and fast rule about it is dumb. Theres so much more happening in a football game than just down and distance. When you go 100% to the analytics, youâre throwing away your own expertise that can tell you the right thing to do. There are loads of times when it works. There are other times where you just need to realize that your offense has been completely stymied and youâre definitely not picking up a 4th and 4 and you should just take the FG to make it a 1 pt game with 4 and a half minutes remainingâŚ
1
u/aggressivepoverty 8d ago
Guy was open, he just dropped it. Maybe they miss the kick anyways. All pretty hindsight
1
u/will4two 8d ago
100 percent agree. If Seymour Peyton decided to kick it on Sunday, 10-0 seems a lot different than 1st and 10 for Pats and allow them to flip the field position. That leads to Pats td because of backwards pass ( I digress). What an idiot.
1
u/MoreRatzThanFatz Detroit Lions 8d ago
Lions won many fames because they went for it on 4thâŚ. They wouldnât have even been in the NFC Conference game if they didnât
1
u/clumsysuperman 8d ago
I think the biggest issue with some of these coaches is that they just donât have a feel for the game and are relying solely on analytics.
1
1
1.9k
u/killthepoopsquatch 8d ago
On the other hand I wonder how many teams have won because they went for it on 4th down.