@SweetSummerChild gonna be real busy
1 Like
Pretty shocking actually. Usually the Talibâs only shoot themselves or their own family members.
Heâll always be J.J. Metcalfâs-Bitch to me.
1 Like
well obviously all of that blew up in their face last season so this season ought to be interesting if they double down or not
Does that actually make sense? Like the line at which they go for it is where itâs 1% better than punting or whatever. Does it make sense to be like âletâs call a play that will just sneak into the go for it zoneâ, versus just calling a play to try to get a first down and punting if you donât get it? It just seems like thatâs binary thinking imposed on what is actually a continuum of play outcomes.
I would imagine by now that most teams have an analytics department.
Of course, some coaches are probably not going fully by them because lol math nerds
No, youâre right. It doesnât make sense at all.
Itâs like some poker player betting enough that heâs pot committed if his opponent shoves. OK, obviously you have to call now, but maybe that first bet wasnât the best play.
2 Likes
My high school football coach played college football with Ray Guy. He used to tell us âI saw Ray Guy punt the ball 98 yards!â. It became a meme.
I guess it makes sense to the extent that punting from a little further down the field in a spot like that is not any better. So if your go for it line is 4 yards from scrimmage for example, it makes no sense to run a play that might gain 3 yards. Itâs just you have to recognize that making 4 yards is barely better than making 0 yards.
Backup qbâs learning how to punt should be a future innovation. Blockchains nicely.
I think itâs different than your poker example as you donât control exactly how many yards a play will get. So say itâs 3-and-6 and you know if you get 2 yards you will go on 4th. That doesnât mean you call a 2-yard play, but it means that you should be more willing to call a run - knowing that at long as you get at least 2 yards youâll get to go for it on 4th.
I think it also helps on 3rd and long knowing how much depth you need on your routes. Obviously you hope for YAC, but if you need seven to be able to go for it, calling 5 yard routes is probably a bad move vs 7+ yard routes.
The final spot where I think it helps is letting the QB know when he should throw away vs. try to hero ball and pick up some yards. This seems especially true if you have a QB that can run. If he needs at least 5, probably better for him to just throw it away than try to break a few tackles and run for it. Similarly, donât force a throw into tight coverage where even if completed youâd be punting on 4th.
Yea my poker example wasnât great (they never are, has there ever been a good poker metaphor??) but what Iâm trying to say is that their thought process can lead to suboptimal combinations of decisions even if the later decision is correct.
âBeing able to go for itâ is not actually a statement about the value of that position, itâs just an acknowledgement that going for it is slightly more valuable than punting. To use the route depth example, my guess is that in a 3rd and 10 situation, running 10.5-yd routes and punting if you donât get it is a better combination than running 7-yd routes so you can make a marginal go-for-it decision on 4th down. It feels like theyâre being too clever, trying to put themselves in a position to go for a first down rather than just⌠going for a first down.
1 Like
punters and quarterbacks have different shoes
but tom tupa did it in a game for the Jets
Iâm saying that qbâs at lower levels should learn how to punt.
When you look at the evolution of 4th down decision making, having a punter that can pass with even a modicum of efficiency seems like the next step.
Weâve seen a bit of it in college with qbâs that can pooch punt.
Did Danny white change shoes on fourth down?
Yeah I think the idea is: In the first 3 quarters or whenever itâs still anyoneâs game, you mostly call your 3rd down plays trying to get the full distance, but still be willing to re-evaluate on 4th if you gain yardage but come up short.
Late in the game when youâre trailing (but not necessarily even when youâre in do-or-die territory), you can think about your 3rd down calls more in terms of giving you makeable 4th downs.
And of course when youâre up 2+ scores late, a lot of it goes out the window because you just want to trade yardage for time, sure you should still be aggressive on most 4th and <1 but outside of that youâd mostly rather make your opponent go another 40 yards.
That is a good point. Unless you know what to do with the information it could easily lead to bad decisions.
I do wonder in your example if there are exploitable tendencies from the defense in terms of defending to stop the first. On 3rd and 10 - if the defenders guard the first down marker, can you much easier pick up 8-9 yards. Or on 3rd and 6, if defense is sending out pass package can you exploit with runs that while not likely to pick up first, but put you in good spot on 4th.
Iâd hope that the Chargers are doing more with this data than that quote - as that would be just pure level 1 thinking as opposed to really using the information.