Giants-Redskins game has now featured not one but two plays where offenses faced fourth and short in opposition territory, elected to try field goals, and then . . . missed the field goal. The Redskins' version of this was especially egregious since it was fourth and one and they were down thirteen points. Attempting longish field goals when you could be going for shortish fourth down conversions really doesn't seem to me to make much sense outside of specialized end-of-game situations; a missed field goal is such a bad outcome in terms of field positions that I'm not even sure this qualifies as playing it safe.
« Partition? | Main | Blast From the Past »
Going for It
08 Oct 2006 03:14 pm
Comments (11)
The Redskins' version was especially especially egregious because, in addition to what you mentioned, on 3rd-and-1 they threw, then kicked the field goal. If they had gone for it by running up the gut twice in a row, there is no doubt in my mind they'd have made it. Two consecutive one-yard downs are next to automatic.
Yeah... and they were down by 13. A touchdown makes it a one-possession game for victory. A field goal leaves it a two-possession game, and FG-TD sends the game into overtime.
On the other hand, the 49ers, who have been running at will on the Raiders all day, twice went for it on 4th and inches and were twice denied. After both stops, the Raiders drove down the field and scored.
If the Niners had "settled" for those chip shot field goals, the score at the half would be 13-3, Niners instead of 13-7, Raiders.
Samba, I think that's a different situation. As much as it has to be annoying to settle for a field goal from "chip shot" distance, it's still nearly 100% on points. If it's close and/or early, that's a pretty good percentage. But a field goal of more than 40 yards is closer to 65% on points. Again, if it's close or you're winning, kick the field goal. But if you're at 4th-and-one while down two scores after your opponent had just run an 8-minute touchdown drive? I think you have to go for it in that scenario.
Well the Jets went (unsuccessfully) for a couple of fourth-down conversions near the end of the game against Jacksonville. Of course, they were getting absolutely slaughtered at the time, so it was not much of a risk.
Somebody did a quantitative study of these types of situations, which I saw on the web several months ago.
http://www.ams.org/mathmedia/archive/11-2002-media.html
Ah yes, another convert to Gregg Easterbrook's _Tuesday Morning Quarterback_. Resistance is futile.
The outcome of a missed field goal is no different from the outcome of a failed 4th down attempt in terms of field position. (ok there is a difference of 7 yards but still). However the positive outcome of a field goal attempt is 3 points whereas the positive outcome of a 4th down try is 1 or 2 yards and another set of downs. Four different games were decided by 3 points or less this week. Only one game was decided by 4-7 points. I agree that there are times that coaches should go for it, but my feeling is that it should be like going for a 2 point conversion. There should be a chart with the field position and point differencial that helps determine when going for it makes the most sense.
That said, the percentage of converted 4th downs in the NFL is 57% (Wash is 0 for 1)in 2006 and John Hall has a career field goal percentage of 56% from 40+ yards. The chances of success were equal. Down by 13 in the 4th quarter, I would go for it outside the 30 yard line.
Matt, do I remember you saying something about becoming a Redskins fan since you'll probably be in Washington for a while?
Cuz that's lame.
The Redskins conservatism is your punishemnt for your betrayal of whatever team you rooted for before.
To the point: As a general rule, my criticism of going for it and failing when facing fourth and less than three in your opponents territory is that , well, actually I don't have one. I love aggressive, go-for-the-throat football. As a Chargers fan, I don't get to see it much, although tonight was a sweet, sweet, exception. It didn't quite erase the sting of the Padres feeble play, but I'll take what I can get.
Well the Jets went (unsuccessfully) for a couple of fourth-down conversions near the end of the game against Jacksonville. Of course, they were getting absolutely slaughtered at the time, so it was not much of a risk.
As I mentioned as an aside on one of the basketball threads, the Jets also went for it two weeks ago against Indy on 4th and goal from the two-yard line. They didn't make it, and lost the game by three points (so, obviously the field goal would have tied it, if everything else had been the same).
Mangini (the coach) got absolutely roasted by the media for an entire week afterwards.
I think part of the problem here is that, even if a coach may be willing to experiment, he's subject to an ignorant media, who will kill him for unsuccessful attempts. Thus, even if the coach is marginally more successful, he may actually be at more risk of being fired, because the people doing the firing are listening to the media...
Comments closed October 22, 2006.
| 
Heads in the Sand
unbelievable.
First your sage advice on Middle East policy is ignored by the White House.
And now your advice on football strategy gets the cold shoulder.
I blame it on George Allen's lingering ill effects. I mean, when Nixon sent in a play they ran it, didn't they? IOKIYAR indeed!
Posted by kid bitzer | October 8, 2006 3:57 PM