Situational Football: The "book" needs to go

[JohnnyLV]

I have been wanting to say this for a while. The NFL "book" on when to go for 4th down and when to punt needs to completely change.

We do not live in a world of 10-9 scores any more but NFL coaches play like they do.

Especially at the end of games coaches tend to almost guarantee they will lose by punting and not going for it on 4th down.

Take tonights game:

Cin 2:47 left 2 TO, 4th and 5 13 yard line

They PUNT

Punting gives them almost no chance to win! 

Think about it:

If they punt, the clock stops three times, barring an incomplete pass. They are playing against one of the best offenses in the NFL.  Pittsiburgh is likely to get the ball around their 40 so only 30 uards or so for FG range. So to win in this scenario, they need to stop Pittsburgh within 3-5 downs MAX, then field a punt very deep in their endzone, and then go 55 yards or so in less than 2 mins and make a FG. That is the BEST possible scenario. How often will a Pittsburgh team with all their weapons not get at least a first down in that situation, and probably 2. 2 first downs and BEST scenario is an OT win which probably requires a missed FG as well.

The odds of them winning in that situation has to be less than 20%, maybe quite a bit less. So punting is less than 20% winning percentage.

Now lets say they go for it. 4th and 5 is probably a 1 in 3 proposition, but you know Pittsburgh will all out blitz so you should have a play to counteract that so in this situation it is probably more likely that that. It also puts a lot of pressure on Pitt. They likely burn the one TO they have to make the right defensive call, since they would never expect you to go for it.

Scenario 1: You fail. Pittsburgh has the ball with 2:42 left or so on your 13. That are almost guaranteed to score. But, so what. You are actually in much better chance to win the game. Probably 80% of the time, Pittsburgh will score within the first 3 plays. The threat of all time going away is not really there. If you stop them they may get a FG, maybe you get a sack or a holding penalty or both and the FG is missed but you will get the ball back with about 2 mins to play to score a tying FG or touchdown which is not all that unlikely to do, especially if you survive the first couple all out blitzes you know you will face.  Even if they score in the first 2 plays, you still have probably 2:20 left, 2 TOs and 2 minute warning to score a tying touchdown which is probably greater than 20% chance in today's NFL.

Scenario 2: You make it. Pittsburgh has 1 TO. Now they are really up against the clock. They have to use their TO, the 2 min warning will be gone, and your field position will be worse than if Cin had punted, even if Cin kneeled  for 3 downs. Which they won't.

If you make it now Cin controls the game. A couple first downs and worst case scenario is probably OT. But a couple good plays, and you can be in FG position with no time left for Pitt. There are many more good scenarios here than bad ones for Cin to have a chance to win the game.

I am not a statistician, but it is clear if you go for it, you will win more often that you lose.

But NFL coaches will never do it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[PS17]

This is a great read on a (highly successful) coach who never punts: 

https://www.si.com/college-football/2015/09/09/why-college-football-coach-should-adopt-no-punt-always-onside-kick-philosophy

Also, I remember when Belichick got destroyed for going for it on 4th and 2 against Indy in 2009. Even in hindsight I think he made the right call. Manning was gonna lead the Colts to a score whether it was from 30 yards out or 70 -- their offense was rolling in the fourth quarter.

Telling Tom Brady to pick up two yards is probably an 80% sure bet and the game is over. 

[Hael]

Analytics teams have done a lot of work on this, and the current consensus is that most teams punt a little too much.  However the percentages are often very, very close and sometimes its better to punt, it depends on the situation.

 

[jgb]

you play to win the game

[PCP63]

I'm a fan of punting far less than conventional wisdom. We convert more than 50% of the time. It helps our offense greatly, and puts loads of pressure on the defense. I don't have to worry about second and long in four-down football. We also go for two every time.

[JohnnyLV]

7 hours ago, jgb said:

you play to win the game

Exactly. Punting in that situation is not playing to win the game. Coaches are too afraid of the backlash though.

[DMan77]

11 hours ago, PS17 said:

This is a great read on a (highly successful) coach who never punts: 

https://www.si.com/college-football/2015/09/09/why-college-football-coach-should-adopt-no-punt-always-onside-kick-philosophy

Also, I remember when Belichick got destroyed for going for it on 4th and 2 against Indy in 2009. Even in hindsight I think he made the right call. Manning was gonna lead the Colts to a score whether it was from 30 yards out or 70 -- their offense was rolling in the fourth quarter.

Telling Tom Brady to pick up two yards is probably an 80% sure bet and the game is over. 

I'm not sure if it was this season or another one, but there was a time when the Pats seemed to convert pretty much every 3rd/4th down short yardage situation with that little Brady up the middle sneak play... I remember looking at my Dad and saying "Why do they ever punt?"... Then that 4 and 2 stop happened and I said "Ahhh now I get it".

I think eventually a coach will come along who goes against the grain more often than not.

[bla bla bla]

With the ways the rules help offenses I think we will eventually see teams go for the first down all 4 plays unless they are inside their own 30 yard line. If you feel like the other team will at least get a field goal on their next possession regardless of starting field position then it would really be in your teams best interest.

If the average rush is 4 YPC and the average pass is 7 YPA and most QBs can complete 60% of their passes, it seems reasonable that with 4 plays most teams should get the 1st down. Punting is no different than buying insurance, you buy it for the "what if" in this case it would be punting COULD prevent a score but if teams consistently get at least a field goal regardless of field position then you gamble on your defense just trying to prevent a TD which arguably could be easier if you convert a 4th down because they get at least 3 more plays of extra rest.

[Jetster]

Well, this is all good & fine if you have a good Oline! The Jets failed on not only 3rd & short vs the Falcons at home but also a bunch of 2nd & shorts to set up those 3rd & shorts. I believe we failed on short yardage (2 yards or under) 7 f*cking times in that game. Convert 3 of them we probably win that game & are still in the playoff hunt.

But in the ops scenario, yes, no brainer to go for that on 4th & 5 based on time left, TOs, Steelers potent offense & all of the odds against you stopping them from getting in FG range.

[UnitedWhofans]

It depends on the situation really.

[Cornfed]

Interesting post and discussion by the OP. Reminds me of this article I remember reading way back (apparently almost 14 years ago):

Ideas & Trends: Super Bowl Economics; Incremental Analysis, With Two Yards to Go

Talks of an academic paper that summarized some analysis suggesting that teams don't go for it often enough. Bill Belichick is mentioned all around.

 

[Jet_Engine1]

When you're down 10+ in the fourth quarter, stop running Off Tackle. You're behind. You're losing. Your attempt to "establish the run" has failed or didnt matter. You arent going to "keep them honest" by handing off, because any defensive coordinator worth a sh*t playing with a double digit lead is letting slip the dogs of war. The book is old. Its for dummies. Its why Bellichick has been drinking everyones milkshake for 16 years.