Punting on fourth down is for chumps

[Brian the Automator]

link

 

A high school coach in Arkansas determined that NEVER punting statistically gives you the best chance to win. I figured this would appeal to the crowd here, for sure.

[SeriesFinale]

TMQ has been pushing this for years, given the average yardage pick-up in an NFL game, and he figures it's only a matter of time until some NFL coach tries this for at least one game.

[DHonks]

I've figured that some times punting could be good...like on your own 1-40 yard lines. But I also figure that if the expected value of a 2 point conversion is over 1 point, then teams should be going for 2 points nearly every time. I try these approaches in my PS2 dynasties, but I doubt NFL teams will try them.

[pitchleague]

yes, I've read this on TMQ also for at least 2 years. Heck, even Mr. TMQ, Gregg Easterbrook, did it with his son's jr. high football team this season. Needless to say, they won their "league" pretty handily. Not saying it had anything to do with the lack of punts but he thought it played a role, keeping his defense a bit more fresher each game because his offensive possessions were each longer.

[GAME05]

thing is, we've got a huge variable in this, in that this high school team doesn't fit the typical population (of football teams, that is). this one had a college-recruited QB and a seemingly great offense. This is akin to trying the experiment with the Martz-era Rams, having it work, then thinking it could apply to all teams.

 

we're talking about high school sports, where one exceptional player really does make a difference. if Ron Dayne's high-school team decided to have him run the ball every single down, i'm sure they would have won a whole lot of games, too, but it's not a strategy that would work of typical teams.

[JoeHova]

I've been not punting in Madden since 1988. In all the years I've played it, I've probably punted 10 times total. I don't think I punted one time in Tecmo Bowl. I would definitely do that if I coached an actual team too, I hope it catches on.

[T B0NE 10]

Well it depends what kind of team you have.....especially defense

[cwolf2012]

If your offense is very good, this strategy works. If your punter is bad, this strategy is pretty good. If your defense is awful, this is definitely a good strat. If your offense is mediocre, and your defense is really good, then it may be a wash.

 

I would expect more high schools and more colleges to start adapting this before the pros. The only offenses I've seen in the pros good enough to try this are the Rams circa late 1990s-early 2000s and New England last year. In fact, you could see it in action last year when NE went for a much larger % of fourth downs than other teams.

[davego]

An idea that seems sound, based upon the article. However, the college or pro coach that tried to put this practice in place may not survive beyond one game. Fans and media would cause a near riot...might be amusing to see.

[burniebrewer]

Well it depends what kind of team you have....

Or what kind of punter you have. I'm sure you Packer fans understand this all too well.

[Crewin06]

I don't think never punting would work. Never punting if you have less than 5 yards to on 4th down might work. However 4th and 20 on your own 10 I don't care who you are you should punt.

[homer]

There was a segment on one of the NFL pre game shows a long time ago about this very subject. Some math professor was interviewed and then summarily whipped by the talking heads.

[temke]

shouldnt this be on the football board? http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Fatter than Joey]

I think it would work as well -- provided that a coach would play 3rd down knowing that they were going to go for it on 4th down... i.e., if it is 3rd and 10, perhaps run a 5-8 yard play so the 4th down is more manageable.

 

On the same token, I think (especially in NCAA) teams should go for 2 after scoring a TD on every possession. I think overall you would end up scoring more points as well.

[Brian the Automator]

shouldnt this be on the football board? http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

It didn't fit in any of the categories on LL, so it would have gone in the Off-Topic forum if LL had a separate one.

[Fatter than Joey]

it's more a stats/probability dilemma anyway.

[davego]

Lets just go to 3 downs like the CFL. That would change things up.

[TooLiveBrew]

There was a segment on one of the NFL pre game shows a long time ago about this very subject. Some math professor was interviewed and then summarily whipped by the talking heads.

 

I remember that too, homer. What do mathematicians know about probabilities anyway?!

[NeedMoreFans]

I'm a big fan of going for it when a team is between their own 45 and their PK's field goal range (opponent's 30-35 for a lot of kickers). If team A has the ball at team B's 40, why punt? Chances are the punt will go into the end zone, resulting in a touch back, and a net gain of 20 yards. I really believe that most teams should go for it on 4th when it's 4th and 7 or less (average NFL play is over 6 yards per play).

[Brian the Automator]

There was a segment on one of the NFL pre game shows a long time ago about this very subject. Some math professor was interviewed and then summarily whipped by the talking heads.

 

I remember that too, homer. What do mathematicians know about probabilities anyway?!

I can just picture Terry Bradshaw giving one of those Poindexters a noogie.

[ttsather]

While I have always enjoyed Easterbrook's mockery of coach-protective strategies, using average gain per down to prove his point is oversimplified. One would have to analyze not only the probability of conversion by the offense and the subsequent increase in expected scoring, but the expected-points-allowed based on a turnover-on-downs in a given position on the field, and contrast that with expected-points-allowed of giving the ball away at some averaged distance down the field (however far your punter kicks). The coach in the article seems to recognize this, although he's using college stats and is guessing on his team's ability to convert.

 

It can be assumed that expected-points-allowed increases on turnovers-on-downs as one is closer to one's own endzone (and probably sees a major jump inside some point because of average FG ranges). In addition, the increase in expected scoring of the offense should they convert on 4th down is less and less as you get closer to your own end zone (you have more field to go, and more potential 4th down situations). It would get particularly bad when your punter's dropback is shortened by being in the endzone. And this is all before taking into account the actual situation of the 4th down. (4th and 1? 4th and 10?)

 

If you chose some arbitrary yardage, say 4th and 5 or less, you could in theory determine where on the field the threshold is for making it worth it to go on 4th down. This is pretty much what the HS coach in the article tries to establish. When comparing levels of competition, I would imagine that the threshold is closer to the end zone in HS and further away in the NFL mostly given quality of kickers and passing offenses. So, this at least nominally supports Easterbrook's using of the oversimplified theory at his lower level of competition.

 

Anyway, the larger points are the ones that have already been made in this thread. Depends on the offense, depends on the defense, depends on the punter.