Rams vs Seahawks

[homer]

Rams just went for it on their own 42 on 4th and 1 up 2 with under 2 min left. QB sneak got the 1st down.

 

Ballsy move, McVay! Love it.

[trwi7]

Rams just went for it on their own 42 on 4th and 1 up 2 with under 2 min left. QB sneak got the 1st down.

 

Ballsy move, McVay! Love it.

 

I don't know why all teams don't do this. As long as you don't fumble the snap, it's almost impossible to not get 6 inches by just having your QB fall forward.

[homer]

Rams just went for it on their own 42 on 4th and 1 up 2 with under 2 min left. QB sneak got the 1st down.

 

Ballsy move, McVay! Love it.

 

I don't know why all teams don't do this. As long as you don't fumble the snap, it's almost impossible to not get 6 inches by just having your QB fall forward.

 

Teams don't go for it on 4th nearly enough in general. Should probably never punt on the other side of the 50 in any 4th down and less than 5 to go but they almost always do and inevitably gain like 25 yards of field.

[trwi7]

Teams don't go for it on 4th nearly enough in general. Should probably never punt on the other side of the 50 in any 4th down and less than 5 to go

 

It was so incredibly frustrating watching Paul Chryst do this three times in the 4th quarter a couple weeks ago against Iowa.

[Point Beer Is Best]

Not to derail, but another thing that won praise from the emerging football analytics school of thought was a decision to go for two by the Eagles. Down 14 but still in the 3Q (I think), the Eagles scored a TD. Rather than going with the conventional PAT kick, they went for two (which carries an assumed probability for success of 50%)

 

Let's say the score was 21-7 (14 point deficit). The trailing team scores a TD and goes for two.

 

* If successful, they now trail only by 6 points. If their defense holds the opponent (or if the scoring is a back and forth seesaw battle matching them point for point), they now only need to score a TD and kick the much easier to convert PAT kick to win the game. You are playing for the win rather than the tie by shifting the more risky attempt (2 point conversion) to earlier in the game while you have more time on the clock to score more points.

 

* If unsuccessful, they still trail by one score (8 points) and would have another 50/50 shot to tie the game at the end.

 

Of course, going for 2 early in the game and ultimately losing by 2 points because neither attempt was successful is the type of stuff that gets coaches fired if they don't have a progressive-minded owner/GM backing them.

[homer]

yeah some of the analytics based decision making in football is pretty crazy compared to convention and if it caught hold and went mainstream would, IMO, make the game a lot more exciting. I think surprise onside kicks have 60% chance of success for example. The other one that goes against "logic" is when you are up three when it's late in the 4th quarter (say under 2 min) and on 4th down and short you could kick the FG to go up 6. Advanced analytics says go for the TD. You'd think it's easier to keep a team out of the end zone to prevent a loss than keeping them from kicking a field goal to tie. But stats say otherwise. The theory is that teams go for broke on offense when down 6 and end up scoring a TD to win more often than not. Teams down three play for the tie.

[Fear The Chorizo]

yeah some of the analytics based decision making in football is pretty crazy compared to convention and if it caught hold and went mainstream would, IMO, make the game a lot more exciting. I think surprise onside kicks have 60% chance of success for example. The other one that goes against "logic" is when you are up three when it's late in the 4th quarter (say under 2 min) and on 4th down and short you could kick the FG to go up 6. Advanced analytics says go for the TD. You'd think it's easier to keep a team out of the end zone to prevent a loss than keeping them from kicking a field goal to tie. But stats say otherwise. The theory is that teams go for broke on offense when down 6 and end up scoring a TD to win more often than not. Teams down three play for the tie.

 

Some of the strategy has to line up with the opponent - I'd rather kick a field goal under 2 mins to go up 6 if it's Brett Hundley on the other sideline compared to Brady or Rodgers getting back on the field. But in today's NFL, there's alot of value in not putting the game in the hands of your defense and ending it by taking a knee regardless of opponent. Building on that, there may be a team in the next few years that just goes for 2 points every time they score a TD unless a late game situation warrants just a PAT. I feel like the Steelers flirted with that last year a bit after they moved the PAT distance back. Screw conventional wisdom, when you have the opportunity to score more points, an aggressive-minded coach should want to do so early and often.

 

I also think with how rules are being interpreted by officials, part of just about any offseason "QB school" or training regimen will become teaching QBs how to coax roughing penalty flags from officials - I'm sure this is already going on in most of the players' minds considering just how bad a penalty it is for the defense, much the way how receivers are coached to amplify the impact defender contact makes on them to get PI calls.

[homer]

Right not everything is going to work 100% of the time. There should be latitude based on the strengths/weaknesses of your own team and your opponent.

[FVBrewerFan]

Rams just went for it on their own 42 on 4th and 1 up 2 with under 2 min left. QB sneak got the 1st down.

 

Ballsy move, McVay! Love it.

 

Ballsy yes, but not smart. You're at the mercy of where the ref spots the ball, and no way is it a good idea to take a risk like that when you're winning the game with under two minutes. Practically giving it to them in FG range to win the game if you don't make it. Horrible risk/reward there.

 

One thing I think will change, going for it on 4th down all the time when you're in FG range in the 1st half. I can see a team(s) going for it far more often.

[stalton]

Rams just went for it on their own 42 on 4th and 1 up 2 with under 2 min left. QB sneak got the 1st down.

 

Ballsy move, McVay! Love it.

 

I don't know why all teams don't do this. As long as you don't fumble the snap, it's almost impossible to not get 6 inches by just having your QB fall forward.

 

Teams don't go for it on 4th nearly enough in general. Should probably never punt on the other side of the 50 in any 4th down and less than 5 to go but they almost always do and inevitably gain like 25 yards of field.

 

OT, but this reminds me of the pop warner team a few years back that never punted. Ever.

[trwi7]

Rams just went for it on their own 42 on 4th and 1 up 2 with under 2 min left. QB sneak got the 1st down.

 

Ballsy move, McVay! Love it.

 

Ballsy yes, but not smart. You're at the mercy of where the ref spots the ball, and no way is it a good idea to take a risk like that when you're winning the game with under two minutes. Practically giving it to them in FG range to win the game if you don't make it. Horrible risk/reward there.

 

One thing I think will change, going for it on 4th down all the time when you're in FG range in the 1st half. I can see a team(s) going for it far more often.

 

Counterpoint: Willingly giving the ball to an offense that only needed a FG to win and was averaging 6.8 yards per play (which would rank 3rd in the NFL) is not a smart play. I'll take my chances on my 6'4 QB being able to lean forward about 6 inches (because that was the actual length of the down, not a full yard) over giving the ball back to an offense that has roasted my defense all game long.