4th-and-1 Revisited (Saints Game)

[***PetrinoInAlbany***]

Had he had the stones to go for it and take an aggressive posture for a change, I would have lauded him for the decision no matter the outcome given that the Bills were down in a two possession game with the ball in their hands. You don't punt the ball in that situation to the Saints offense. As I said before, the D was on the field way too much and to make matters worse the injuries were mounting (Whitner and Scott) too.

 

DJ coaches scared, so I'm not at all surprised that he punted. I'll be seriously happy when he's finally gone!!

-

Making a foolish decision is not proof of one's "stones." I have "stones," yet I refrain from having sex with HIV-positive Haitan heroin-users... And I look before crossing the street.

-

Here's the article I was looking for. You'll have to copy-paste the link (below) to your browser... I never have any luck posting links. Anyway, the fellow is a statistician who did a statistical analysis for Football Outsider and - surprisingly - his analysis strongly supports going for it in MOST situations. HOWEVER, down in the conclusion section (way down, it's a long article) he states the situations in which you DO NOT go for it. The Bills-Saints scenario is described. It doesn't "prove" anything. but perhaps it's because Harvey ("Albany,NY") and I make our living doing statistical analysis that we respect arguments based upon mathematical empirical evidence more than emotional rushes to judgement based upon one's perception of what constitutes having "stones" . We argue our viewpoint as correct. And speaking of empirical evidence, it doesn't hurt that the overwhelming majority of NFL coaches agreed with us in the overwhelming majority of actual similar game situations...

 

The link: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-anal...6/never-punting

[26CornerBlitz]

-

Making a foolish decision is not proof of one's "stones." I have "stones," yet I refrain from having sex with HIV-positive Haitan heroin-users... And I look before crossing the street.

-

Here's the article I was looking for. You'll have to copy-paste the link (below) to your browser... I never have any luck posting links. Anyway, the fellow is a statistician who did a statistical analysis for Football Outsider and - surprisingly - his analysis strongly supports going for it in MOST situations. HOWEVER, down in the conclusion section (way down, it's a long article) he states the situations in which you DO NOT go for it. The Bills-Saints scenario is described. It doesn't "prove" anything. but perhaps it's because Harvey ("Albany,NY") and I make our living doing statistical analysis that we respect arguments based upon mathematical empirical evidence more than emotional rushes to judgement based upon one's perception of what constitutes having "stones" . We argue our viewpoint as correct. And speaking of empirical evidence, it doesn't hurt that the overwhelming majority of NFL coaches agreed with us in the overwhelming majority of actual similar game situations...

 

The link: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-anal...6/never-punting

 

As an engineer, I fully understand and respect your geekdom. However, football is not just about mathematical analysis and probability. It's also about emotion and understanding a scenario and the underlying message you send to your team that you can't trust them to make a play when it's most needed in a critical situation. Is it just a coincidence that the Bills folded like a cheap suit after the punt on 4th and 1??? I think not!!

 

With your scientific mind you know very well that the mathematics say DJ is a career loser! That's no probability, it's stone cold proven fact borne out by his career record in general and specifically against winning teams. His so called by the book, conventional, take no risks philosophy is why he didn't go for it. I never expected him to as he has shown himself to be a gutless and clueless loser who simply is not a leader of men!!.

 

Bottom Line: He is and always will be a LOSER!!!

 

Cheers

[Albany,n.y.]

To further poke a hole in your fallacy, all of your "examples" involve the team that was trailing both a) having the ball, and b) scoring to cut it to a 1 score game before "kicking it away."

 

On that monday night, after we went up 24-13, i guarantee and would bet anything that if belichick faced a 4th down on the drive (before the fumble), he would have gone for it. When you are down by multiple scores late in the game, you cannot afford to give away possessions. That is simply waving the white flag.

In the NE game the Patriots got the ball with 5:32 left, down 11 points. So BB had about 2 minutes less than when the Bills punted on Sunday. BB scored with 2:06 left and what did he do-he kicked off-why don't you consider that waving the white flag? If Belichick was confident enough to kick off at 2:06, why do you think he would have gone for it if he had 7.5 minutes left at his own 28? Just add the time up. His 1st drive started at 5:32 add 2:06 to that & you have 7:38-almost identical to when the Bills punted at 7:30. Obviously Belichick thought he could get the ball back in less than 2:06 AND HAVE TIME TO SCORE, so how can you conclude he wouldn't have punted and expected to get the ball back in virtually the same timeframe that the Patriots won the game with?

The Bills felt their only chance of winning was to stop the Saints-something they had done most of the game, rather than risk a 4th & 1 on their own 28 with an offense that had not been able to figure out Gregg Williams' D the entire game and even if they made it, would be 1st & 10 deep in their own territory having to score twice, when they hadn't put up a single point in the 1st 52.5 minutes of the game. So why not hand the ball back to his special teams, with Moorman punting and then the D, who had already forced a fumble, than try their impotent offense when it may end up putting the Saints in immediate field goal range with the wind? If the plan succeeds, they have the ball back with about 5 minutes to go and maybe better field position to start a drive. That would be about half a minute less than NE had to score twice, with a possiblity of not kicking off with 2:06 to go. Also if they do manage to get the onsides kick, they start a field goal drive close to midfield.

[mannc]

-

Making a foolish decision is not proof of one's "stones." I have "stones," yet I refrain from having sex with HIV-positive Haitan heroin-users... And I look before crossing the street.

-

Here's the article I was looking for. You'll have to copy-paste the link (below) to your browser... I never have any luck posting links. Anyway, the fellow is a statistician who did a statistical analysis for Football Outsider and - surprisingly - his analysis strongly supports going for it in MOST situations. HOWEVER, down in the conclusion section (way down, it's a long article) he states the situations in which you DO NOT go for it. The Bills-Saints scenario is described. It doesn't "prove" anything. but perhaps it's because Harvey ("Albany,NY") and I make our living doing statistical analysis that we respect arguments based upon mathematical empirical evidence more than emotional rushes to judgement based upon one's perception of what constitutes having "stones" . We argue our viewpoint as correct. And speaking of empirical evidence, it doesn't hurt that the overwhelming majority of NFL coaches agreed with us in the overwhelming majority of actual similar game situations...

 

The link: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-anal...6/never-punting

 

 

Thank you for posting this excellent (albeit dense) article.

 

Only problem is, it does not support your argument. The author suggests that a team should probably punt late in the game from its own territory, when protecting a lead, and the other team could win with a FG. That obviously was NOT the Bills-Saints scenario. The article strongly supports bold coaching decisions, not waiving the white flag like Jauron did on Sunday.

[Albany,n.y.]

As an engineer, I fully understand and respect your geekdom. However, football is not just about mathematical analysis and probability. It's also about emotion and understanding a scenario and the underlying message you send to your team that you can't trust them to make a play when it's most needed in a critical situation. Is it just a coincidence that the Bills folded like a cheap suit after the punt on 4th and 1??? I think not!!

 

With your scientific mind you know very well that the mathematics say DJ is a career loser! That's no probability, it's stone cold proven fact borne out by his career record in general and specifically against winning teams. His so called by the book, conventional, take no risks philosophy is why he didn't go for it. I never expected him to as he has shown himself to be a gutless and clueless loser who simply is not a leader of men!!.

 

Bottom Line: He is and always will be a LOSER!!!

 

Cheers

Obviously Jauron is a loser, just look at the record. Probabilities say no matter what he does, down 10 with 7:30 left, his team is not winning the game. Jauron's offense was playing losing football, so give the ball to them & they'll screw it up. Give the ball to the D & they screw it up.

Bottom line: Until Jauron is gone, the players will continue with their poor execution on both sides of the ball and most of his decisions will be wrong, no matter which decision he makes-Unless the NFL allows us to play Tampa every week and forces them to use Byron "Statue" Leftwich at QB.

[mannc]

In the NE game the Patriots got the ball with 5:32 left, down 11 points. So BB had about 2 minutes less than when the Bills punted on Sunday. BB scored with 2:06 left and what did he do-he kicked off-why don't you consider that waving the white flag? If Belichick was confident enough to kick off at 2:06, why do you think he would have gone for it if he had 7.5 minutes left at his own 28? Just add the time up. His 1st drive started at 5:32 add 2:06 to that & you have 7:38-almost identical to when the Bills punted at 7:30. Obviously Belichick thought he could get the ball back in less than 2:06 AND HAVE TIME TO SCORE, so how can you conclude he wouldn't have punted and expected to get the ball back in virtually the same timeframe that the Patriots won the game with?

 

Because with 2:06 left the Pats had all their time outs and ONLY NEEDED ONE SCORE TO TAKE THE LEAD! (And they had Tom Brady at QB, I might add). One defensive stop and they get the ball back with plenty of time to score. As it turns out, they didn't even need that. It's just not a comparable situation. The chance of recovering an onside kick is substantially less than 30 percent, while the chance of converting a 4th and 1 is greater than 70 percent.

[mannc]

Obviously Jauron is a loser, just look at the record. Probabilities say no matter what he does, down 10 with 7:30 left, his team is not winning the game. Jauron's offense was playing losing football, so give the ball to them & they'll screw it up. Give the ball to the D & they screw it up.

Bottom line: Until Jauron is gone, the players will continue with their poor execution on both sides of the ball and most of his decisions will be wrong, no matter which decision he makes-Unless the NFL allows us to play Tampa every week and forces them to use Byron "Statue" Leftwich at QB.

 

Now that's a post I think we can all agree with.

[BuffOrange]

Wrong on your wrong. If the play failed, no one would have been saying "at least he had the guts to go for it." It would have been considered "the turning point of the game."

 

Yes, some fans complain based on the result using hindsight. I wish they would all jump off a cliff so that reasonable fans weren't all lumped in with them. Don't include everyone in that group. It's extremely patronizing and makes you sound like a coach. I defended that 3rd&1 bomb against Denver on opening day and lots of other stuff that didn't work out so rosey. I also wrote this in last week's thread:

 

Furthermore I saw Marvin Lewis (tied with Brad Childress as the worst gameday coach in football) say on NFL Network when questioned about statistical analysis - make some smug comment about the mathematician's mortgage not being on the line.

Well yah Marvin, that sort of proves the point - when you're thinking about your mortgage you're not giving your team the best chance to win. Because when you punt/kick and lose it's always the player's fault, but everyone blames you when you make the correct "gambling" decision and lose.

 

Kicking in that spot is horrible. Anyone who thinks that's nitpicking because we won, then fine. Just don't ever accuse anyone of hindsight when he does something stupid that doesn't work. You can stick on 13 and watch the dealer bust with his face card - doesn't make it the right decision.

 

If your point is that some fans criticize philosophy based on results then fine, I agree. Jauron is sadly - in that group of clowns with Lewis and Childress who make decisions to largely avoid that irrational criticism, which is at odds with putting his team in the best position to win. Either that or he is just genuinely clueless about basic probabilities. Either way I cannot stand this gutless clown as my football coach anymore. GTFO Dick.

[BuffOrange]

You do it when you're ahead by more than 3 points, not when you're behind by 10 with 7+ minutes to go.

 

Quoted for hilarity.

 

Onside kick is 20% recovery rate for kicking team?

4th&1 is 75%?

Yah same thing imo.