Dobbs Might Have Broken Ribs

Seems like it could take you right out of games more often than getting you wins.

 

it's always seemed like they leave context out of it....like, "the avg play gains x yards therefore you should always go for it on 4th and < x " but that leaves a lot out of it.

 

it is like saying never punt from inside your own endzone, as the opposing team scores 78% of the time after the punt. I get the statistics of it, but every cell in the coach's body would be screaming PUNT!

 

I do think coaches often make decisions on what they should do, or what won't look stupid, instead of trying to maximize wins. It depends on your team and their team and the situation and the stats. Saban is very good at picking places to onside kick. Meyer fakes punts. Most guys kick it away and get beat bc they should.

 

yup. any coach that says they go solely by the stats is full of it. punting it and then losing doesn't make you look as dumb as going for it and losing it even if it's the right call.

 

How many times have you seen a game and thought, "if they give them the ball back, the game is over," only to watch the coach give them the ball back and lose the game. If your best chance of winning is unorthodox, you should do the unorthodox, yet it is pretty damned rare to find that practiced.

4th and 3 on your own 35 means nothing in a vacuum, stats be damned.

 

I don't think they would say "any time."

 

Never punt.
Never kick fg
Always go for the onsides kick.

 

this was my brother's strategy on NCAA Football when he was 12

 

Belicheck went for it against Peyton about ten years ago. Got roasted for it when it didn't work, even though he was completely right.

I also remember Richt going for about every fourth and short he could against Dooley (2011 particularly comes to mind). It always worked

 

chip Kelly was amazing with this at Oregon. went for it on 4th and inches at his own 30 once against USC. it always seemed to work out too.

 

Hal Mumme fan?

 

You can only work so much context into rules of thumb. I like to interpret statements like "you should go for it on 4th and 5 at your own 40" (or, "you should for for it on 4th and goal from the 1") as basically applying to the first couple drives, and then only applying situationally from then on.

 

A high school coach in Arkansas has made a dynasty using those principles.

 

Sounds like Bayesian statistics would fix that.

 

The problem with the analysis would be that not punting would cause scoring % to be higher, most likely. But that's a blind spot in the analysis, because nobody has tried it.

 

That was absolutely the right call by Belicheck. The only way they win that game is make a first down right there.

 

Les Miles' national championship came on the backs of a whole bunch of 4th down conversions that season. It isn't always the best choice, but it is often the most overlooked best choice because it looks so bad when you don't get it. I don't think it matters much whether you lose by 4 points or 11, but there are a whole bunch of coaches that seem to think otherwise.

Madden

 

I recall that, too, and also remember that a whole bunch of statistics came out after that game and proved that he did, as you say, make the right call. It didn't work, but it was the correct call.

 

So by context you mean "incorrect conventional wisdom" or "coaches not having enough balls to buck convential wisdom and make the right call" or both?