WSJ: Why NFL Coaches Take No Chances

[bbobbo]

some interesting analysis here:

WSJ: Why NFL Coaches Take No Chances

(clicking on the link takes you to lmgtfy.com, which performs a google search for the article. this is to get past WSJ's pay wall)

no direct mention of belichick, but the bills and the jets are mentioned. in the chart ranking teams by aggressiveness, the patriots are fairly aggressive on 4th down. they're conservative on overall playcalling (a combined measure of offensive and defensive aggressiveness), but that's probably because the patriots don't blitz very often.

some quotes:

Rex Ryan faced the most crucial call of his coaching tenure in Buffalo on Saturday.

Needing a win to stay in playoff contention, the Bills had a fourth-and-2 on their own 41 with 4:09 left in overtime. Buffalo’s offense had set a team record with 589 net yards. But Ryan opted to punt.

The Bills never got the ball back and lost the game. Ryan was fired Tuesday morning.

“I thought I’d pin them deep and then get the ball back,” Ryan said after the game. “But every coach in America would have done the same thing.”

It turns out that Ryan is right. The NFL’s current roster of coaches is a very conservative bunch. And that might not be a formula for success.

A Wall Street Journal analysis of NFL play calling this season shows that—despite a legion of mathematicians, economists and win probability models urging them to take more chances—most of the league’s coaches still reach for the conventional choice by habit.

The Journal analysis examines how coaches played their hand this season across three broad categories of game management: fourth downs; play calling (blitzing on defense; passing on early downs or with the lead on offense) and special teams (going for a 2-point conversion and onside kicks when ahead).

The analysis shows that the four most aggressive coaches are on track to guide teams to the playoffs—the New York Giants’ Ben McAdoo, Detroit’s Jim Caldwell, Green Bay’s Mike McCarthy and Atlanta’s Dan Quinn. Eight of the top 10 most risk-averse coaches, will watch the playoffs from home.

University of Pennsylvania professor Cade Massey, who researches behavior and judgment, said many NFL coaches habitually choose to postpone the certainty of losing in football for as long as possible—even if doing so actually lowers the odds of winning in the end, such as opting to punt on fourth-and-short in overtime.

Strangely, when faced with fourth and five or less, coaches opt to punt about as frequently (9 times out of 12). The New York Jets’ Todd Bowles has been in the latter situation three times this year and punted each time.

After one such instance in October against the Steelers, Bowles said, “If it was the same situation again, I’d probably punt it. I still stand by that decision.”

Bowles’ conservative mindset was on full display earlier this month. With the Jets trailing the Dolphins by 24 (three possessions) and facing a fourth-and-4 from the Miami 18, Bowles opted to kick a 36-yard field goal—meaning the Jets still needed three touchdowns to potentially tie the game. He then kicked off deep rather than attempt an onside kick. Saturday, he kicked a field goal on fourth down and goal—down 41-0.

Adi Wyner, a professor of statistics at the University of Pennsylvania said, “I watch the Jets get pummeled and I think, ‘Why don’t you try something? It’s fourth-and-3 and you’re punting? Go for it. Try onside kicks. Try to win the game.”

in the chart below, a negative score indicates aggressive play-calling, a positive score indicates conservative play-calling.

 

[SlowGettingUp]

in the chart ranking teams by aggressiveness, the patriots are fairly aggressive on 4th down. they're conservative on overall playcalling (a combined measure of offensive and defensive aggressiveness), but that's probably because the patriots don't blitz very often.

Because the Patriots are objectively better than most of the teams they have played this year, the logical strategy for them is to play conservatively, particularly as they have mostly played from ahead. They prefer a low-variance strategy.

If the other team is better or winning, then it makes sense to roll the dice and go for the risky play.

I'm usually happy when the other team decides to punt instead of going for it on fourth down.

 

[1960Pats]

I remember being on one side of this back in 2002 vs KC. The Chiefs had just scored with no time left on the clock to make it 38-37 and had been going through the Pats like Grant through Richmond the whole game. They had over 220 yards rushing and averaged 6.5 per carry. I was extremely worried that the KC coach was going to go for the win. He didn't, and the Pats won the toss and the game in OT.

 

[BobDigital]

Also other teams don't take risk cause of the BB 4th and 2 call. I still believe today it was the right call. Just maybe not the right play or execution.

When it works we call it gutsy and forgot it. When it fails we remember it for years. When you don't risk anything we complain for a few weeks than move on.

I am always surprised how little bad teams risk vs the Pats. If i were Bowles i would have done an onside kick to start the game and go for most 4th downs. Maybe you end up losing by more. Maybe you make a game out of it.

 

[BKapatsfan]

Also other teams don't take risk cause of the BB 4th and 2 call. I still believe today it was the right call. Just maybe not the right play of execution.

When it works we call it gutsy and forgot it. When it fails we remember it for years. When you don't risk anything we complain for a few weeks than move on.

I am always surprised how little bad teams risk vs the Pats. If i were Bowles i would have done an onside kick to start the game and go for most 4th downs. Maybe you end up losing by more. Maybe you make a game out of it.

It was the right call, the D was gassed due to the flu, the heat, and the amount of pressure the colts o put on them.

Bb's made some bad calls, had some bad gameplans but that wasn't one of them.

 

[captain stone]

It was the right call, the D was gassed due to the flu, the heat, and the amount of pressure the colts o put on them...

I think you're mixing the 2006 AFCC in Indy with the 2009 regular-season game in Indy.

 

[Tony2046]

To bad there wasn't a dumbass play calling category. The Colts could received -50 points on this play alone.

 

[The Brandon Five]

Interesting that McAdoo is the biggest gambler in the league. Their over-achieving luck is likely about to run out.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

I remember being on one side of this back in 2002 vs KC. The Chiefs had just scored with no time left on the clock to make it 38-37 and had been going through the Pats like Grant through Richmond the whole game. They had over 220 yards rushing and averaged 6.5 per carry. I was extremely worried that the KC coach was going to go for the win. He didn't, and the Pats won the toss and the game in OT.

Priest Holmes was a monster for a few years there. Truly could do it all.

 

[NormZauchin]

Because the Patriots are objectively better than most of the teams they have played this year, the logical strategy for them is to play conservatively, particularly as they have mostly played from ahead. They prefer a low-variance strategy.

If the other team is better or winning, then it makes sense to roll the dice and go for the risky play.

I'm usually happy when the other team decides to punt instead of going for it on fourth down.

I agree that gambling against a weaker opponent is a fool's strategy. The one time Belichick decided to gamble inappropriately, last year, at home, in the lead, against a decidedly inferior team, it ended up in an embarrassing and costly loss to the Eagles.

 

[doesntmatter1]

I agree that gambling against a weaker opponent is a fool's strategy. The one time Belichick decided to gamble inappropriately, last year, at home, in the lead, against a decidedly inferior team, it ended up in an embarrassing and costly loss to the Eagles.

Same thing happened against the jets in our 2010 playoff loss. I feel the fake punt that Chung dropped significantly dimmed our chances at winning that game. What a letdown that great season became.

 

[PatriotReign]

Same thing happened against the jets in our 2010 playoff loss. I feel the fake punt that Chung dropped significantly dimmed our chances at winning that game. What a letdown that great season became.

Chung made that decision on his own based on what he saw and audibled.

 

[PP2]

Interesting find, thanks for sharing.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Chung made that decision on his own based on what he saw and audibled.

I still don't buy that explanation.

 

[PlanB]

and we all can hear John Madden's voice in our heads saying the Patriots should play it safe and go for overtime

 

[patfanken]

The only thing we know for sure is that when that "embarassing" failure on 4th down or ST's, succeeds, it suddenly become BRILLIANT. Unfortunately that is is nature of "aggressive" play calling in the NFL.

 

[Pat the Pats Fan]

To bad there wasn't a dumbass play calling category. The Colts could received -50 points on this play alone.

sure, and I wonder what the butt fumble would have been worth.....

 

[Pat the Pats Fan]

I guess Flacco's jump balls and prey for a PI flag aren't considered risky?