Going for it on Fourth Down

[SlowGettingUp]

I'm pretty much always pleased when the Pats' opponents punt on fourth down. It's an issue of variance - going for it is high risk and high reward. That's what an inferior opponent should almost always do - go for the high variance option. They will typically lose in a "fair" fight, so it makes sense for them to go for risky plays of all types. More unexpected onside kicks, trick plays, going for it on 4th down.

Now fortunately, most of the Pats' opponents don't understand this or are too chicken. "Nobody ever got fired for punting" is what goes through the opposing coach's mind.

But the Jags really are different according to a piece in today's Wall Street Journal. They (and the Eagles) go for it a lot on 4th down early in the game, and the Jags have been amazingly successful. The Jags have gone for it 11 times this season and post-season excluding all fourth-quarter plays and succeeded an amazing 10 times, gaining an expected 39 points on their decisions. The Eagles have gone for it 20 times (again excluding 4th quarter) but gained fewer expected points - about 26. The Pats have gone for it 7 times and gained 13.5 points. By contrast, the Vikings have had only 3 attempts and have actually lost two expected points on those.

It’s Fourth Down. Why Going for It Could Determine the Super Bowl

 

[FCB02062]

I can see them going on 4th a ton tomorrow, given the patriots defense propensity (in many games) to give up a ton of yards and allow teams to drive from the 20 to the Patd 40 almost at will... So instead of say punting on 4th and 3 from Pats 40 or 45 I bet they go for it

 

[SlowGettingUp]

I can see them going on 4th a ton tomorrow, given the patriots defense propensity (in many games) to give up a ton of yards and allow teams to drive from the 20 to the Patd 40 almost at will... So instead of say punting on 4th and 3 from Pats 40 or 45 I bet they go for it

Note that this also impacts some 3rd-down plays. If you know they are likely to go for it on 4th-down, then stopping them a yard short on 3rd-down may not be good enough.

 

[slam]

The Steelers had a very adventurous day last week going for it on 4th down. Two failed 4th and 1's on questionable calls, then a number of 4th and long bombs for TDs.

 

[TinhWoodhead]

teams should go for 4th and 1 more, even in their territory (around the 40yd)

 

[sambam94]

getting 10 yards on 4 downs doesn't seem that hard...If more teams consistently went for it on 4th down. I would be amazed if more points weren't scored

 

[Deus Irae]

The annual 4th down re-hash is here!

 

[Pats1989]

getting 10 yards on 4 downs doesn't seem that hard...If more teams consistently went for it on 4th down. I would be amazed if more points weren't scored

True. And to this day, I still agree with the 4th down decision in Indy (09). BB knew Indy would march down for a TD whether it was on their own 15 or Patriots 20 or 30 yard line. The D had shown no signs they were capable of stopping Manning. It was a no brainer imo.

It the Jags go for it alot on 4th down tomorrow, there's a higher chance of them winning the game.

 

[mosslost]

It the Jags go for it alot on 4th down tomorrow, there's a higher chance of them winning the game.

if this statement on the face of it were literally true, then they would go for 4th down a lot, as you say.

The fact is it is actually an unknown whether going for it on 4th down "a lot" tomorrow would increase or decrease the Jags actual chance of winning,

 

[Observer]

Teams with strong defense should definitely go for it on fourth down. The only purpose of punting is to increase the odds of your defense making a stop.

 

[Kdo5]

Is it high risk high reward against the Pats? Seems to be a lot more of a risk. We are a very good red zone defense. Even if the Jags convert a fourth down on our 40 yard line it is still quite likely that we could hold them to a FG. This is Bortles and a mediocre receiving group we are talking about, not Peyton Manning. If they screw up and don't convert it could easily be a back breaker giving Brady the ball back with solid field position.​

 

[IcyPatriot]

Going for it on 4th down with or without a glove?

 

[RayClay]

Note that this also impacts some 3rd-down plays. If you know they are likely to go for it on 4th-down, then stopping them a yard short on 3rd-down may not be good enough.

This may seem radical, but since we know they like to go on 4th, or onside kick, why not be prepared for it and take those early turnovers in opponents territory and smash them silly?

 

[RayClay]

True. And to this day, I still agree with the 4th down decision in Indy (09). BB knew Indy would march down for a TD whether it was on their own 15 or Patriots 20 or 30 yard line. The D had shown no signs they were capable of stopping Manning. It was a no brainer imo.

It the Jags go for it alot on 4th down tomorrow, there's a higher chance of them winning the game.

Your two statements are contradictory. If I had a great defense, mediocre offense, I would want to pin the other team with punts.

 

[SlowGettingUp]

Is it high risk high reward against the Pats? Seems to be a lot more of a risk.

Let's say they're on the Pats' 45 yard line with a yard to go. That gives them something like a 70% shot at making it on 4th down. (2 yards is around 50-50 based on going for 2 points). If they make it they likely come away with at least a field goal - indeed the expected points from having a first down at the opponent's 45 is indeed around 3 points;

So the following is the analysis for two average NFL teams:

NFL vs. FBS Equivalent Points

So going for it is worth 70% of 3 points or around 2 points.

Instead punting gives the Pats the ball at their 15 yard line say. The difference between having the ball at the 15 or at your own 45 is 1.7 expected points vs. 2.7, or a difference of 1.

So clearly, on average, going for it is better.

How does this change for the Pats vs Jags? The Pats are a much better offensive team than average and the Jags a much better defensive team, so maybe it's a wash on the impact of the Patriot expected score. But the Jags don't score that many points so that 2 point expected gain is surely worth it.

 

[SlowGettingUp]

The annual 4th down re-hash is here!

But it's particularly relevant this year because of how often the Jags and Eagles go for and succeed on 4th down. They are both truly outliers.

 

[Soliel]

I hope they do stupid stuff like that or try pagano type punt plays

 

[Observer]

I hope they do stupid stuff like that or try pagano type punt plays

The pagans punt is a classic that will never be repeated again.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

Is it high risk high reward against the Pats? Seems to be a lot more of a risk. We are a very good red zone defense. Even if the Jags convert a fourth down on our 40 yard line it is still quite likely that we could hold them to a FG. This is Bortles and a mediocre receiving group we are talking about, not Peyton Manning. If they screw up and don't convert it could easily be a back breaker giving Brady the ball back with solid field position.​

Forget 4th down for a second.

There are basically two concepts that should be followed when you're the underdog.

One is limit the number of possessions in the game to increase the significance of luck. This is difficult to understand in football because of sample sizes, but imagine you're playing one-on-one in basketball vs. LeBron James, first to 21. You will probably lose 100 games out of 100 because even if you get a bit lucky with a few shots and he misses a few early, he'll eventually destroy you.

But if you were playing HORSE, it takes a lot fewer lucky shots to win, so in theory it might let you win a game or two if you get really lucky and he gets really unlucky with some bounces. Again, he'll probably eventually destroy you, but you might luck your way into winning a few games more than you would have playing straight-up one-on-one.

The other is to play a non-conventional strategy with high variance. So it's high-risk, high-reward. The thinking is that if you do what your opponent does, they will eventually win, because they are better than you.

But high-variance plays like onside kicks, 4th down attempts, fake punts, increase your odds of winning because if you get it, it's a huge plus. If you don't convert, well the odds were you going to lose anyways, so you might just lose by more, but you still were going to lose. So you trade the potential of losing by 30 instead of 10 for a chance to potentially sneak out a win if it goes your way.

Sure, you could be conservative and still win the game, and luck can matter. But these types of strategies are a way of increasing the potential for luck to matter.

 

[SlowGettingUp]

One is limit the number of possessions in the game to increase the significance of luck.

This actually makes sense of the "keep Brady off the field" meme. When I first heard it it made no sense because each team gets (roughly) the same number of possessions. But your point makes it valid, as does the notion that Brady generally gets better as the game progresses and he figures out the defense.