"They should have gone for it on 4th and 1"

[ivotuk]

I keep hearing that everywhere, but apparently everyone forgot that Chris Carson got hit in the head on the 3rd down play and had to go to the tent.

I'm sure there are those that would say "Throw Rashaad Penny" in there. But I doubt he has much practice at 4th and 1, and trying to sort all of that out would have caused a delay of game. I don't see the problem with them punting on that 4th down.

Thoughts?

 

[kidhawk]

When I was watching it live, I thought it wasn't a bad spot to try for it, but when they trotted out the field goal unit, I was fine with that as well. I don't think either choice would have been "wrong"

 

[Hawknballs]

That was at like the very beginning of the game, right?

I'm all for being a tough, physical team who can get a yard when they need it, and I'd like to see us do that whole "impose your will" thing on those 1 yard downs, because IMHO you should be able to get 1 yard any time you want no matter what the defense is doing.

But that being said, you don't want to start the game by going for it on 4th down and failing and handing the Vikes the ball on your side of the field to start the game. It puts your defense in a bad spot right off the bat and the down at this point in the game isn't that critical.

I'm not a huge believer in "momentum" but I do believe when things start rolling your way, the positive affect it has can boost confidence and not second guessing yourself can go a long way.

No reason to risk all that when the game just started.

 

[jammerhawk]

Negative vews flow from those who look at the issue academically or in the absence of complete knowledge of the situation.

There are lots of reasons in game where decisions are made without the true basis for them being completely understood by critical observers.

What may be a statistically a correct move may not be feasible personnel wise or sensible in the moment for other reasons.

To me except for the initial conservatism in Offensive play calling to start the game last night there was little if anything to truly grumble about in terms of coaching decisions, The concerning errors of blown coverages, fumbles or missed tackles are personnel issues that can continue to be coached so the mistakes are lessened.

 

[justafan]

Its all situational. The risk and reward plays a large part. All you win is 3 more downs no guarantee. If you take a loss you lose momentum completely and maybe the game. People criticize either choice but Petes got big shoulders.

Websites have this surrender index and act like its the answer. They get people to click on them by calling coaches cowards and make money either way. Its not like the blackjack rules where if you follow them you have a net positive result. You dont just suffer a little drawdown waiting for odds to turn in your favor, you could lose a game like last night when we didnt need to gamble that much.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

Negative vews flow from those who look at the issue academically or in the absence of complete knowledge of the situation.

There are lots of reasons in game where decisions are made without the true basis for them being completely understood by critical observers.

What may be a statistically a correct move may not be feasible personnel wise or sensible in the moment for other reasons.

To me except for the initial conservatism in Offensive play calling to start the game last night there was little if anything to truly grumble about in terms of coaching decisions, The concerning errors of blown coverages, fumbles or missed tackles are personnel issues that can continue to be coached so the mistakes are lessened.

Well said

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

...........Its not like the blackjack rules where if you follow them you have a net positive result.......

Actually if all the "rules" of blackjack are strictly followed, the house still has approximately a 1.5% advantage. They wouldn't offer the game if they had no advantage.

 

[Fade]

I keep hearing that everywhere, but apparently everyone forgot that Chris Carson got hit in the head on the 3rd down play and had to go to the tent.

I'm sure there are those that would say "Throw Rashaad Penny" in there. But I doubt he has much practice at 4th and 1, and trying to sort all of that out would have caused a delay of game. I don't see the problem with them punting on that 4th down.

Thoughts?

The Seahawks gave up a chance to score points by not extending their drive, instead trading it for a measly 36 yards of field position.

That is a bad trade.

It was a short 1 yard, go for it. The Hawks were getting a good surge at the LoS from the very start of the game, and the math was in the Seahawks favor.

The Vikings were breathing a sigh of relief when they chose to punt.

"In General

Coaches traditionally punt or kick on fourth downs, a convention inherited from the days when scores of 7-6 and 10-9 weren’t uncommon and a punt was more likely to pin an opponent on his side of the field. The modern N.F.L. is starkly different. It’s a pass-happy league in which offenses can zip up and down the field, easily gaining back the field position a punt may have purchased."

"Punts are no longer as valuable as they once were — the more freely offenses can move down the field, the less important field position becomes —"

"More than half of all plays in the N.F.L. gain 4 or more yards, which means the numbers are on the offense’s side and a conversion is more likely than not. That’s why it frequently makes sense to go for it."
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/upshot/4th-down-when-to-go-for-it-and-why.html?_r=0

Not going for it on 4th & 1 will be a thing of the past as analytics start to take over the league.

 

[Chapow]

I keep hearing that everywhere, but apparently everyone forgot that Chris Carson got hit in the head on the 3rd down play and had to go to the tent.

I'm sure there are those that would say "Throw Rashaad Penny" in there. But I doubt he has much practice at 4th and 1, and trying to sort all of that out would have caused a delay of game. I don't see the problem with them punting on that 4th down.

Thoughts?

The Seahawks gave up a chance to score points by not extending their drive, instead trading it for a measly 36 yards of field position.

That is a bad trade.

It was a short 1 yard, go for it. The Hawks were getting a good surge at the LoS from the very start of the game, and the math was in the Seahawks favor.

The Vikings were breathing a sigh of relief when they chose to punt.

"In General

Coaches traditionally punt or kick on fourth downs, a convention inherited from the days when scores of 7-6 and 10-9 weren’t uncommon and a punt was more likely to pin an opponent on his side of the field. The modern N.F.L. is starkly different. It’s a pass-happy league in which offenses can zip up and down the field, easily gaining back the field position a punt may have purchased."

"Punts are no longer as valuable as they once were — the more freely offenses can move down the field, the less important field position becomes —"

"More than half of all plays in the N.F.L. gain 4 or more yards, which means the numbers are on the offense’s side and a conversion is more likely than not. That’s why it frequently makes sense to go for it."
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/upshot/4th-down-when-to-go-for-it-and-why.html?_r=0

Not going for it on 4th & 1 will be a thing of the past as analytics start to take over the league.

This is from the NYT 4th down bot.

For those that don't know, the NYT 4th down bot is a collaboration between the New York Times and Brian Burke of Advanced NFL Stats, who originally built the code behind the bot for a 4th Down Calculator tool on his site.

Brian Burke himself has said,

The thing to keep in mind is that the bot’s analysis is not definitive in any way. “The bot and the model are starting points for analysis,” he said. “It’s not meant to be the final arbiter of coaching decisions.”

https://www.niemanlab.org/2013/12/yes-t ... knows-why/

Before anyone gets upset, please note that I'm not saying that anything here is "wrong". Analytics are an important tool, but they are not the end all be all of every in game coaching decision.

For example, the 4th down bot says that on fourth-and-1, go for it any place on the field where that is possible, starting at your own 9-yard line. Do we really want the Seahawks to just do that because the 4th down bot says we should, and ignore every other factor? I sure don't.

 

[scutterhawk]

I keep hearing that everywhere, but apparently everyone forgot that Chris Carson got hit in the head on the 3rd down play and had to go to the tent.

I'm sure there are those that would say "Throw Rashaad Penny" in there. But I doubt he has much practice at 4th and 1, and trying to sort all of that out would have caused a delay of game. I don't see the problem with them punting on that 4th down.

Thoughts?

Go for it on fourth down, or going on a trick play with Homer....Pete picked the right battle. :mrgreen:

 

[chris98251]

So I guess we fire all the humans and let a computer call plays based on Analytics.

 

[SocialParasite]

I know it's a bummer when a drive stalls 1 yard away from a first down, but there's no need to chance it so early in the game. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

 

[Hawkpower]

I keep hearing that everywhere, but apparently everyone forgot that Chris Carson got hit in the head on the 3rd down play and had to go to the tent.

I'm sure there are those that would say "Throw Rashaad Penny" in there. But I doubt he has much practice at 4th and 1, and trying to sort all of that out would have caused a delay of game. I don't see the problem with them punting on that 4th down.

Thoughts?

The Seahawks gave up a chance to score points by not extending their drive, instead trading it for a measly 36 yards of field position.

That is a bad trade.

It was a short 1 yard, go for it. The Hawks were getting a good surge at the LoS from the very start of the game, and the math was in the Seahawks favor.

The Vikings were breathing a sigh of relief when they chose to punt.

"In General

Coaches traditionally punt or kick on fourth downs, a convention inherited from the days when scores of 7-6 and 10-9 weren’t uncommon and a punt was more likely to pin an opponent on his side of the field. The modern N.F.L. is starkly different. It’s a pass-happy league in which offenses can zip up and down the field, easily gaining back the field position a punt may have purchased."

"Punts are no longer as valuable as they once were — the more freely offenses can move down the field, the less important field position becomes —"

"More than half of all plays in the N.F.L. gain 4 or more yards, which means the numbers are on the offense’s side and a conversion is more likely than not. That’s why it frequently makes sense to go for it."
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/upshot/4th-down-when-to-go-for-it-and-why.html?_r=0

Not going for it on 4th & 1 will be a thing of the past as analytics start to take over the league.

There is still place for human decisions and discretion from the coach. Nothing is black and white.

I agree that being aggressive on 4th down is becoming the norm and for good reason, it often is the best call...but relying STRICTLY on new data would be foolish. Some of the old school reasoning has been around for years for a reason.

Sometimes, punting it and playing field position is absolutely the right call, even if the computers say otherwise.

It wont take many times of a coach going for it on their own 39 and consequently giving up a quick TD the other way before said coach gets a bit gunshy

 

[chris98251]

Well lets put it this way, how many games and competition did it take before a computer could finally win a Chess match.

I would say there are a lot more situations and moving parts in a Football game to consider versus given moves on a Chess Board.

 

[Mad Dog]

This season is one for tossing analytics out the window. It's become a running league. As defenses got smaller and faster to deal with passing, it's opened up the power run game. There's no longer Tony Siraguso's and Vince Wolforks playing nose tackle anymore. So it's changed things around a bit and smart teams are taking advantage. Ravens, Niners and Seahawks are leading the new Neanderball offences to great heights.

Analytics is for schmoes. Football is football and while the rules have helped passing games, if you can't stop the run, teams that can run will kill you.

Point is, going for 4th and 1 remains a situational call not a percentage thing. Because situations determine the percentages and there isn't enough of a sample size to go off of. Early game, lead back in the tent, defense still with its legs. Not the time to go for it in your own territory.

 

[chris98251]

This season is one for tossing analytics out the window. It's become a running league. As defenses got smaller and faster to deal with passing, it's opened up the power run game. There's no longer Tony Siraguso's and Vince Wolforks playing nose tackle anymore. So it's changed things around a bit and smart teams are taking advantage. Ravens, Niners and Seahawks are leading the new Neanderball offences to great heights.

Analytics is for schmoes. Football is football and while the rules have helped passing games, if you can't stop the run, teams that can run will kill you.

Point is, going for 4th and 1 remains a situational call not a percentage thing. Because situations determine the percentages and there isn't enough of a sample size to go off of. Early game, lead back in the tent, defense still with its legs. Not the time to go for it in your own territory.

That and if you fail to make it you instantly give the other team confidence and momentum.

 

[ivotuk]

Fade, good points, but throwing out "gained a measly 36 yards imho is hindsight. I think that our Pro Bowl punter is a good reason for punting, as he puts it inside the 5 yard quite often. So it may have been much better than 36 yards.

Early in the game we're still trying to figure out if Minnesota actually is a top 5 run defense. They certainly have the personnel. So again, imho, feeling out the run defense would make more sense defense before considering running on a 4th and 1 is a good idea or not. But as we got further in, we could tell that our running game was having little problem with their "vaunted" run defense.

I'm not sure there's a right or wrong answer, because of so many variables that only the coaching staff know.

Case in point, Special Teams coach, Brian Schneider [a love child of John Schneider and Brian Schottenheimer?)] studied Minnesota' punt return team and noticed that "they overloaded one side to set up the return." This left the opposite side vulnerable to a fake punt. Travis Homer said "I was chill. We did this in practice several times, and we knew the odds were high that it was going to work against the Vikings.

And of course, who was going to run it? Did Penny get in enough practice in 4th and 1 situations?

Either way, I don't think it's possible to say one way or the other, what the correct play call ws.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

I can't wait for the analytics people to hold up our failure to win the Super Bowl as indisputable proof that their conclusions are right.

 

[bmorepunk]

So I guess we fire all the humans and let a computer call plays based on Analytics.

Blindly using probability to determine what you do for one event can be very problematic. And when you use the data from all teams and situations, you're leaving out really important variables.

Probabilities work when you have enough data to describe a probability distribution, typically when the data starts to converge to a set that looks like an infinite data series. And that's the problem; you don't get to do tons of the same thing over and over and get the probability distribution you were expecting. You get to do it once, and then you have to live with the result of that event.

If you have a 95% probability of getting a first down off a first down, but that 5% gives the other team great field position and they score and demoralize your team, there's something going on there. If the conversion is more probable (realistically, probably something like 60/40) under four yards, then wouldn't you always go for it on fourth down no matter where you are on the field? No, because you don't get a large number of drives in a game where your probability of it working out extending drives will mean it's better than not.

What's far more useful here is some kind of Bayesian analysis where we take current information into account to shift our expectation of probabilities. That's kind of what good coaches do without thinking about math and statistics much; it's intuitive.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Clearly they shouldn't have went for it, they won the game.