Franklin's fourth and one
- Thread starter drpops
- Start date
I’m ok with both calls, thought the QB sneak was a bit long but I’ll live there.
I was livid with not using the last two timeouts in the first half after Auburn took the first knee after the pick inside the 3. You make them run two more plays, you never know.
There are numerous statistical outcomes for those two situations, but you are judging it based on only one - Auburn nets +6 points. The situation could have come up again and PSU could have scored a TD. Would it not be the right move if PSU ends up at net +1 after three attempts?
You also aren't considering that pinning the opponent deep is not a given. There is still a chance that Auburn ends up with the ball on the 20 at least once, which doesn't gain PSU very much.
Lastly, you are also not considering that PSU actually made the first down on one of those 2 attempts. The Auburn net +6 should probably not have happened.
I think the analytic guys have run these scenarios enough at this point to know that going for it inside the 50 at 4th and 1 is going to get you more points in the long run than it will cost you. Punting is what Narduzzi does. I want a coach that is going to play the percentages and know that it works in our favor over the long run.
I had no problem with going for it.
But at that point in the game, and given our run game average, we had not demonstrated any ability to knock people off the line of scrimmage, especially against a line like Auburn's.
So the go/no-go stats, whatever they are, using a QB-sneak, simply do not apply.
But I do like the under-center formation in that situation. Sets up play-action or a bootleg really well. Enables running backs to get some momentum.
But at that point in the game, and given our run game average, we had not demonstrated any ability to knock people off the line of scrimmage, especially against a line like Auburn's.
So the go/no-go stats, whatever they are, using a QB-sneak, simply do not apply.
But I do like the under-center formation in that situation. Sets up play-action or a bootleg really well. Enables running backs to get some momentum.
in the first one, the QB sneak was not what most would do with a bit over 2 yds to go. However, the 3rd down play that spotted 2 yds off seemed about a yard wrong. The 3rd down play looked like it got within one yard. I think JF may not have realized the actual yardage. Early in a game, this seemed like a risk that was not a good decision.
second one we got by all indications as the whistle blew after the pile moved. not sure why that was not reviewable. I didn't feel bad about this one. not sure if a more mobile big boy would be a better fit.
We've been debating about the late whistle on the second try and that, though temporarily stopped short, the pile eventually moved forward for a first down.
I'm not sure that a late whistle precludes officials from ruling that the play was dead beforehand. It was clear that a line judge was running forward to mark the ball short before the whistles were audible on TV, so he clearly felt forward progress had been stopped.
I'm not sure that a late whistle precludes officials from ruling that the play was dead beforehand. It was clear that a line judge was running forward to mark the ball short before the whistles were audible on TV, so he clearly felt forward progress had been stopped.
Punting with 1 or 2 yards to go inside your opponents territory is almost always (obviously there are exceptions) a terrible decision. I believe the analytics back Franklin up here. I personally hate it. I also thought Auburn kicking the field goal on 4 the and 1 or 2 inside our 40 was a bad call from them. Just my opinion, understand if other's disagree
They absolutely didn't make the first down which is 100% known so can you really use this in your argument? It's probably just as likely the whistle should have blown before the big push.
But it didn't. It clearly blew after the pile moved.
It is mostly irrelevant to my argument anyway. The main point is that you are going to be net positive on points over the long run by going for it in those situations.
Just curious. Do the analytics take into consideration, quality of the opponent, time in the game, score of the game, how your team is rushing/throwing the ball, how good is the opponents defense, how well is it playing at that time, how good is your offense playing, how good is your punter, and probably a host of other non-deterministic qualities I haven't thought of.
No. Analytics is a tool that a coach should use to decide the best coarse of action based on the situation. That said, there probably aren't a lot of situations where the correct call is to punt on 4th and 1 at your opponents 45 yd line.
And btw, PSU was at the 45 and 43 yard lines on those 2 plays - not the 50.
I agree with Grant, I don't have any issue with going for it. Aggressive won us the game with the goal line pass with 2 minutes left. I have also seen the analytics about 4th down plays which is why coaches are going to it. Having said that, the better the "D" the more conservative approach needs to be factored in. I didn't like the play calls, but our OC is miles ahead of understanding what works best for our personnel.
So if analytics doesn't take all those qualities into consideration, I don't think it's going to give you the best possible answer simply based on statistics. Analytics which ignore all those non-deterministic qualities are pretty useless in my opinion. I disagree that the correct call is to go for it almost every time. The coaches brain should be much more effective at determining the proper course of action. He will/should take into account all those qualities as part of his decision making. When he doesn't you can just replace him with a laptop. See baseball these days for a demonstration of that.
You do realize that the most heavy analytics teams have been winning the WS lately right? Dodgers, Red Sox, and Astros.
Again, analytics is a tool. The coach has to use it in conjunction with the situation. I don't mind discussing where analytics is applicable and where it is not, but if you think analytics is useless you are kidding yourself.
Never said they were useless but when used in lieu of all other evidence I don't think they are that helpful. You should have included Tampa Bay in your list. I agree that analytics have had a big impact on baseball. Some I don't like. For example, in a current extra inning game where you start with a player on 2nd. If it's the bottom of the inning and your opponent hasn't scored, the analytics tell you to let your batter hit away and not sacrifice the runner to third where you can win without a hit and the infield moves in. By the way analytics will tell you that a batters average goes up around 100 points against a pulled in infield. I don't agree with the strategy of hitting away. I sacrifice every time. Having quality players and not many key injuries really helps too.
Analytics do not consider any of the factors you mentioned, so yeah, you said it.
OK then they are useless if they don't consider all those other factors. It always makes a difference if you are playing AL or a division 3 team.
Whether you’re playing Alabama or a D3 team, you shouldn’t punt on 4th and 1 from midfield (outside of an end of half/game situation). Analytics obviously need some context, but they at least help guide you through obvious situations than conventional wisdom often got wrong.
So you don’t take how good your defense is under consideration? If you feel your defense will stop them, you don’t take the risk? I have to disagree.
Yes, as a matter of fact they can and probably do. It depends who is doing the analysis, the scope of the data being used, and the factors are that chosen for the model. You eliminate factors that don't show a correlation to the outcome, and use the factors that have the highest correlation to the outcome. I have to believe that home field vs away, strength of opponents defense, strength of team's offensive line are all attributes that were considered for the analytical model.
+1. I didn't mind the one but the other was IMO too far. It looked like a good 2+ yards and I just didn't think it was worth the risk at that point in the game and especially on the field.
True, but that doesn't preclude officials from concluding, after the whistle, that the play ended beforehand, i.e., the runner was down or forward progress was stopped short of the ball position at the time of the whistle. The whistle is just a signal for the players to stop.
Remember how Paterno would punt from the 32 yard line and net 12 yards on the punt? At least those days are over.
I don't know if Stoudt has a short punt game so "pinning them deep" may not be a viable option. If you don't have a shot at downing the punt inside the 15, then it really makes little sense to punt inside the 50 unless it's a 4th and long with a low probability of success.
Worth noting that the SEC refs made TWO goofs on the Mustipher fake. In punt formation the defense is not allowed to line up a tackle over center -- it's a penalty. But Auburn did that and the SEC officials missed it. Without that person illegally lined up, Mustipher would have gotten the yard. Criticizing Franklin for a play sabotaged by bad officiating doesn't really make sense.
I don't know if Stoudt has a short punt game so "pinning them deep" may not be a viable option. If you don't have a shot at downing the punt inside the 15, then it really makes little sense to punt inside the 50 unless it's a 4th and long with a low probability of success.
Worth noting that the SEC refs made TWO goofs on the Mustipher fake. In punt formation the defense is not allowed to line up a tackle over center -- it's a penalty. But Auburn did that and the SEC officials missed it. Without that person illegally lined up, Mustipher would have gotten the yard. Criticizing Franklin for a play sabotaged by bad officiating doesn't really make sense.
Since no whistle was blown until Mustipher was one or two yards ahead of the marker, the forward progress must not have been stopped. Let me say it differently. The lag/time for how long it took to blow a whistle and stop the play was [subjectively] 'very long'. It was 'well after' Mutiphers initial push. Given the play and the situation - a pile of bodies pushing forward to try and get the first down - extraordinaly delayed/late whistle surely suggests that the play was still going on.
You might want to tell that to the fine folks at MIT: https://news.psu.edu/story/346506/2...anelist-mit-sloan-sports-analytics-conferenceSome try to make it out to be a statistical decision, but I don’t believe Franklin to be the cerebral type.
How Patrick Mahomes, Lamar Jackson and other prolific NFL QBs are changing 4th-down math
Analytics are changing how coaches view fourth down, but so are prolific quarterbacks.sports.yahoo.com
And two line officials running directly to the point of an apparent stop in forward progress to mark the ball at that point would tend to suggest the opposite.
Point I'm making is that it can be argued either way. The whistle is supposed to be an accurate indicator. With this group nothing could be expected.
We can certainly agree that they were terrible, an embarrassment to the sport.
Going for it the second time was okay IMO. Going for it the first time on the opening possession I wasn’t too keen on.
Yeah hard to know when they blew the whistle but on the other hand, they generally don’t blow the play dead that quickly on short yardage plays near the goal line and on 4th and short.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Podcast Jerquaden Guilford Decommits + Top Targets To Replace Him- Latest: NittanyNation51
-