4th and goal decision

1,326 Views | 21 Replies | Last: 1 day ago by wifeisafurd
golden sloth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal could have been in a pretty good position if they would have gone for the field goal instead of the touchdown in the first half. Instead they tried for a fourth and goal conversion which ended with an interception. This lead to needing a touchdown rather than a field goal on the last drive. Gambling doesnt always pay off and I'm a big believer that early in the game, you take the points rather than the risk.
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?

We were pathetic in the red zone. The play calling, the execution, everything. Getting PI calls was our biggest weapon.
DWM81
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I understand Wilcox's decision. He wanted to communicate confidence in both offense/defense. Especially 2nd Team OL. It did not work out. But I understand the decision...

Wilcox coming off an 8-5 season, including a bowl win. Cal HAD some momentum...But then Covid hit and Cal's circumstances deteriorated disproportionately...
ColoradoBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Analytics suggest going for the TD, especially early on the game.

https://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/analysis/nfl-fourth-downs-eagles-doug-pederson/

I said this in the other thread, but the issue with that play was that the pick was a terrible outcome as it results in a touchback and not OSU pinnned back on their 1 or 2, which would have increased the chance of a safety or a short punt.

Later in the game, it probably makes more sense to go for the FG if ip 4 - there are much fewer drives left, but it could also be advantageous to go for a TD on the 1 of up 4 since it pushes it to a 2 score game, and again generally pins a team back on their 1.

On top of the analytics, going for it psyches up the team because it's both a show of confidence in the offense AND defense.
HoopDreams
How long do you want to ignore this user?
yeah, we are struggling in the end zone. that's going to be a huge problem if we can't figure it out.

touchdowns win football games, not field goals (except in the closing moments of games)
BearGoggles
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't have a problem with the decision to go for it. I had a huge problem with the red zone play calling. It was atrocious the entire game. It seemed like Cal kept running the same play. OSU was selling out. A bootleg or qb draw at some point should have been called.
hanky1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don;t have a problem with the call. If you fail to score that close on multiple opportunities...honestly you probably deserve to lose the game.
killa22
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HoopDreams said:

yeah, we are struggling in the end zone. that's going to be a huge problem if we can't figure it out.

touchdowns win football games, not field goals (except in the closing moments of games)


And therein lies the crutch of the prostyle offense. OC can hide behind trying to "assert physicality" and only catch the heat for a bad call on one passing down.

But pro style is supposed to make you more dynamic in the red zone, right? And all spread teams struggle in the redzone?

Honestly, to succeed you need to be able to leverage misdirection built off of the run game. Doesn't matter the personnel, need to put guys in run pass conflict or use option or QBs run elements to even out numbers.
ColoradoBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
killa22 said:

HoopDreams said:

yeah, we are struggling in the end zone. that's going to be a huge problem if we can't figure it out.

touchdowns win football games, not field goals (except in the closing moments of games)


And therein lies the crutch of the prostyle offense. OC can hide behind trying to "assert physicality" and only catch the heat for a bad call on one passing down.



Well it also seems 'prostyle' is code for early 90's prostyle used by the likes of the Dan Reeves of the league, not the Bill Walsh tree of coaches.

Definitely has issues in the red zone where the D has much less space to cover.

Modern pro offenses are actually dynamic.

But hey Cal looked better today ramming it up the middle. Perhaps they'll look better again next week.


killa22
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ColoradoBear said:

killa22 said:

HoopDreams said:

yeah, we are struggling in the end zone. that's going to be a huge problem if we can't figure it out.

touchdowns win football games, not field goals (except in the closing moments of games)


And therein lies the crutch of the prostyle offense. OC can hide behind trying to "assert physicality" and only catch the heat for a bad call on one passing down.



Well it also seems 'prostyle' is code for early 90's prostyle used by the likes of the Dan Reeves of the league, not the Bill Walsh tree of coaches.

Definitely has issues in the red zone where the D has much less space to cover.

Modern pro offenses are actually dynamic.

But hey Cal looked better today ramming it up the middle. Perhaps they'll look better again next week.





True, modern pro style offenses are very dynamic. I would aspire to something say like what the chiefs run, or even what the Seahawks do that's more of a spread /
College-influenced pro-style offense.

Or what Joe Brady did over @ LSU.
heartofthebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I realize that trying to run the ball up the middle shows confidence in the OL but, in general, running plays towards the middle of the field with a short field means having to face more defenders in order to score. And I think it is over-rated, particularly in college where OLs are not as dominant. And it seems to fail quite often, unless the OL is dominant.

What I see succeeding quite often are plays that get the ball out onto the perimeter. Even running plays out on the perimeter can work.

There has to be an understanding that it is different at the goal line because the defense only has a few yards to defend. So, while normally it might make sense to run the ball up the middle in a short yardage situation, that just is not the case at the goal line.

What I have observed is that misdirection or play action is the best at the goal line because it gets the defense to over-pursue in one direction, leaving a lane open to score on the other side.

I would run a receiver in motion, and then throw it to him on the perimeter behind the LOS, then he can lateral it to a trailing back and then block for the back so the back can score or he can throw it to another receiver. Or you have the QB fake a handoff in the middle and run a keeper around the edge to score. If there is pursuit, find the TE right in front of you and throw it. The point is that the carrier should always have a second option to throw should the path be blocked. So, run/pass options, play action fakes and misdirections using players in motion are the plays I would run most often at the goal line.

While these plays involve slightly more coordination and execution, they are not beyond the scope of normal play calling and, from what I've observed, have a much higher rate of success, all other things being equal.

I am not trying to second guess Cal and the coaching. I am just stating what I have observed in general and I'm curious what others have observed.
LunchTime
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I like the call. A coach who kicks there is a coach who doesn't believe.
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LunchTime said:

I like the call. A coach who kicks there is a coach who doesn't believe.

A coach who makes poor decisions -- even based on "belief -- is fairly soon called an ex-coach.
GMP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:


We were pathetic in the red zone. The play calling, the execution, everything. Getting PI calls was are biggest weapon.


Saying "getting PI calls was our biggest weapon" ignores the fact that tackling our receivers was Oregon State's only saving grace.
killa22
How long do you want to ignore this user?
heartofthebear said:

I realize that trying to run the ball up the middle shows confidence in the OL but, in general, running plays towards the middle of the field with a short field means having to face more defenders in order to score. And I think it is over-rated, particularly in college where OLs are not as dominant. And it seems to fail quite often, unless the OL is dominant.

What I see succeeding quite often are plays that get the ball out onto the perimeter. Even running plays out on the perimeter can work.

There has to be an understanding that it is different at the goal line because the defense only has a few yards to defend. So, while normally it might make sense to run the ball up the middle in a short yardage situation, that just is not the case at the goal line.

What I have observed is that misdirection or play action is the best at the goal line because it gets the defense to over-pursue in one direction, leaving a lane open to score on the other side.

I would run a receiver in motion, and then throw it to him on the perimeter behind the LOS, then he can lateral it to a trailing back and then block for the back so the back can score or he can throw it to another receiver. Or you have the QB fake a handoff in the middle and run a keeper around the edge to score. If there is pursuit, find the TE right in front of you and throw it. The point is that the carrier should always have a second option to throw should the path be blocked. So, run/pass options, play action fakes and misdirections using players in motion are the plays I would run most often at the goal line.

While these plays involve slightly more coordination and execution, they are not beyond the scope of normal play calling and, from what I've observed, have a much higher rate of success, all other things being equal.

I am not trying to second guess Cal and the coaching. I am just stating what I have observed in general and I'm curious what others have observed.


Totally agree with this.

Spreading guys out for matchups, using option or QB run elements, or simply using play action with added motion to flip leverage are the difference makers in the RZ.

Lining up in jumbo and ramming it in there is not really sustainable.

You can cancel the run by throwing numbers in the box and shooting gaps.
71Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
golden sloth said:

Cal could have been in a pretty good position if they would have gone for the field goal instead of the touchdown in the first half. Instead they tried for a fourth and goal conversion which ended with an interception. This lead to needing a touchdown rather than a field goal on the last drive. Gambling doesnt always pay off and I'm a big believer that early in the game, you take the points rather than the risk.
It was a timing pattern. Once Garbers dropped the snap, the timing was off and the play failed. It is unfortunate because the call was correct and the receiver was open for a quick throw. In other words, had Garbers not dropped the snap, it would have been a TD with a routine throw. It was the right call at that point in the game.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
71Bear said:

golden sloth said:

Cal could have been in a pretty good position if they would have gone for the field goal instead of the touchdown in the first half. Instead they tried for a fourth and goal conversion which ended with an interception. This lead to needing a touchdown rather than a field goal on the last drive. Gambling doesnt always pay off and I'm a big believer that early in the game, you take the points rather than the risk.
It was a timing pattern. Once Garbers dropped the snap, the timing was off and the play failed. It is unfortunate because the call was correct and the receiver was open for a quick throw. In other words, had Garbers not dropped the snap, it would have been a TD with a routine throw. It was the right call at that point in the game.
Agreed.
Rushinbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ColoradoBear said:

killa22 said:

HoopDreams said:

yeah, we are struggling in the end zone. that's going to be a huge problem if we can't figure it out.

touchdowns win football games, not field goals (except in the closing moments of games)


And therein lies the crutch of the prostyle offense. OC can hide behind trying to "assert physicality" and only catch the heat for a bad call on one passing down.



Well it also seems 'prostyle' is code for early 90's prostyle used by the likes of the Dan Reeves of the league, not the Bill Walsh tree of coaches.

Definitely has issues in the red zone where the D has much less space to cover.

Modern pro offenses are actually dynamic.

But hey Cal looked better today ramming it up the middle. Perhaps they'll look better again next week.



We've always had trouble in the red zone. Doesn't matter what O we have run. That says OL to me.
JSC 76
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We ran 14 plays from inside the 10 yard line: 2 TD passes, 1 FG, 2 Interceptions, the rest for no/minimal gain. That's actually better than I remembered.
Civil Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
71Bear said:

golden sloth said:

Cal could have been in a pretty good position if they would have gone for the field goal instead of the touchdown in the first half. Instead they tried for a fourth and goal conversion which ended with an interception. This lead to needing a touchdown rather than a field goal on the last drive. Gambling doesnt always pay off and I'm a big believer that early in the game, you take the points rather than the risk.
It was a timing pattern. Once Garbers dropped the snap, the timing was off and the play failed. It is unfortunate because the call was correct and the receiver was open for a quick throw. In other words, had Garbers not dropped the snap, it would have been a TD with a routine throw. It was the right call at that point in the game.
Of course, when opposing quarterbacks drop the snap all eyes are on the ball, and the receiver is left wide-open in the endzone.
71Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civil Bear said:

71Bear said:

golden sloth said:

Cal could have been in a pretty good position if they would have gone for the field goal instead of the touchdown in the first half. Instead they tried for a fourth and goal conversion which ended with an interception. This lead to needing a touchdown rather than a field goal on the last drive. Gambling doesnt always pay off and I'm a big believer that early in the game, you take the points rather than the risk.
It was a timing pattern. Once Garbers dropped the snap, the timing was off and the play failed. It is unfortunate because the call was correct and the receiver was open for a quick throw. In other words, had Garbers not dropped the snap, it would have been a TD with a routine throw. It was the right call at that point in the game.
Of course, when opposing quarterbacks drop the snap all eyes are on the ball, and the receiver is left wide-open in the endzone.
DB's are coached to continue to follow their assignments as was the case in this instance.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
71Bear said:

Civil Bear said:

71Bear said:

golden sloth said:

Cal could have been in a pretty good position if they would have gone for the field goal instead of the touchdown in the first half. Instead they tried for a fourth and goal conversion which ended with an interception. This lead to needing a touchdown rather than a field goal on the last drive. Gambling doesnt always pay off and I'm a big believer that early in the game, you take the points rather than the risk.
It was a timing pattern. Once Garbers dropped the snap, the timing was off and the play failed. It is unfortunate because the call was correct and the receiver was open for a quick throw. In other words, had Garbers not dropped the snap, it would have been a TD with a routine throw. It was the right call at that point in the game.
Of course, when opposing quarterbacks drop the snap all eyes are on the ball, and the receiver is left wide-open in the endzone.
DB's are coached to continue to follow their assignments as was the case in this instance.
and the drop also meant Garbers was pressured.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.