I post this here because of the reference to Rex Ryan. THIS supports what I've often stated. There are FOUR downs in football. Why more coaches do not utilize them as such is mind boggling. http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/men...chip-kelly-can-spark-moneyball-revolution-nfl
Bill Belichik somewhat courageously decided to use 4th and short as a real down a few years ago. I mean with Tom Brady at QB how much could going for it on 4th and 1 to 3 really hurt? Then a key play in a playoff game went the other way and boom! strategy over. It is the right move to go for it on 4th down when you have a very good chance of holding on to the ball as a result. The criticism that rains down on you when you miss is completely off-base. Nonetheless that criticism weighs more heavily in the equation for almost everybody and even the few with both brains and balls will bow to it after a little bit of rough treatment. This has probably been true since the first monkey slunk away from his troop when everybody decided to hoot at him for the right call gone wrong.
If Rex is such a ballsy gambler on fourth down, why isn't Tebow being deployed there four or five times a game?
Tebow has converted on at least four 4th downs for the Jets this year on fake punts. It has been his biggest contribution for the Jets this year. It also helps our punter on 4th and and 5. On 4th and 5 or less Tebow forces punt teams to protect against Tebow and not pressure the punter. For example if Sanchez does not take that unnecessary sack against the Phins its unlikely the next play gets blocked for a TD as they have to respect the possibility of the fake.
Because Tebow was inserted on to the roster by Woody Johnson via a Mike Tannenbaum proxy in order to get Mitt Romney elected and to sell out the remaining PSLs. Both measures failed of course.
They pinned us inside our 10, it was a good decision. That wasn't why they didn't score again until down 17-7, that didn't force Rivers to throw the INT to set up our 1st TD to take the lead. I think going on 4th and 1 is always about feel, it's not an automatic thing. You can lose yards, nothing is automatic and if they miss there we have the ball at midfield in a 1 score game.
That's silly. Some defenses can make that 4th and inches stop. The Jets had done it plenty of times on the goal line in 2009. That's the type of defense they were that year. Norv played it safe because of that. This is a dumb ass article looking for more ways to discount the legitimacy of the Jets. You'd think they'd be over that game by now. I do think Turner's a bad coach, yes, but that wasn't a bad decision considering the type of defense we were.
Going for 4th and 1's completely depends on the situation of the game and the position on the field. Obviously.
From the 47 yard line All plays are open!....so the big goal line defense that's played deep in the red zone doesn't work as well. Any slant pass can beat an 8 man front and has to be protected against. No team has to do the QB sneak. That makes sucess more probable, because the whole playbook is live.
I made a thread questioning why teams don't go for it more on 4th downs and it got deleted cause i was questioning football orthodoxy. coaches in this league are way too conservative
The problem is, Patriots have been known to choke on 4th and 1. They cannot run the ball. They tried 4th and 1 against Giants once on Superbowl and got stuffed. (Giants DL is primarily a pass-rushing DL. They cannot stop nosebleed if the other team just decide to keep on punching them right on the mouth.) If anything, Patriots OL is not a bruising, running OL that you need to establish the physicality. They are finesse group that protected Brady well on shotgun formation. (And now they suck at it too.) I would have to guess that Belichick was counting on the other teams expecting pass. (Rex somehow falls for this kind of BS trick really well, but Coughlin did not fall for it. Nor did Colts.) I would probably agree to this, if I know the team going for 4th down has a very good OL in at least one area - be it passing or running. If good at both, then it's a no-brainer. In the Patriots example, they are NOT good at running. Their production through the ground on both cases above have been dismal to put it very nicely. If they tried passing and then ended up with incomplete passes or turnover, I can at least understand that - at least there Patriots brain trust is calling for plays that is their strength. Running up for short gain? You kidding me? I could see why they were not a running team. (And it shows all the time too.) Either you should be able to create a mismatch in blocking scheme that results in more people at the point of attack (negative) or if you are going to call plays that they know are coming, you should have personnel that can still carry out the plays to generate production through the ground anyway. (Again, negative.) In case of Patriots of late, they do not fall under either two categories. (The first would be the 49ers of late, and the latter would be the Cowboys of 90's.) Their OL is not well-versed in running game, and their blockers (FBs and TEs) are not well versed in run-blocking either. On both 4th down runs, the defense basically knew 1. where the run was coming at and 2. when it was coming at. This just means either the OL or the entire offensive crew tipped the play. (And they are still not doing that well on the ground; doing better than last year's Patriots offense is not something you want to write home about.) =========================================== Contrast that to the Jets case. What Belichick did would be similar to dialing up a shotgun pass play on the said 4th and short situation, when passing game is not the core strength of the offense. If Ryan called THAT and succeeded, then I would have to say "Wow, nice!" Of course that's not what happened there. Jets OL was one of the very best run-blocking OL during that season, and Thomas Jones was always reliable in short yardage situation; in short, that's where Jets' strength lay. What Ryan did is surely gutsy to a degree, but also very logical as well.
Excellent post...with Rivers at the 47 and the pass catchers he had to work with a slant would have been an excellent call in that situation. Even a screen to Tomlinson could have converted. My personal felling is anytime you are on or near midfield and it's 4th and less then a yard you should go for it. The chances of converting outweigh those of not making it. What's the new Jets bar in Vegas? I went to Montana Meat in week 2 and it was empty.
When you run a lot of plays on 4th and short you're going to get stopped on some of them. Not a lot of them but some of them. When those stops randomly happen at key times you're going to be seen as having choked. That's one of the reasons coaches just don't go for it on 4th and short more often. They should go for it most of the time unless the game situation absolutely says no but they don't. For what it's worth: I hate seeing the Pats with 4th and 1 or less against the Jets because I know they're just going to run that sneak up the middle by Brady between the center and one of the guards about 80% of the time and most of the time they'll make it. Another way to look at the issue is by probability of a turnover on the play. If I told you the Jets were going to run a play which had a 99% probability of a turnover but would likely change field position favorably by 40 yards or they were going to run a play that had a 20% chance of a turnover at the line of scrimmage which would you think was the better play on 4th and 1?
Ding ding ding. Poor comparison in the article. If u have the chance to put someone away on 4th and 1 is a much different scenario than going for it at midfield in the 2nd qtr up by a TD.
Going for it on 4th and 1 at midfield up by 7 gives you a real chance at being up 2 scores early. Going for it and failing just gives your opponent a shorter field to tie the game. I'd take the 80% chance at widening the lead over the 100% chance of maybe having a tie.
