Thread: Gary Kubiak shows confidence in Broncos with calculated risk

Originally Posted by Ravage!!!

But not taking the points on a 0-0 game against a division rival, was a bad decision before the SECOND attempt was even trotted out onto the field (the first a TO was called).

Sometimes a coach has to "go for it." BUt he has to know when those situations are there, and when they are the right time. We didn't have any offensive movement, and got a turnover that put us in FG range. Take the free points and the lead. That three points, almost cost us the game.

1) A 37 yd FG isn't automatic, especially when the 2nd year kicker's only had half a season worth of starts; HE was on the road against a division rival, too (but handled it well in the end.)

2) Even the worst case scenario of KC getting the ball at their own 22 wasn't the end of the world with their mediocre one-dimensional offense against our excellent verstaile D. It's very likely they end up punting back to us after a three-and-out there, and even a decent return puts us right back near midfield, nearly close enough to try a FG ANYWAY if we find ourself in 4th and long.

In the event, our D committed a series of huge penalties before finally giving up a 34 yd TD run to Charles, but there's a good argument all that was because our many quick punts had tired them out, which is just another reason trying to extend a drive on 4th and 1 was a reasonable choice. As far as "conservatism," the history of all NFL plays says going for it on 4th and <6 ANYWHERE scores more points than a punt or even FG: Whether he knew it or not (and I can't read his mind,) KUBIAK WAS GOING WITH THE ODDS ON 4TH AND 1.

Originally Posted by I Eat Staples

It's always right to go for 4th and 1, unless it's something like you're up by 3 scores in the 4th quarter and a turnover is the only way you can lose.

Takes some massive stones for a team trailing by 2 at the bad guys 20 with <5:00 left to go for 4th and 1, but, based on the outcomes for EVERY team that's EVER been in that situation, it's the best thing to do. That old "they scored too soon" thing's for real; if an opponent has time for more than a Hail Mary, risking a 2 pt loss is worth it to force them to get a TD rather than an answering FG. That's not a matter of opinion, interpretation, preference or philosophy: It's what most often HAPPENS to teams in that situation.

isn't automatic? No.. nothing is. But its not a difficult FG. "KC getting the ball on the 22 isn't the end of the world." No kidding. N othing was the end of the world. Eithe way, it was a poor coaching decision, even before the result.

Originally Posted by Ravage!!!

isn't automatic? No.. nothing is. But its not a difficult FG. "KC getting the ball on the 22 isn't the end of the world." No kidding. N othing was the end of the world. Eithe way, it was a poor coaching decision, even before the result.

History says that's false. In fact, it says going for 4th and 1 at KCs 22 was neither better nor worse than going for 4th and G at Minnesotas 1: The expected value swing of a turnover is 4 pts ANYWHERE. Going for 4th and 1 is right EVERYWHERE or NOWHERE, with no in between (apart from self-evident exceptions like Staples referenced; chip shot walkoff FGs when trailing by 2 remain the right call.)

Originally Posted by Joel

Takes some massive stones for a team trailing by 2 at the bad guys 20 with <5:00 to go for 4th and 1, but, based on the outcomes for EVERY team that's EVER been in that situation, it's the best thing to do. That old "they scored too soon" thing's for real; if an opponent has time for more than a Hail Mary, risking a 2 pt loss is worth it to force them to get a TD rather than an answering FG. That's not a matter of opinion, interpretation, preference or philosophy: It's what most often HAPPENS to teams in that situation.

Yep, I wouldn't want a 1 point lead with less than 5 minutes left. The team with the ball should win in that situation. Would definitely go for it.

I wish people would just stop calling 4th and 1 "risky." How is expecting to gain 1 measly yard risky? Punting is what should be considered risky, considering you're willingly giving the ball to the other team's offense. And field goals are just extremely situational.

Originally Posted by I Eat Staples

I wish people would just stop calling 4th and 1 "risky." How is expecting to gain 1 measly yard risky? Punting is what should be considered risky, considering you're willingly giving the ball to the other team's offense. And field goals are just extremely situational.

Depends where you are on the field. I certainly would not go for it in my own end, especially with the way our defense is playing.

Originally Posted by Northman

Depends where you are on the field. I certainly would not go for it in my own end, especially with the way our defense is playing.

With how good our defense is and how bad our offensive line is, I'd definitely consider punting, which is more than I'd say for most teams. I still think going for it would be correct though, because even though it FEELS risky it's really not.

And with a good defense there's also the confidence that they can hold the other team to a field goal, and I'm happy letting my opponent kick as many field goals as they want.

Originally Posted by I Eat Staples

Yep, I wouldn't want a 1 point lead with less than 5 minutes left. The team with the ball should win in that situation. Would definitely go for it.

What I didn't expect was that going for 4th and 5 is also statistically better. But it kind of makes sense; even runs get 4 yds often as not, and passes nearly 6½, so that gamble's worth not telling an opponent flat out "if YOU reach FG range in the next 5:00, you win." Under 2:00, things change, especially if they're out of time outs, but too much can happen too fast for a narrow lead to be safe before that.

Originally Posted by Joel

What I didn't expect was that going for 4th and 5 is also statistically better. But it kind of makes sense; even runs get 4 yds often as not, and passes nearly 6½, so that gamble's worth not telling an opponent flat out "if YOU reach FG range in the next 5:00, you win." Under 2:00, things change, especially if they're out of time outs, but too much can happen too fast for a narrow lead to be safe before that.

4th and 5 is what I'd consider risky, but still not as risky as keeping a team out of field goal range.

Originally Posted by I Eat Staples

With how good our defense is and how bad our offensive line is, I'd definitely consider punting, which is more than I'd say for most teams. I still think going for it would be correct though, because even though it FEELS risky it's really not.

And with a good defense there's also the confidence that they can hold the other team to a field goal, and I'm happy letting my opponent kick as many field goals as they want.

Unless of course you go for it on 4th and 1 5 times but fail every time. Than it can be a problem if you are not scoring points yourself.

Originally Posted by Northman

Unless of course you go for it on 4th and 1 5 times but fail every time. Than it can be a problem if you are not scoring points yourself.

Yeah, I think at that point you just accept that your team sucks.

Originally Posted by Northman

Depends where you are on the field. I certainly would not go for it in my own end, especially with the way our defense is playing.

Yeah, giving the bad guys 1st and G at our 1 sucks, but remember: HAVING 1st and 10 at our own 1 wasn't exactly ideal; a safeties likely (even by penalty,) a NT could get a pick-six just by falling down after the Int, and a punt netting a respectable 45 yds STILL puts them on our side of midfield, already in extreme FG range, and just 25 yds from the red zone. That's what usually happens, too, because most coaches are too terrified of goal line turnovers to do anything "risky" like try to pass for a first down; a couple safe pointless runs into a line expecting them, then a safe 3rd down fade, then punt.

So, yeah, a turnover at our goal line sucks because its expected value is -6 pts—but the value of 1st and 10 at our goal line was ALREADY -2 pts, so what's the difference? 4. Just like a turnover at THEIR goal line transforming a "sure" TD into a "likely" safety. It's not quite that simple, because the "historical" expected value (i.e. calculated from the record of all actual plays with a given down, distance and field position) only tells us who's most likely to score next, and by how much, whether "next" is the next play or next QUARTER. But it works out the same.

As an interesting sidenote, that also gives 1st and 10 at ones own 20 an expected value of exactly 0: A push. Nice place for the rules to put touchbacks, eh? Coughing it up costs 4 pts just as anywhere else, so that's what we lost giving KC the ball on their own 20 (or near enough.) So what do the odds say Kubiak should've done? The first hit for googling "NFL 4th and 1 conversion rate" is this NFL.com article: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d...-not-go-for-it

As of Week 6 2008, the 4th and 1 conversion rate was 72%, multiplied by the 4 pt expected value of 1st and 10 at an opponents 20=2.88 pts (we can ignore failure, because 0 times anything is 0.)

According to the NFL again: http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorysta...seasonType=REG the 2008 FG% from 30-39 was 89.2, multiplied by 3=2.68. Technically a bit less, because the 7 yds of field position lost on a miss are worth ~½ pt, but 10.8% of ½ is small enough to ignore.

Going for 4th and 1 from their 20=2.88 pts but a FG try=2.68; why would anyone kick? Again, that's not just theoretical number crunching: It's what ACTUALLY HAPPENED to every team in that situation.

Originally Posted by I Eat Staples

4th and 5 is what I'd consider risky, but still not as risky as keeping a team out of field goal range.

Well, it's worth noting 4th and 5 attempts are both rare (i.e. provide a small sample size consequently more subject to anomalous noise) and desperate (i.e. both teams are emptying their players tanks and coaches playbooks, because the game's usually in the balance.) If they were more routine, and so more subject to normal conditions, the conversion rates could well go down. But, as it stands, and all else being equal, history says teams should go for it on a) 4th and <6 ANYWHERE and b) 4th and G inside the 10.

That incidentally means Fox trotting out the old standby "any possession that ends in a kick is a good one" wasn't so much "conservative" as "ignorant." Or gambling, if that's a more generous take.

Denver got it the first time for not for bone head time out by Manning.

Denver offense needed a jump start, getting a 4th down conversion might have done it.

I do not see it as a bad call due to the location on field and the fact it was early enough in game.