• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Decision Analysis: 4th and 1 at FSU 6, Down 11, 4 minutes Remaining

Ayo said:
P(score TD on the 4th down play = 0.15) also seems a little high to me but also too lazy to recalculate if that was changed to like 0.10.
Click to expand...

Yeah I thought about that one too.
Again, my offensive expectations are proving a bit low, probably due to PTSD from Grobo offenses.
 
Turd Ferguson said:
Posted on game thread

Would've gone for it every time it was fourth and short today. We were such a long shot. Go for it. I mean you can argue the field goal gave us a chance to tie. But our true freshman qb threw a pick in the endzone. So what difference did it really make. Getting into field goal range at the end is much more likely than freshman qb leading drive and throwing td with time running out. I mean we probly lose either way but how the game ended is exactly why kicking the field goal is debatable.
Click to expand...

Who's to say Hinton wouldn't have thrown a pick in the endzone on 4th and 1 or 1st and goal? If that had happened, would people have been saying the FG was obvious?
 
If the 4th and 1 percentages are too high (at 60%), the 2.5 yard 2 point conversion percentage is likely also too high (45%). Which hurts the FG option quite a lot.
 
Kicking fg there was LOWF.

Kicking FG at best winds up in OT against a more talented team. Score TD and you have a chance to get back in FG range or maybe score another TD.

That was scared money.
 
bobknightfan said:
It's really pretty simple. Whose football knowledge & judgment do you want to use.....Clawson's or FckVwl's?

Personally, I'm going with Clawson....and I think it is pretty arrogant that FckVwl believes that he knows more about what to do in that situation than Clawson.....but that's just me. I know one thing. Wake could save a helluva lot of money if they made FckVwl the coach and moved Clawson to 2nd guesser on the chatboard.
Click to expand...

This is the least surprising thing that's happened today, including Wake losing to FSU.
 
PhDeac said:
Who's to say Hinton wouldn't have thrown a pick in the endzone on 4th and 1 or 1st and goal? If that had happened, would people have been saying the FG was obvious?
Click to expand...

No one is saying we would have won the game if we went for the first down on 4th and 1. When you are down 24 to 13 with 4 minutes left facing 4th down it is a long shot no matter what you do.

The results or what really happened in the game aren't really important to the analysis of the decision.
 
bobknightfan said:
It's really pretty simple. Whose football knowledge & judgment do you want to use.....Clawson's or FckVwl's?

Personally, I'm going with Clawson....and I think it is pretty arrogant that FckVwl believes that he knows more about what to do in that situation than Clawson.....but that's just me. I know one thing. Wake could save a helluva lot of money if they made FckVwl the coach and moved Clawson to 2nd guesser on the chatboard.
Click to expand...

hahahaha - awesome.
 
Agree with going for it. I think football coaches play way too conservative almost all of the time. The metrics seem to suggest that coaches should go for it on 4th down way more often than they do.
 
bobknightfan said:
When you are 11 points behind with 4 minutes to play, the only way you can win in regulation is by scoring 2 touchdowns....so everyone should be in agreement that we are talking about a situation where OT was the best reasonable scenario, because even if you make the first down, then make a touchdown, and then make a 2-point conversion.....3 uncertain variables.....you are still almost certainly going to be in the situation...if you get the ball back....of trying to get into position for a tying field goal to force overtime. You are very unlikely to score two touchdowns in this amount of time.

A field goal from that position was almost like an extra point....a virtual sure thing....which took no time off the clock. That eliminates all those first three variables and gives you more time to try to reach the same goal...forcing an overtime....that you would have ended up trying to accomplish by going for it on 4th down. You needed three things in either option: a FG, a TD & a 2-point conversion. Clawson chose to get the sure thing for one of them without using any more time off the clock. It was obviously the correct thing to do. If he had gone for it on 4th down and not made it, the game would have been over....and even if he made the first down, he was using up precious time and would have still needed the same three scores.
Click to expand...

This is the most rational post BKF has ever made.
 
Vols, if you really want to geek out, a question I have is if there's a yard line (roughly speaking) at which it becomes a better idea statistically to kick rather than go for the fourth and one. Obviously the FG gets harder as you get farther away, but so does scoring that first TD, which presumably takes more time and makes the second TD less likely.
I ask in part because , with so many variables at play, I wonder to what extent it's realistic to expect coaches to recognize the difference between a 2% chance and a 4% chance instantaneously. Of course you prepare in advance but to what extent is that possible? Hence, IMO, why so many coaches fall back on "conventional wisdom."
 
With FSU's goal line defense on the field knowing one stop wins it, I seriously doubt we were better than a coin flip on 4th and 1. I suspect we were much worse.

But mainly this equation leaves out a ton of unlikely but possible scenarios in extending the game. A fumble. An interception. A kickoff return for a TD. A shanked punt. A sack and a safety.

You flip the coin and lose and the game is over. You take the points and you open up far more possibilities that would massively shift the likelihood of success.

This is like arguing a poker player should call an all-in when he's at a 56/44 advantage. It ignores any risk factor - missing on 4th and 1 guarantees the loss while extending the game introduces scenarios for victory that don't require a 70 yard drive. Which incidentally Wake succeeded in anyway with Hinton unfortunately sailing one over an open Cam in the endzone.
 
Well. At least we didn't pull a Brian Kelly and go for 2 way too early in the game.
 
DCDeac said:
With FSU's goal line defense on the field knowing one stop wins it, I seriously doubt we were better than a coin flip on 4th and 1. I suspect we were much worse.

But mainly this equation leaves out a ton of unlikely but possible scenarios in extending the game. A fumble. An interception. A kickoff return for a TD. A shanked punt. A sack and a safety.

You flip the coin and lose and the game is over. You take the points and you open up far more possibilities that would massively shift the likelihood of success.

This is like arguing a poker player should call an all-in when he's at a 56/44 advantage. It ignores any risk factor - missing on 4th and 1 guarantees the loss while extending the game introduces scenarios for victory that don't require a 70 yard drive. Which incidentally Wake succeeded in anyway with Hinton unfortunately sailing one over an open Cam in the endzone.
Click to expand...

If we are a coinflip on 4th and 1 - What do you predict our odds would have been on a 2 point conversion from the 3 yard line with the game on the line?

You are basically just trying to delay the do or die play from 4th and 1 until a later singular play (2 point conversion).
 
Last edited:
But why did we not try the onside kick?... Why did we kick it to their lone return man? We needed to stop them on 3rd down anyway. Why kick it? That was stupid.
 
MrBojangles said:
But why did we not try the onside kick?... Why did we kick it to their lone return man? We needed to stop them on 3rd down anyway. Why kick it? That was stupid.
Click to expand...

Field position. Time wasn't an issue. The odds clearly favor kicking it to them as the best way to get the ball back without giving up a score.
 
bobknightfan said:
When you are 11 points behind with 4 minutes to play, the only way you can win in regulation is by scoring 2 touchdowns....so everyone should be in agreement that we are talking about a situation where OT was the best reasonable scenario, because even if you make the first down, then make a touchdown, and then make a 2-point conversion.....3 uncertain variables.....you are still almost certainly going to be in the situation...if you get the ball back....of trying to get into position for a tying field goal to force overtime. You are very unlikely to score two touchdowns in this amount of time.

A field goal from that position was almost like an extra point....a virtual sure thing....which took no time off the clock. That eliminates all those first three variables and gives you more time to try to reach the same goal...forcing an overtime....that you would have ended up trying to accomplish by going for it on 4th down. You needed three things in either option: a FG, a TD & a 2-point conversion. Clawson chose to get the sure thing for one of them without using any more time off the clock. It was obviously the correct thing to do. If he had gone for it on 4th down and not made it, the game would have been over....and even if he made the first down, he was using up precious time and would have still needed the same three scores.
Click to expand...
This is based on the premise that OT is the best scenario when in actuality winning in regulation w/ 2 TDs is the best scenario, a scenario which is off the table w/ a FG attempt.
 
FckVwls said:
If we are a coinflip on 4th and 1 - What do you predict our odds would have been on a 2 point conversion from the 3 yard line with the game on the line?

You are basically just trying to delay the do or die play from 4th and 1 until a later singular play (2 point conversion).
Click to expand...

I would argue that's extremely valuable, but mainly because most of your 8% possible 2nd TD win in regulation projection assumes we score the first TD on one play. You really have to add in the odds of the clock running out in those guesses. Let's say Hinton keeps it for one and we get the 1st. Then we get stuffed on a run on 2nd. Now we're either burning timeouts or we're putting ourselves into a forced onside kick scenario just to get the ball back. And FSU probably isn't throwing it on 5 of 6 plays.

You kick it immediately and you get your timeouts plus the clock. You have time to get a stop and the ball.

When you roll the actual likelihood of putting up 2 TDs given that scenario, the reality is you need a 2 point conversion in over 99% of the outcomes either way, so it makes no difference.

In that world, yeah, I'd much rather have a 2 point conversion coin flip of lose/OT versus lose/still need more points. The stakes are different.
 
The fact is that Clawson's plan worked up until the INT. We had hope with 20 seconds left. It would have worked as planned last year against VT if we hit the FG at the end, but it worked out because we could keep on playing.
 
Last edited:
Let's make the "go for it" scenario WORSE for Wake Forest than it actually was. Let's assume that it was 4th and goal from the 5 instead of 4th and 1. And to simplify let's assume if they converted that 4th and goal for a TD, they would miss that 2 point conversion.

Path to win under go for it scenario:

1. Make a touchdown on that one singular 4th and goal play from 5
2. Score a touchdown after kicking off in last 4 minutes

Path to win under FG scenario:

1. Score a touchdown after kicking off in the last 4 minutes
2. Score the 2 point conversion play
3. Win in overtime

The touchdowns cancel. You need to score another TD after kicking off to win in either scenario.

In situation 1, you have to make a singular 5 yard play to the endzone to win.
In situation 2, you have to make a singular 3 yard play to the endzone and win an overtime to win.

Path 1 is actually better in this scenario. Now factor in that WF only had 1 yard to gain. And factor in that the first two point conversion could be made after the TD only leaving a FG remaining.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top