I don't think it is a trick question but I also don't think "the right answer" is at all obvious. Implicit in the poll is my belief that it is better to have nine yards with 2nd and 1 than it is to get ten yards. It's not really a "free down" but it is pretty close, and it allows the offense an opportunity to attack with a low-risk, high-reward play that they otherwise might be hesitant to run.Is this a trick question?
They can attack with a low risk high reward play on first and 10 as well. Teams get stuffed on third and 1 often enough that this is really not a choice at all.I don't think it is a trick question but I also don't think "the right answer" is at all obvious. Implicit in the poll is my belief that it is better to have nine yards with 2nd and 1 than it is to get ten yards. It's not really a "free down" but it is pretty close, and it allows the offense an opportunity to attack with a low-risk, high-reward play that they otherwise might be hesitant to run.
*Spinal Tap voice* But this one goes to second.They can attack with a low risk high reward play on first and 10 as well. Teams get stuffed on third and 1 often enough that this is really not a choice at all.
You're looking for high-risk here, I think, at least as measured against success rate of intended completion or result. High-risk can mean a host of things, but that's the one I'm going with. A deeper play will have a lower success rate, which likely means a pass down the field.I don't think it is a trick question but I also don't think "the right answer" is at all obvious. Implicit in the poll is my belief that it is better to have nine yards with 2nd and 1 than it is to get ten yards. It's not really a "free down" but it is pretty close, and it allows the offense an opportunity to attack with a low-risk, high-reward play that they otherwise might be hesitant to run.
That's where success rate comes in and makes this a strange thought exercise. It is the success of the play we're concerned about? Or the wPA? Because they might be different.2 or 3 chances to make one or 3 or 4 chances to make ten?
To me, that sounds like a no-brainer. Average yards per play is probably something like six so the first option is practically a lock while the other is less certain. I’d rather have 2nd and 1 (probable conversion rate of 90%+) as opposed to 1st and ten with, what, a 50% conversion rate. The extra yard is immaterial. I want 2nd and 1.2 or 3 chances to make one or 3 or 4 chances to make ten?
When I said “low risk,” I meant that the cost of an incompletion is 3rd and 1. On first down, the cost is 2nd and ten.They can attack with a low risk high reward play on first and 10 as well. Teams get stuffed on third and 1 often enough that this is really not a choice at all.
I’m talking about the probability of winning the game. The thought experiment goes down more easily if the game is tied and it’s the first play of the fourth quarter, say, but I opted to give the cleanest scenario to start.That's where success rate comes in and makes this a strange thought exercise. It is the success of the play we're concerned about? Or the wPA? Because they might be different.
I see your view a little better now, but once you are successful you’re just dealing with 1st and 10 anyway.To me, that sounds like a no-brainer. Average yards per play is probably something like six so the first option is practically a lock while the other is less certain. I’d rather have 2nd and 1 (probable conversion rate of 90%+) as opposed to 1st and ten with, what, a 50% conversion rate. The extra yard is immaterial. I want 2nd and 1.
Ah, okay. I think we're a bit on the same page. I'm not an expert with stats analysis, but I've read Burke, Chris Brown, PFR, etc. casually for years.I’m talking about the probability of winning the game. The thought experiment goes down more easily if the game is tied and it’s the first play of the fourth quarter, say, but I opted to give the cleanest scenario to start.
Ya, I’m just going on intuition without looking for analytics. But having that analysis would answer the question.Ah, okay. I think we're a bit on the same page. I'm not an expert with stats analysis, but I've read Burke, Chris Brown, PFR, etc. casually for years.
My gut tells me give me the 2nd-and-1, but I don't know the cost of of down (or the value of a down) enough relative to the achievement, holding personnel and coaching style constant. Like an out in SABR baseball research. Just don't know enough, but can figure to start there, I think.
True but further down the field. I guess I’m seeing so many pass interference calls that I want my team to throw more go patterns, but I hate the prospect of losing a down. Having the luxury of 2nd and 1 so that you can take that shot seems more valuable than that extra yard and a fresh set of downs.I see your view a little better now, but once you are successful you’re just dealing with 1st and 10 anyway.
Zero exceptions? Like not a single one?Seeing as the goals in football are
1. get first downs
2. score
i would always take the 1st down. Always. Zero exceptions. 1st & 10 is better than 2nd & 1.
What about with 2 minutes left in the game when you're up 3 points and trying to run out the clock? It would be very advantageous in this scenario to have 2nd and 1 and force the team to burn an extra timeout or two.Seeing as the goals in football are
1. get first downs
2. score
i would always take the 1st down. Always. Zero exceptions. 1st & 10 is better than 2nd & 1.
First play of the game. 25 yard line. They was the original scenario.I think a lot of it depends on where on the field you are. If you're pinned on your own 10 yard line, I might just take the 1st down. If you're somewhere around midfield (where you might go for it on 4th down), then I would take 2nd and 1 for sure. You'd have 3 chances to gain 1 yard.
So would 1st and 10.What about with 2 minutes left in the game when you're up 3 points and trying to run out the clock? It would be very advantageous in this scenario to have 2nd and 1 and force the team to burn an extra timeout or two.
Of course. Because then I have 1st down and don’t have to try to get 1st down.Also what about if you're on the opponents 40 yard line (where you would go for it on 4th down anyways) and it's only inches to go? You'd take 1st and 10 at their 40 instead of 2nd and an inch?
A 1st down now gives the refs an extra chance to screw things up.A new set of downs.
Want to leave as little as possible in the hands of the referees.
Nope. I see no advantage of having 2nd down over 1st down.Zero exceptions? Like not a single one?
Speechless.A 1st down now gives the refs an extra chance to screw things up.
No, I simply didn’t have words for how silly that was.Well at least you admit you have no answer.
There are absolutely clock killing scenarios where it would be advantageous to have a 2nd and 1 rather than a first and 10. You state that the goals in football are to score points and get first downs. Well there are times when teams prioritize running the clock over each of those things. We’ve all seen players give themselves up on purpose rather then score the td. We’ve seen players give themselves up to stay in bounds rather than gain extra yards. So there are scenarios where clock management is a greater priority than getting first downs or scoring points. The bolded in your quote isn’t correct. If you get 10 on first and 10 you then run 3 more plays before having to punt unless you gain another 10 yards. 4 plays where the clock is running. If you gain 9 on first down then you’ve already ran the clock once and now you need to only gain 1 yard on your next 2 plays for a fresh set of downs. You are running to clock 5 or 6 times in that scenario. That’s a huge advantage. The disadvantage is you may end up only running the clock 3 times if you can’t get the necessary yard on your next 2 plays. In scenarios where 4 plays means your punting it back to your opponent with 35-40 secs left and 5 means it’s game over you should be taking the 2nd and 1.Nope. I see no advantage of having 2nd down over 1st down.
1st down & 10 = you have 3 downs to make another 1st down. And maybe 4, depending on the scenario.
2nd down and 1, you’ve still got to make a 1st down.
zero exceptions. Get the 1st down. In all the 2nd down scenarios presented, one is still trying to get the 1st down (or score) - it’s like saying “it’s 1st and 10 at your opponent’s 10. Which is better, scoring a TD or getting 9 yards?” Anyone saying anything but “score the TD” doesn’t understand the fundamentals off football.
And if you’re killing clock, 1st down hurts your opponent even more as they still need to use their TO, and have 1 more down to defend so you can’t simply take a knee.
The topic clearly says “first play of the game”.What about with 2 minutes left in the game when you're up 3 points and trying to run out the clock?
Of course not. Because in the course of normal game action you don’t know you’re going to be tackled right at 9 or 10 yards. If you’re in the clear so much that you can evaluate whether you should go down or not then you should just keep going and get 15 or 20 yards or whatever. We’ve seen numerous times players give themselves up for clock management purposes- not scoring intentionally/staying in bounds intentionally rather than gain more yards. In some scenarios this has the same strategic benefits, it’s just not as easy to go down right at 9 yards as it is to go down in bounds or go down short of the goal line.Worth noting: I've never heard a coach at any level tell a RB or WR to deliberately fall down at the 9 yard point untouched because “it’s better to have 2nd & 1”.
if anyone can find an example of this I’d be very interested in seeing it.
We’re all responding to a poster who said there are no scenarios ever where 2nd and 1 is more beneficial than 1st and 10.The topic clearly says “first play of the game”.
Not necessarily. If your second down attempt is incomplete and you pick up the first on a run you’re in the exact same position but took a risk that you could have been punting.True but further down the field.
I'm not seeing the connection here.Would you rather have $9 or $10 with an incremental option to get $100?
:facepalm:
3rd and 1 for sure. Every coach would be happy with a 9 yard gain on 2nd and 10.Would you rather have 2nd and 10 or 3rd and 1?
I think you're looking at this too cut and dry and there would be examples of this.So would 1st and 10.
why would 2nd and 1 be any different in that scenario?
Of course. Because then I have 1st down and don’t have to try to get 1st down.
seems kind of obvious. I fail to see any advantage to 2nd and 1 or 2nd & inches in either of the scenarios you propose here.
That’s what I’m taking about. Love the flea flicker. But if my team runs that play on first and ten, I love it a little less.1st and 10, but I do like the idea of a flea flicker on 2nd and 1.
Absolutely. I don’t want my defense facing down a 2nd and 1.I do love this topic though, seems very split.
Doesn't anyone else when watching their team on defense, see the opponent run close to the first down marker on 1st and 10 and just hope he gets it? Rather than drag out the series? I often do this because I want a fresh set of downs to try to stop them from getting 10 yards, and I know they'll just convert the 2nd and inches or 3rd and inches anyways.
1st and 10 is a sure thing. 2nd and 1 could turn into 2nd and 11 after a penalty or sack.Absolutely. I don’t want my defense facing down a 2nd and 1.
You can turn 1st and 10 into 1st and 20 with a penalty.1st and 10 is a sure thing. 2nd and 1 could turn into 2nd and 11 after a penalty or sack.
Absolutely irrelevant to this discussion.IHEARTFF said:Would you rather have 2nd and 10 or 3rd and 1?
The mental gymnastics in here is amazing.You can turn 1st and 10 into 1st and 20 with a penalty.