Scott Linehan made the worst coaching decision of the week (1 Viewer)

[Ghost Rider]

Basically, his decision in the 4th quarter cost the Rams the game, any realistic chance at winning the NFC West, and, possibly, a playoff spot.

The Rams led 16-14 early in the 4th quarter. 3rd and 6 from the 18-yard line. Bulger throws a pass to Curtis at the 13. The pass is ruled incomplete. Wilkins comes in and kicks a FG to make it 19-14, but right before they snapped the ball, the Rams flew the flag to challenge the play. It was overturned, as they said Curtis made the catch. Okay, it is now 4th and 1, and Linehan decides to go for it. BAD DECISION.

So, with a 4th and 1 at a critical point, and with guys like Torry Holt, Isaac Bruce, and Steven Jackson on your team, Linehan calls for a pass to a rookie TE named Joe Klopfenstein, who has 9 catches this year, and what happens? Klopfenstein makes the wrong turn in the end zone, and the pass falls incomplete.

The result is the Seahawks ended up winning 24-22.

Horrible, horrible decision.

I know it is never safe to assume the rest of the game plays out exactly the same way, but let's say for argument's sake that it would have.

The Rams kick the FG and lead 19-14. So, when Seattle returns that punt for a TD, it is 20-19 and they probably go for 2. So, it is either 22-19 or 20-19 Seattle. The Rams score a TD with a little over two minutes left, and the score becomes either 26-22 Rams, or 25-20 Rams (and they go for 2). So, their lead there is either 4, 5, or 7. That means Seattle has to score a TD to either win or tie it at the end. Instead, they kick a FG and win the game!

All because of Linehan's terrible decision to take points off the board, and his terrible decision to throw a 4th down pass to a rookie TE.

 

[Kiddnets]

I agree on the FG but if you're going to go for it on 4th down - how do you not give it to your huge RB who has been on fire lately to get one yeard. Too many things can go wrong when you throw it on that short. Have some faith in your OL and RB!

 

[Ravens]

<-- Rams' fans

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

I didn't like these decisions much either.

 

[Cowboys#1]

apparently linehan was sleeping when jackson carried half the hawks D into the endzone.. he didnt think he could get that tough yard.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

So bad execution and good call to go for it.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I agree on the FG but if you're going to go for it on 4th down - how do you not give it to your huge RB who has been on fire lately to get one yeard. Too many things can go wrong when you throw it on that short. Have some faith in your OL and RB!

Exactly. Some of these coaches try to get too cute with play calls in big situations, instead of relying on what got you there.

 

[omally]

<-- Rams' fans

I'm not a Rams fan, but I thought the playcalling was terrible too.

 

[billyjoe]

So bad execution and good call to go for it.

Bad execution because it was a bad play call, and a bad call to go for it. 4th 1, you're going to pass to your rookie TE with the season on the line?Yeah really good call.

 

[Hamstring]

Aren't Ram fans used to this crap? 3 different coaches have been doing it for close to 10 years.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

So bad execution and good call to go for it.

Bad execution because it was a bad play call, and a bad call to go for it.

That makes absolutely no sense.I didn't see the play in question. Was Mr. Rookie TE open? If so, sounds like they had the right play dialed up and he screwed up the execution.Again, we're doing the results oriented thing again. We assume that because the Rams lose by 2, that if they had gone for the FG and made it, the rest of the plays would've gone exactly the same.Didn't Martz get roasted a few years ago in the playoffs for NOT going for it and taking the safe field goal?You can't win as a coach. Whether or not it was the right call, it's merit is judged by how the players executed on the field. The coach isn't out there blocking or running routes.

 

[Ghost Rider]

So bad execution and good call to go for it.

Bad execution because it was a bad play call, and a bad call to go for it.

That makes absolutely no sense.I didn't see the play in question. Was Mr. Rookie TE open? If so, sounds like they had the right play dialed up and he screwed up the execution.

It was a bad decision because it was dependent on an unproven, unreliable player to execute a potentially good play call properly.

 

[dwarfboy]

What about the Falcons going for it on 4th and 1. Instead of trying to run the ball, or even lining up in a formation that looked like they were going to run the ball, they line up in an obvious passing formation. The Oline was in 2point stances and on their toes ready to get back in pass protection and they throw deep instead of a Vick bootleg or a screen pass or a short throw to Crumpler or basically anything that had a high percentage chance of being successful. The deep throw wouldn't bother me so much if they didn't actually telegraph that there was a pass coming.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

So bad execution and good call to go for it.

Bad execution because it was a bad play call, and a bad call to go for it.

That makes absolutely no sense.I didn't see the play in question. Was Mr. Rookie TE open? If so, sounds like they had the right play dialed up and he screwed up the execution.

It was a bad decision because it was dependent on an unproven, unreliable player to execute a potentially good play call properly.

Isn't that what said player is paid to do?

 

[redman]

Do you literally think that Linehan called in from the sideline essentially saying, "Throw it to Klopfenstein", or was it simply Bulger making a questionable decision as to which receiver to throw to?

 

[Ghost Rider]

So bad execution and good call to go for it.

Bad execution because it was a bad play call, and a bad call to go for it.

That makes absolutely no sense.I didn't see the play in question. Was Mr. Rookie TE open? If so, sounds like they had the right play dialed up and he screwed up the execution.

It was a bad decision because it was dependent on an unproven, unreliable player to execute a potentially good play call properly.

Isn't that what said player is paid to do?

Yes, but that doesn't mean they are always going to execute when their number is called. You don't think maybe using Holt, Jackson, or Bruce on a big play like that would have been a better decision?

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Do you literally think that Linehan called in from the sideline essentially saying, "Throw it to Klopfenstein", or was it simply Bulger making a questionable decision as to which receiver to throw to?

I was getting to this.Was Klopf the primary read?

 

[avoiding injuries]

So bad execution and good call to go for it.

Bad execution because it was a bad play call, and a bad call to go for it.

That makes absolutely no sense.I didn't see the play in question. Was Mr. Rookie TE open? If so, sounds like they had the right play dialed up and he screwed up the execution.Again, we're doing the results oriented thing again. We assume that because the Rams lose by 2, that if they had gone for the FG and made it, the rest of the plays would've gone exactly the same.Didn't Martz get roasted a few years ago in the playoffs for NOT going for it and taking the safe field goal?You can't win as a coach. Whether or not it was the right call, it's merit is judged by how the players executed on the field. The coach isn't out there blocking or running routes.

You needed to see the play. Rookie TE was covered like a blanket. If you're going to go for it on 4th and 1, and you've already decided not to give it to your RB, why not have T Holt in there. I didn't see him on the field for that play.Can't say he took points off the board b/c he challenged before the FG was kicked. Still, on the road with a chance to go ahead you have to get the points. I agree that is was the worst play calling I saw yesterday.

 

[Keepers]

apparently linehan was sleeping when jackson carried half the hawks D into the endzone.. he didnt think he could get that tough yard.

Jackson's TD run came after the play in question but doesn't change the fact that it was a terrible call by Linehan. I was with the announcers in that if you are going to pass it, why wouldn't yo go to Holt, Bruce or even Curtis, seems like Linehan was going with the shock factor going to Klofenstein who didn't have a catch the entire game.

 

[avoiding injuries]

Do you literally think that Linehan called in from the sideline essentially saying, "Throw it to Klopfenstein", or was it simply Bulger making a questionable decision as to which receiver to throw to?

I was getting to this.Was Klopf the primary read?

I don't remember seeing ANY wideouts on that play. Unless a WR was up on the line it was a play called for a TE or possible screen. I'll ask again in this post, did anyone see Holt on the field for that play? Heck, even Bruce?

 

[mozzy84]

Do you literally think that Linehan called in from the sideline essentially saying, "Throw it to Klopfenstein", or was it simply Bulger making a questionable decision as to which receiver to throw to?

he was really the only guy out running a pattern it looked like. The announcer for that game ripped that play call so many times, he must have brought it up 5 or 6 times after that, saying pretty much the same thing about having other good players on the team, why throw it to Joe whoever..

 

[j3r3m3y]

So bad execution and good call to go for it.

Bad execution because it was a bad play call, and a bad call to go for it.

That makes absolutely no sense.I didn't see the play in question. Was Mr. Rookie TE open? If so, sounds like they had the right play dialed up and he screwed up the execution.

It was a bad decision because it was dependent on an unproven, unreliable player to execute a potentially good play call properly.

If he is that "unproven" and "unreliable" he shouldn't be wearing a jersey.By the way to the OP, going for it instead of kicking a FG is not the same thing as "taking points off the board". Taking points off the board is when you make the FG and there was a defensive penalty that gives you a first down. I know it is a high percentage play, an attempt is not an automatic 3 points.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

I blame the Rams.

I just checked the game log. They got a 15 yard penalty after the TD. Celebration?

Then they allow a big run back on the ensuing kickoff. Then they allow Seattle to drive to the 20 for a chipshot FG.

Why are we blaming the coach again?

 

[Ghost Rider]

So bad execution and good call to go for it.

Bad execution because it was a bad play call, and a bad call to go for it.

That makes absolutely no sense.I didn't see the play in question. Was Mr. Rookie TE open? If so, sounds like they had the right play dialed up and he screwed up the execution.

It was a bad decision because it was dependent on an unproven, unreliable player to execute a potentially good play call properly.

If he is that "unproven" and "unreliable" he shouldn't be wearing a jersey.By the way to the OP, going for it instead of kicking a FG is not the same thing as "taking points off the board". Taking points off the board is when you make the FG and there was a defensive penalty that gives you a first down. I know it is a high percentage play, an attempt is not an automatic 3 points.

Wilkins hit the FG, which was attempted as no one heard the whistle blow about a second before the center snapped the ball for the attempt.

 

[redman]

Do you literally think that Linehan called in from the sideline essentially saying, "Throw it to Klopfenstein", or was it simply Bulger making a questionable decision as to which receiver to throw to?

he was really the only guy out running a pattern it looked like. The announcer for that game ripped that play call so many times, he must have brought it up 5 or 6 times after that, saying pretty much the same thing about having other good players on the team, why throw it to Joe whoever..

Hmmmm, well that's the kind of play that makes the coach look "brilliant" and "creative" if it works, and stupid if it doesn't. It sounds like a play-action from a heavy formation, no?

 

[avoiding injuries]

I blame the Rams.I just checked the game log. They got a 15 yard penalty after the TD. Celebration?Then they allow a big run back on the ensuing kickoff. Then they allow Seattle to drive to the 20 for a chipshot FG.Why are we blaming the coach again?

You didn't see Linehan doing cartwheels along the 50yd line to draw the celebration penalty?

 

[Ghost Rider]

I blame the Rams.I just checked the game log. They got a 15 yard penalty after the TD. Celebration?Then they allow a big run back on the ensuing kickoff. Then they allow Seattle to drive to the 20 for a chipshot FG.Why are we blaming the coach again?

The 15-yard penalty came when there was a scrum following Jackson's touchdown, and one of the Rams stupidly jumped on the pile. That was definitely a costly penalty. The coach is still to blame for not making the right decisions. Had he, the team would have possibly been in the position of having to give up a touchdown to lose the game, rather than a field goal.

 

[mozzy84]

Do you literally think that Linehan called in from the sideline essentially saying, "Throw it to Klopfenstein", or was it simply Bulger making a questionable decision as to which receiver to throw to?

he was really the only guy out running a pattern it looked like. The announcer for that game ripped that play call so many times, he must have brought it up 5 or 6 times after that, saying pretty much the same thing about having other good players on the team, why throw it to Joe whoever..

Hmmmm, well that's the kind of play that makes the coach look "brilliant" and "creative" if it works, and stupid if it doesn't. It sounds like a play-action from a heavy formation, no?

yup, and bulger threw it to one side of the guy and he turned the opposite way, and he was covered pretty good anyways. There were other reasons the rams lost that game besides that one play, but still bad call...

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

I blame the Rams.I just checked the game log. They got a 15 yard penalty after the TD. Celebration?Then they allow a big run back on the ensuing kickoff. Then they allow Seattle to drive to the 20 for a chipshot FG.Why are we blaming the coach again?

The 15-yard penalty came when there was a scrum following Jackson's touchdown, and one of the Rams stupidly jumped on the pile. That was definitely a costly penalty. The coach is still to blame for not making the right decisions. Had he, the team would have possibly been in the position of having to give up a touchdown to lose the game, rather than a field goal.

So the players, in succession, do three things that hurt their win chances on the last drive of the game. Yet the fault lies in the coach who made a tough call in a tough situation to try to put the game away. Gotcha.

 

[j3r3m3y]

So bad execution and good call to go for it.

Bad execution because it was a bad play call, and a bad call to go for it.

That makes absolutely no sense.I didn't see the play in question. Was Mr. Rookie TE open? If so, sounds like they had the right play dialed up and he screwed up the execution.

It was a bad decision because it was dependent on an unproven, unreliable player to execute a potentially good play call properly.

If he is that "unproven" and "unreliable" he shouldn't be wearing a jersey.By the way to the OP, going for it instead of kicking a FG is not the same thing as "taking points off the board". Taking points off the board is when you make the FG and there was a defensive penalty that gives you a first down. I know it is a high percentage play, an attempt is not an automatic 3 points.

Wilkins hit the FG, which was attempted as no one heard the whistle blow about a second before the center snapped the ball for the attempt.

The whistle blew, there was no official attempt and the points were never actually on the board.

 

[Da Guru]

Third Quarter, Fourth and five from Seattles 30 and he shuns the FG and goes for it and Bulger throws a INT.

What was that all about?

Does anyone know why they went for it in this situation?

 

[Vikes Fan]

So bad execution and good call to go for it.

Bad execution because it was a bad play call, and a bad call to go for it.

That makes absolutely no sense.I didn't see the play in question. Was Mr. Rookie TE open? If so, sounds like they had the right play dialed up and he screwed up the execution.

It was a bad decision because it was dependent on an unproven, unreliable player to execute a potentially good play call properly.

If he is that "unproven" and "unreliable" he shouldn't be wearing a jersey.By the way to the OP, going for it instead of kicking a FG is not the same thing as "taking points off the board". Taking points off the board is when you make the FG and there was a defensive penalty that gives you a first down. I know it is a high percentage play, an attempt is not an automatic 3 points.

Wilkins hit the FG, which was attempted as no one heard the whistle blow about a second before the center snapped the ball for the attempt.

The whistle blew, there was no official attempt and the points were never actually on the board.

Thanks! This was going to be my point. If the whistle blew, it was not a play whether he kicked it or not. It is not taking points off the board.Also, hindsight is 20/20. Maybe they should have kicked it again, but then the fans would have been complaining that he wasn't aggressive. Jackson gets stuffed, and it was stupid to go for it. Bulger makes a bad pass to Holt, and again, it was stupid. None of us were at practice this week, where the play probably worked 10 times in a row.

 

[CalBear]

The Rams led 16-14 early in the 4th quarter. 3rd and 6 from the 18-yard line. Bulger throws a pass to Curtis at the 13. The pass is ruled incomplete. Wilkins comes in and kicks a FG to make it 19-14, but right before they snapped the ball, the Rams flew the flag to challenge the play. It was overturned, as they said Curtis made the catch. Okay, it is now 4th and 1, and Linehan decides to go for it. BAD DECISION.

In terms of expected value, going for it on fourth in one in this situation is almost certainly better than kicking the field goal. The field goal doesn't help you that much, and even if you fail on fourth down, you still have the lead and Seattle stuck in bad field position with their backup RB and backup QB. Kicking a FG is an anti-percentage move there.

 

[PatsWillWin]

How do you know he called for a play to go to Klop? If Bulger throws to Holt and Holt scores a TD, everyone says what a great throw by Bulger. Instead Bulger throws to Klop and he screws up, and everyone says what a terrible call.

 

[billyjoe]

The Rams led 16-14 early in the 4th quarter. 3rd and 6 from the 18-yard line. Bulger throws a pass to Curtis at the 13. The pass is ruled incomplete. Wilkins comes in and kicks a FG to make it 19-14, but right before they snapped the ball, the Rams flew the flag to challenge the play. It was overturned, as they said Curtis made the catch. Okay, it is now 4th and 1, and Linehan decides to go for it. BAD DECISION.

In terms of expected value, going for it on fourth in one in this situation is almost certainly better than kicking the field goal. The field goal doesn't help you that much, and even if you fail on fourth down, you still have the lead and Seattle stuck in bad field position with their backup RB and backup QB. Kicking a FG is an anti-percentage move there.

I call bull#### on this.FG in the 4th quarter, moving the lead from 2 to 5? Where are you pulling this from? I'd like to see the numbers on 4th qrt FGs moving the lead from 2-5 being an "anti-pecetanage" move. Even if you kick the FG, and kickoff, they probably end up the 22-23 yard line, wow 10 yards. That's hardly pinned on the 13.There is no way going for it on 4th and 1 is a +EV move in that situation.

 

[Limp Ditka]

The Rams led 16-14 early in the 4th quarter. 3rd and 6 from the 18-yard line. Bulger throws a pass to Curtis at the 13. The pass is ruled incomplete. Wilkins comes in and kicks a FG to make it 19-14, but right before they snapped the ball, the Rams flew the flag to challenge the play. It was overturned, as they said Curtis made the catch. Okay, it is now 4th and 1, and Linehan decides to go for it. BAD DECISION.

In terms of expected value, going for it on fourth in one in this situation is almost certainly better than kicking the field goal. The field goal doesn't help you that much, and even if you fail on fourth down, you still have the lead and Seattle stuck in bad field position with their backup RB and backup QB. Kicking a FG is an anti-percentage move there.

The FG helps you a ton. It makes the Seahawks need a TD to overcome the deficit as well as leaves the Rams within, at most, 3 points if the Seahawks do get the aforementioned TD later in the game.

 

[5Rings]

I think Rams fans are just having a tough time looking at the standings and seeing the San Francisco 49ers ahead of them.



eta--sorry, had to get it in while i could.

 

[Bob_Magaw]

So bad execution and good call to go for it.

Bad execution because it was a bad play call, and a bad call to go for it.

That makes absolutely no sense.I didn't see the play in question. Was Mr. Rookie TE open? If so, sounds like they had the right play dialed up and he screwed up the execution.Again, we're doing the results oriented thing again. We assume that because the Rams lose by 2, that if they had gone for the FG and made it, the rest of the plays would've gone exactly the same.Didn't Martz get roasted a few years ago in the playoffs for NOT going for it and taking the safe field goal?You can't win as a coach. Whether or not it was the right call, it's merit is judged by how the players executed on the field. The coach isn't out there blocking or running routes.

i'm a rams fan & thought bad call... i don't know if there are exceptions to old saw that you never take points off board, but i don't think this qualifies...martz example doesn't compare... that was end of game, where he took tie instead of going for win & lost in OT... it wasn't 4th down, & there was time enough to take a shot in end zone, but he didn't even trust bulger (or OL) enough to avoid sack or INT or play in bounds that ran out clock (not sure if they had TO left... don't think so... it would have had to be shot in end zone)...the point about linehan not blocking isn't relevant if it was a bad call to take points off board... as is poor route running, even if we allow he should have gone for it on 4th & 1... should have been jackson, & we don't know if blocking would have been problem as they weren't given chance...bad, bad call...there D, which is often the culprit, held them to reasonable score (though they didn't hold up very good when they needed a stop at end), but the punt return is a killer, & the rams have shot themselves in foot with ST for more years than i care to remember...its also possible game would have unfolded differently if pace doesn't tear triceps (but can't complain, with SEA injuries & not having hass & SA)...

 

[IvanKaramazov]

In terms of expected value, going for it on fourth in one in this situation is almost certainly better than kicking the field goal. The field goal doesn't help you that much, and even if you fail on fourth down, you still have the lead and Seattle stuck in bad field position with their backup RB and backup QB. Kicking a FG is an anti-percentage move there.

The Rams lost by two. The last time I checked, field goals were worth three points. I'll leave it to you do the rest of the math on this one.

 

[Da Guru]

Third Quarter, Fourth and five from Seattles 30 and he shuns the FG and goes for it and Bulger throws a INT.What was that all about?Does anyone know why they went for it in this situation?

????

 

[mad sweeney]

Do you literally think that Linehan called in from the sideline essentially saying, "Throw it to Klopfenstein", or was it simply Bulger making a questionable decision as to which receiver to throw to?

I heard after the game but have not seen it since that Bulger said the FB went the wrong way, so maybe the FB was the primary or would've drawn coverage away from the TE. Seattle was geared for the run, there was no one there but the DB and the TE. Another terrible call and pathetic outing with the Rams beating themselves for a Seahawks win. Love it.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I object.

I would like to offer into evidence the Tom Coughlin's decision to kick a 53 yard field goal in Giants Stadium in the wind and rain with a kicker who already missed from 40 against a team that has a dynamite return guy standing in the end zone waiting for the the inevitable.

Thank you.

 

[avoiding injuries]

How do you know he called for a play to go to Klop? If Bulger throws to Holt and Holt scores a TD, everyone says what a great throw by Bulger. Instead Bulger throws to Klop and he screws up, and everyone says what a terrible call.

He was the only person actively running a route, and to my knowledge Holt and Bruce were not on the field.

 

[avoiding injuries]

Third Quarter, Fourth and five from Seattles 30 and he shuns the FG and goes for it and Bulger throws a INT.What was that all about?Does anyone know why they went for it in this situation?

????

Can't remember the exact situation, although if the DB would have knocked the ball down instead of catching it, it would have saved them 25yds. The end result was = to a great punt pinned inside the 5yd line.

 

[Ghost Rider]

@KnowledgeReignsSupreme:

Based on your logic, a coach should never receive praise for a win, nor criticism for a loss, since the players are the ones on the field.

@j3r3m3y:

Not technically, but you know what I meant. The FG would have been good, had they not challenged, since both teams played the down as if the whistle hadn't blown.

@CalBear:

I don't believe it. Please show me proof.

 

[avoiding injuries]

Third Quarter, Fourth and five from Seattles 30 and he shuns the FG and goes for it and Bulger throws a INT.What was that all about?Does anyone know why they went for it in this situation?

????

Can't remember the exact situation, although if the DB would have knocked the ball down instead of catching it, it would have saved them 25yds. The end result was = to a great punt pinned inside the 5yd line.

Oh, it would have been a 47yd FG attempt in the rain. Punting into the endzone would net 10 yards. I agreed with the play at the time. Actually worked out OK for them besides Bulger's streak on not being intercepted ended.

 

[CalBear]

In terms of expected value, going for it on fourth in one in this situation is almost certainly better than kicking the field goal. The field goal doesn't help you that much, and even if you fail on fourth down, you still have the lead and Seattle stuck in bad field position with their backup RB and backup QB. Kicking a FG is an anti-percentage move there.

I call bull#### on this.FG in the 4th quarter, moving the lead from 2 to 5? Where are you pulling this from? I'd like to see the numbers on 4th qrt FGs moving the lead from 2-5 being an "anti-pecetanage" move. Even if you kick the FG, and kickoff, they probably end up the 22-23 yard line, wow 10 yards. That's hardly pinned on the 13.There is no way going for it on 4th and 1 is a +EV move in that situation.

All else being equal, going for it on fourth and one from inside the opponent's 17 has a higher expected value than kicking a field goal. (See Romer, 2003). Success probability of getting a first down on fourth and one is quite high, almost as high as the field goal percentage, and the value of a first down at the 13 is significantly higher than the value of the field goal, especially since a failure on fourth and 1 gives the other team the ball at their own 13 (where they have -EV) instead of at their own 27 (average field position after a kickoff). Romer's study was based on early-game situations without time and score constraints, but I am fairly certain that studying this particular situation would yield a +EV for going for it.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

So bad execution and good call to go for it.

Yep. I definitely agree with the decision to go for it.

 

[billyjoe]

In terms of expected value, going for it on fourth in one in this situation is almost certainly better than kicking the field goal. The field goal doesn't help you that much, and even if you fail on fourth down, you still have the lead and Seattle stuck in bad field position with their backup RB and backup QB. Kicking a FG is an anti-percentage move there.

I call bull#### on this.FG in the 4th quarter, moving the lead from 2 to 5? Where are you pulling this from? I'd like to see the numbers on 4th qrt FGs moving the lead from 2-5 being an "anti-pecetanage" move. Even if you kick the FG, and kickoff, they probably end up the 22-23 yard line, wow 10 yards. That's hardly pinned on the 13.There is no way going for it on 4th and 1 is a +EV move in that situation.

All else being equal, going for it on fourth and one from inside the opponent's 17 has a higher expected value than kicking a field goal. (See Romer, 2003). Success probability of getting a first down on fourth and one is quite high, almost as high as the field goal percentage, and the value of a first down at the 13 is significantly higher than the value of the field goal, especially since a failure on fourth and 1 gives the other team the ball at their own 13 (where they have -EV) instead of at their own 27 (average field position after a kickoff). Romer's study was based on early-game situations without time and score constraints, but I am fairly certain that studying this particular situation would yield a +EV for going for it.

First off all, the EV according to Romer at the 13 yard line is very close to zero. In fact the 15 is 0, so there's VERY little -EV at the 13. If you look at error margins, the difference is close to negligible. So no, putting them at the 13 should not factor into this decision.Romer also spouts such BS as"Even on its 10-yard line -- 90 yards from a score -- a team within 3 yards of a first down is better off on average going for it". 4th and 3 on your 10, go for it. *lol* Easy nerd.Not to mention, you're dealing with long-run averages for hypothetical average teams playing against other hypothetical average teams, with all such teams in point-maximization mode. The chart is obviously only a starting point for your strategy calculations. How are you factoring time left in the game? What if there was 3 seconds left, and they were down by 2. Is it still +EV to go for it on 4th and 1? Of course not. What if there's 30 seconds left, you're up by 2, pushing it to 5. With the limited amount of time, forcing the other team to get a TD vs FG.You basically bastardize a cute theory by Romer, just to get into into the thread. Then you factor in the HC called a pass to a rookie TE, the HC should have realized he was an idiot, and kicked a FG.So no, going for it on 4th and 1 on the 13, up by 2, on a pass to a rookie TE, in the 4th qrter, is not +EV.

 

[Twilight]

I object.I would like to offer into evidence the Tom Coughlin's decision to kick a 53 yard field goal in Giants Stadium in the wind and rain with a kicker who already missed from 40 against a team that has a dynamite return guy standing in the end zone waiting for the the inevitable.Thank you.

First thing I though of when I saw the title of the thread.