Down and distance decision making

[BlueShoe]

Let me first preface this by stating that I have no issue with the coaching decisions in the Broncos game. Hindsight is always 20/20. The Colts coaches are performing a job duty, and can lose that job. I on the other hand am a fan, and will be watching the Colts next year no matter who is coaching them. Obviously the coaches have more to lose.

 

These thoughts are not just from Sunday, but rather a collection of games I have witnessed by several teams over the past 30 years.

 

Down and distance decision making:

1. Take the points. From my very young adolescent days (early 1980's) of watching football on TV, the announcers used to always adamantly propose that teams should take the points. Somewhere along the way, with the fast-paced and high-powered offenses, teams have forgotten this very important unwritten rule. Unless the game is near the end, just take the points. Kick the field goal, especially in the first half. Sure it is not always the most popular move, but time and time again the unwritten rule is the correct approach. 
2. Punting inside the opponents territory. Unless my team has a commanding lead, I would go for it on "4th and less than a few" more often than not from the opponents 40-45 yard line. Half the time the ball bounces in for a touch back anyway, and in those situations we are only talking about a difference of 20-25 yards. In my mind, it is worth the gamble. Obviously the flow of the game would dictate this decision too.
3. Don't be too scared to kick a long field goal. Points are at a premium in the NFL, and if there is a shot a 3 points, albeit a 50-55 yard field goal - in ideal weather conditions, take the risk, especially in the first half. Granted, weather conditions and winds can play a factor and change this approach. 

Just some thoughts to ponder.

[jvan1973]

Let me first preface this by stating that I have no issue with the coaching decisions in the Broncos game. Hindsight is always 20/20. The Colts coaches are performing a job duty, and can lose that job. I on the other hand am a fan, and will be watching the Colts next year no matter who is coaching them. Obviously the coaches have more to lose.

These thoughts are not just from Sunday, but rather a collection of games I have witnessed by several teams over the past 30 years.

Down and distance decision making:

• Take the points. From my very young adolescent days (early 1980's) of watching football on TV, the announcers used to always adamantly propose that teams should take the points. Somewhere along the way, with the fast-paced and high-powered offenses, teams have forgotten this very important unwritten rule. Unless the game is near the end, just take the points. Kick the field goal, especially in the first half. Sure it is not always the most popular move, but time and time again the unwritten rule is the correct approach.
• Punting inside the opponents territory. Unless my team has a commanding lead, I would go for it on "4th and less than a few" more often than not from the opponents 40-45 yard line. Half the time the ball bounces in for a touch back anyway, and in those situations we are only talking about a difference of 20-25 yards. In my mind, it is worth the gamble. Obviously the flow of the game would dictate this decision too.
• Don't be too scared to kick a long field goal. Points are at a premium in the NFL, and if there is a shot a 3 points, albeit a 50-55 yard field goal - in ideal weather conditions, take the risk, especially in the first half. Granted, weather conditions and winds can play a factor and change this approach.

Just some thoughts to ponder.

I think points 2 and 3 are contradictory to point one.

[BlueShoe]

I think points 2 and 3 are contradictory to point one.

 

How?

[Dustin]

My favorite were the draws on 2nd and long (18 and I think 15).

[BlueShoe]

My favorite were the draws on 2nd and long (18 and I think 15).

 

I am only taking an educated guess, but I think the Colts coaching staff put too much emphasis on scoring touchdowns and becoming less predictable. I think they went too far the other direction. 

 

There is a balance that needs to be met. Had we taken the field goals, we could be having a different conversation this week. Then again we could have still lost and missed a few field goals.

[jvan1973]

How?

you go old school conservative in point one and gamble on points two and three

[BlueShoe]

you go old school conservative in point one and gamble on points two and three

 

It is all a gamble. I am just taking the best odds. 

[jvan1973]

It is all a gamble. I am just taking the best odds.

What are the odds league wide on 55 yard field goals

[BlueShoe]

What are the odds league wide on 55 yard field goals

 

League wide - Teams that attempt long field goals have a better chance to get an extra 3 points. ;)

 

My guess would be around 50-60%. I believe there is a better chance to make it than miss it.

 

This past week, Kickers were 7 for 9 from 50 plus yards (78%). 

[Coffeedrinker]

I would like to see the Colts run the ball two plays in a row.  I just looked at the play by play of the last three games; @ Broncos, vs @ Pats and vs Chiefs.  In all three games there were two situations where the Colts ran the ball twice in a row.

 

One:  1 and goal at the 4 - Run, 2nd and goal at the 3 - run

 

Then in the 4th quarter of the Pats game.  Score was 22 - 29,  1st and 10 run, 2nd and 6 Run, 1st and 10, Run.

 

So in the last 194 plays, the Colts have ran the ball consecutive times... 3 times.  Pep, Luck, or whomever is making that decision needs to realize that 2nd and 8 or less can still be a running down.  Especially in the first half and especially between the 20s.

[BlueShoe]

I would like to see the Colts run the ball two plays in a row.  I just looked at the play by play of the last three games; @ Broncos, vs @ Pats and vs Chiefs.  In all three games there were two situations where the Colts ran the ball twice in a row.

 

One:  1 and goal at the 4 - Run, 2nd and goal at the 3 - run

 

Then in the 4th quarter of the Pats game.  Score was 22 - 29,  1st and 10 run, 2nd and 6 Run, 1st and 10, Run.

 

So in the last 194 plays, the Colts have ran the ball consecutive times... 3 times.  Pep, Luck, or whomever is making that decision needs to realize that 2nd and 8 or less can still be a running down.  Especially in the first half and especially between the 20s.

 

Interesting information. I don't think we have enough confidence in our ability to run the ball. 

[Coffeedrinker]

Interesting information. I am not sure if we have the confidence to run the ball. 

It's kind of a chicken and egg thing, IMO, you can't have a good running game if you don't run the ball or you don't run the ball because you don't have a good running game.

 

All I know is that by 5:41 in the 1st quarter, Richardson had touched the ball 4 times and had 23 yards from scrimmage (3 runs of 6, -1, and 7 and 1 reception for 10 yards).  He did not touch the ball again until 6:00 something left in the 2nd quarter and only.  And then, didn't touch it against until 12 minutes left in the 3rd (1st and goal at the 8 and he took it to the 4) then two passes and the failed QB sneak.

 

To me that is bad play calling and bad management of personnel.

[lollygagger8]

I am only taking an educated guess, but I think the Colts coaching staff put too much emphasis on scoring touchdowns

 

 

Wait a second...that's the object of the game. 

[Superman]

My favorite were the draws on 2nd and long (18 and I think 15).

 

Both times, we were deep in our own territory. The second one, we were on the 5 yard line.

[BlueShoe]

It's kind of a chicken and egg thing, IMO, you can't have a good running game if you don't run the ball or you don't run the ball because you don't have a good running game.

 

All I know is that by 5:41 in the 1st quarter, Richardson had touched the ball 4 times and had 23 yards from scrimmage (3 runs of 6, -1, and 7 and 1 reception for 10 yards).  He did not touch the ball again until 6:00 something left in the 2nd quarter and only.  And then, didn't touch it against until 12 minutes left in the 3rd (1st and goal at the 8 and he took it to the 4) then two passes and the failed QB sneak.

 

To me that is bad play calling and bad management of personnel.

 

I completely agree. Even if when we are struggling to run the ball we should mix in more screens, to counter the blitzes we keep seeing week after week. This also gets our running backs into the game. Our defense needs to start faster so we have time to develop a running game. We cannot have a few 3 and outs and then be down by 21. We have become one-dimensional on too many occasions. 

 

While watching the Saints/Falcons game on the RedZone the announcer said the Saints threw more to their backs than any other team in the league last year. I looked it up and Sproles, Thomas, and Ingram combined for 155 receptions. To put that into perspective, Brees completed 446 passes last year. That equates to 35% of Brees completions were to running backs in 2013.

 

In contrast to the Saints, only 8 of Lucks 35 completions (23%) went to our backs Sunday night. In 2013 we completed 24% of our passes to our backs (83 of 343). 

 

We need to get our running backs more involved in the game. 

[BlueShoe]

Wait a second...that's the object of the game. 

 

LOL.It was in contrast to kicking field goals. Sometime we just have to take the 3 points. ;)

[Superman]

Let me first preface this by stating that I have no issue with the coaching decisions in the Broncos game. Hindsight is always 20/20. The Colts coaches are performing a job duty, and can lose that job. I on the other hand am a fan, and will be watching the Colts next year no matter who is coaching them. Obviously the coaches have more to lose.

 

These thoughts are not just from Sunday, but rather a collection of games I have witnessed by several teams over the past 30 years.

 

Down and distance decision making:

1. Take the points. From my very young adolescent days (early 1980's) of watching football on TV, the announcers used to always adamantly propose that teams should take the points. Somewhere along the way, with the fast-paced and high-powered offenses, teams have forgotten this very important unwritten rule. Unless the game is near the end, just take the points. Kick the field goal, especially in the first half. Sure it is not always the most popular move, but time and time again the unwritten rule is the correct approach. 
2. Punting inside the opponents territory. Unless my team has a commanding lead, I would go for it on "4th and less than a few" more often than not from the opponents 40-45 yard line. Half the time the ball bounces in for a touch back anyway, and in those situations we are only talking about a difference of 20-25 yards. In my mind, it is worth the gamble. Obviously the flow of the game would dictate this decision too.
3. Don't be too scared to kick a long field goal. Points are at a premium in the NFL, and if there is a shot a 3 points, albeit a 50-55 yard field goal - in ideal weather conditions, take the risk, especially in the first half. Granted, weather conditions and winds can play a factor and change this approach. 

Just some thoughts to ponder.

 

Good thoughts.

 

My dissent is mostly with #1. "Take the points" isn't a hard and fast rule. Sometimes, it makes no sense, especially near the goal line. It's fourth and short, your odds of converting are high. And the stats on offensive drives starting inside their own 5 yard line suggest that points won't be scored frequently enough to make a turnover on downs too costly. 

 

If it's early in the game, most of the time you kick the FG. But on 4th and goal from the 2 yards or less, I think that's go for it territory, especially if you have a good QB.

 

And of course, late in the game, if you're down more than 3, you go for it (define "late in the game," of course, and whether you have timeouts, etc.) Prime example is the Colts/Pats game in 2003, where we kicked the FG on the goal line, down 7. Then we get the ball back still down 4, and still need a TD. McGinest stopped Edge, and we lose the game (and homefield advantage in the playoffs). No reason not to go for it on the first possession.

[Coaching sux]

Was never a big fan of Hamilton when he was at Stanford. Luck and Fleener made him look alot better than he is. He is getting exposed in the NFL with his NCAA play calling mentality

[JoKeR]

I don't agree with #3, I hate long field goals, sometimes I feel like they just have their figures crossed that it's going to be good, why not just go for a 1st down?

[austriancolt]

In german there is a nice saying "Zu tode gefürchtet ist auch gestorben". I don't know how you are saying it in english. It means no guts, no glory or cowards die many times before their deaths. And I think it describes the situation of our coaching staff sometimes. 4 and 1 I say go for it. I know they are risking their jobs but how did their conservative play calling turned out? Instead of getting the Ball at the 36 yard line Manning marched down the field 80 yds for a touchdown. very easily. there wasn't much to lose. Colts played better in the second half. again like last season behind big times and played very well because they had nothing to lose anymore and had to risk something. Conservative play calling is hurting us if you ask me.

[Coffeedrinker]

I completely agree. Even if when we are struggling to run the ball we should mix in more screens, to counter the blitzes we keep seeing week after week. This also gets our running backs into the game. Our defense needs to start faster so we have time to develop a running game. We cannot have a few 3 and outs and then be down by 21. We have become one-dimensional on too many occasions. 

 

While watching the Saints/Falcons game on the RedZone the announcer said the Saints threw more to their backs than any other team in the league last year. I looked it up and Sproles, Thomas, and Ingram combined for 155 receptions. To put that into perspective, Brees completed 446 passes last year. That equates to 35% of Brees completions were to running backs in 2013.

 

In contrast to the Saints, only 8 of Lucks 35 completions (23%) went to our backs Sunday night. In 2013 we completed 24% of our passes to our backs (83 of 343). 

 

We need to get our running backs more involved in the game. 

I don't think it's a bad thing to get the backs more involved but that is not what I meant.  I meant they need to run the ball more and, *gasp*, sometimes even run it 2 or 3 plays in a row.

 

To me, the Colts seem to have this Madden philosophy to play calling.  It's like they think if they run once a drive that will keep the DBs from covering their receivers closely.

[Dustin]

Both times, we were deep in our own territory. The second one, we were on the 5 yard line.

So?

[Superman]

So?

 

Really?

 

A draw on 2nd and long isn't necessarily a bad thing. You watch a lot of football, I'm sure you've seen draws in long yardage situations be successful. The Giants picked up 14 yards on a 2nd and long draw play last night. Third and 13, the Eagles hit the Jags with a draw for 19 yards, and that's after several unsuccessful draw plays on 2nd and 3rd and long.

[BlueShoe]

Really?

 

A draw on 2nd and long isn't necessarily a bad thing. You watch a lot of football, I'm sure you've seen draws in long yardage situations be successful. The Giants picked up 14 yards on a 2nd and long draw play last night. Third and 13, the Eagles hit the Jags with a draw for 19 yards, and that's after several unsuccessful draw plays on 2nd and 3rd and long.

 

I agree. Peyton made our running game look adequate instead of horrendous by calling those delayed draws. We would get a cheap 8-10 yards sometimes.

 

Arians used them successfully in Lucks rookie year too.