Fourth down call - Could they have run a play call worse than that?

[tnmarktx]

Supposedly, Hooker was suppose to read the LB position and reaction and run away from them. Handoff was okay based on a correct read, which he did not make.

Correct. He protected Hooker as he should have and said there was no option.

 

[McDad]

Oh I bet it is a mistake we'll see over and over again. For some unexplained reason CJH will not put his QB under center.

A poster, I think Berry4Heisman, lives in Orlando and watched UCF. CJH used a jumbo package at UCF. I can't imagine him not having that eventually here.

 

[wmcovol]

If youre gonna play an athletic qb, you gotta let him use his athleticism in key situations. That was a key situation. Get him on the corner to make a play. Plus I think Pitt defense was tiring some and they were weak on the perimeter in the 3rd and 4th qtr. JMO.

 

[JonGrudensAgent]

Who is Norman Einstein?

Todd's brother.

 

[hardyemt_p]

Butch Jones 2.0 play call.

 

[Doberman]

So many assumptions being made by our idiotic fan base on this call. Hindsight is 20/20. How do you know it wasn’t lack of execution by OL, poor read by Hooker, etc? That’s the thing, unless you’re in the huddle or booth, you don’t know.

See, the thing is......none of what you just said matters.

Shotgun formation on 4th and inches is a non-starter. The rest is irrelevant.

 

[McDad]

See, the thing is......none of what you just said matters.

Shotgun formation on 4th and inches is a non-starter. The rest is irrelevant.

Not so fast, there, my canine brother. If shotgun in 4th&" is a non starter, then why are coaches who have devoted their lives to the profession and being paid handsomely choosing to run it from RPO set? Are all of those professional coaches making the wrong decision? Are OCs fired because they are calling for that particular play?

 

[YNWAvols]

See, the thing is......none of what you just said matters.

Shotgun formation on 4th and inches is a non-starter. The rest is irrelevant.

None of what I said matters? So you don’t have the luxury of hindsight being 20/20? What would you be saying if the exact play had worked?

 

[TheFlash1971]

This call is on Heupel, you have just seen the quarterback run with success on previous plays and you hand the ball off to our lightest running back. Just a bone headed call. Nothing more to say.

 

[GulfCoasterVol]

The loss had more to do with the teams self-inflicted bad execution than anything else. And still had a chance at the end. Starters missing, dumb penalties, fumbles, missing wide open receivers. They did everything they could to give the win to Pitt. I think there is hope here folks, you just have to see it.

Christmas came early for Pitt sure enough !!

 

[McDad]

Finally found a resource: From StatsbyLopez. On 3rd and one, why do teams go shotgun?

Data is from NFL.

Using data from Armchair Analysis, I looked at the conversion rates of the 7,094 third or fourth and one plays from 2000 to 2014. League-wide, there’s an absolute improvement of about 4.5% (67.5 success rate versus 63%) comparing plays under center versus from shotgun. The difference is statistically significant (and if you want the p-value, it’s about 2 in 10000).
...
Finally, it is worth noting that teams are now using the shotgun more often in these situations. While only about 4% of short-yardage plays used the shotgun between 2000 and 2007, this number ballooned to 30% for the 2013 and 2014 seasons. In other words, teams are going shotgun more than ever, and, at least in short-yardage situations, it may be to their detriment.

 

[BanditVol]

He actually did put it in Hookers hand and he decided to hand it off. Would have had a much better chance to score if he keeps it

Ah okay.

I would agree with the numerous observations that we occasionally need to be under center. I know it's a risk since they almost never do it, but dammit practice it regularly. It's too important not to be able to do this a few times a game.

 

[Doberman]

None of what I said matters? So you don’t have the luxury of hindsight being 20/20? What would you be saying if the exact play had worked?

I didn't intend to be disrespectful. If the play worked, I would have been relieved, and thinking it was dumb at the same time.

 

[jwells]

I'll go to my grave against shotgun on 4th and 1.

 

[Doberman]

Not so fast, there, my canine brother. If shotgun in 4th&" is a non starter, then why are coaches who have devoted their lives to the profession and being paid handsomely choosing to run it from RPO set? Are all of those professional coaches making the wrong decision? Are OCs fired because they are calling for that particular play?

The game has definitely evolved, I'll grant you that. It is a thing, unfortunately, in college. I can't thing of a time I've seen it in the NFL, other than the wildcat business Miami used to try with Ronnie Brown. Short lived for a reason.

I think it is dumb, and seems to bear that out more times than not.

 

[Doberman]

Finally found a resource: From StatsbyLopez. On 3rd and one, why do teams go shotgun?

Data is from NFL.

Using data from Armchair Analysis, I looked at the conversion rates of the 7,094 third or fourth and one plays from 2000 to 2014. League-wide, there’s an absolute improvement of about 4.5% (67.5 success rate versus 63%) comparing plays under center versus from shotgun. The difference is statistically significant (and if you want the p-value, it’s about 2 in 10000).
...
Finally, it is worth noting that teams are now using the shotgun more often in these situations. While only about 4% of short-yardage plays used the shotgun between 2000 and 2007, this number ballooned to 30% for the 2013 and 2014 seasons. In other words, teams are going shotgun more than ever, and, at least in short-yardage situations, it may be to their detriment.

Well, this blows a hole in my last post.

 

[McDad]

The game has definitely evolved, I'll grant you that. It is a thing, unfortunately, in college. I can't thing of a time I've seen it in the NFL, other than the wildcat business Miami used to try with Ronnie Brown. Short lived for a reason.

I think it is dumb, and seems to bear that out more times than not.

I posted a stat reference, It happens a lot in college and pros. and, it is happening more frequently.

 

[SlingBlayde]

Field goal would have been worse (you asked LOL).

 

[Doberman]

I posted a stat reference, It happens a lot in college and pros. and, it is happening more frequently.

Well, it shouldn't be, and here is a reference to back that up.

Success of Short Yardage Play Types on Fourth Down | Yale Undergraduate Sports Analytics Group


We looked at all 4th and 1 down attempts since the 1998-1999 season, the earliest year data was available, until the 2015-2016 season. This data set includes 3181 plays, about 180 plays per season.

The table below summarizes part of our results. The overall conversion rate during this time frame was 65.7%. This relatively high success rate is a large reason why it is so often considered the smart decision to go for it in short yardage situations.

Play Type Conversion Rate All Plays65.7%Passing Plays58.2%Running Plays67.9%

However, we can look more granurally at conversion rate. Running plays, which include quarterback sneaks, are converted more frequently than passing plays. The true trends stand out even more emphatically with a more detailed investigation of play calling. In the table below, it is easy to see how much more successful quarterback sneaks are than all other play types. 82.8% is significantly higher than the 62.0% of all other plays and suggests they are underutilized. The lower success rate for running plays by non-quarterbacks illustrates the true distinction is between quarterback sneaks and all other plays, not between runnning and passing plays.

Play Type Conversion Rate Quarterback Sneaks82.8%Non-Quarterback Running plays63.4%All Non-Sneaks62.0%

Furthermore, in the graph below of the conversions rates by year, it is immediately evident how much higher the conversion rates are for quarterback sneaks. The consistency of this effect over every year in the sample is also apparent. This consistency suggests that this difference is not caused simply by chance but something fundamentally different about quarterback sneaks.

 

[GAVol]

I'll go to my grave against shotgun on 4th and 1.

I can understand it if they go heavy in the formation and put an H-back or Fullback in there and run power, lead etc. But I hate it when they try to run zone plays in short yardage.

 

[wmcovol]

Field goal would have been worse (you asked LOL).

In Pro ball you may try the fg but with only 1 TO left, even there you probably go for it.

 

[McDad]

Well, it shouldn't be, and here is a reference to back that up.

Success of Short Yardage Play Types on Fourth Down | Yale Undergraduate Sports Analytics Group


We looked at all 4th and 1 down attempts since the 1998-1999 season, the earliest year data was available, until the 2015-2016 season. This data set includes 3181 plays, about 180 plays per season.

The table below summarizes part of our results. The overall conversion rate during this time frame was 65.7%. This relatively high success rate is a large reason why it is so often considered the smart decision to go for it in short yardage situations.

Play Type Conversion Rate All Plays65.7%Passing Plays58.2%Running Plays67.9%

However, we can look more granurally at conversion rate. Running plays, which include quarterback sneaks, are converted more frequently than passing plays. The true trends stand out even more emphatically with a more detailed investigation of play calling. In the table below, it is easy to see how much more successful quarterback sneaks are than all other play types. 82.8% is significantly higher than the 62.0% of all other plays and suggests they are underutilized. The lower success rate for running plays by non-quarterbacks illustrates the true distinction is between quarterback sneaks and all other plays, not between runnning and passing plays.

Play Type Conversion Rate Quarterback Sneaks82.8%Non-Quarterback Running plays63.4%All Non-Sneaks62.0%

Furthermore, in the graph below of the conversions rates by year, it is immediately evident how much higher the conversion rates are for quarterback sneaks. The consistency of this effect over every year in the sample is also apparent. This consistency suggests that this difference is not caused simply by chance but something fundamentally different about quarterback sneaks.

Good find, Dober. Was that data from NFL or college?

20% higher is noteworthy. Would you estimate a college team is running 4th and 1 about 10 times per year, on average? That's 2 additional conversions.

 

[Doberman]

Good find, Dober. Was that data from NFL or college?

20% higher is noteworthy. Would you estimate a college team is running 4th and 1 about 10 times per year, on average? That's 2 additional conversions.

This was NFL data.

Quarterback sneaks might be particularly susceptible to selection bias. If there are no defenders over the center or it is particularly short yardage (inches instead of a full yard), sneaks may be particularly effective. In fact, on all 4th and 2 plays in the since the 1998-1999 season, quarterback sneaks were successful 89.7% of the time, greater than the 82.8% of the time for 4th and 1. Sneaks were rarer on 4th and 2 plays, happening only 29 times from between the 1998 and the 2015 season, but this shows that sneaks are not only successful for incredibly short yardage situations. Most importantly, quarterback sneaks are so much more valuable and convert so much more frequently than other play types that the effect is likely robust enough even after accounting for these selection biases.

 

[McDad]

This was NFL data.

Quarterback sneaks might be particularly susceptible to selection bias. If there are no defenders over the center or it is particularly short yardage (inches instead of a full yard), sneaks may be particularly effective. In fact, on all 4th and 2 plays in the since the 1998-1999 season, quarterback sneaks were successful 89.7% of the time, greater than the 82.8% of the time for 4th and 1. Sneaks were rarer on 4th and 2 plays, happening only 29 times from between the 1998 and the 2015 season, but this shows that sneaks are not only successful for incredibly short yardage situations. Most importantly, quarterback sneaks are so much more valuable and convert so much more frequently than other play types that the effect is likely robust enough even after accounting for these selection biases.

I see no reason why the data wouldn't translate to college, do you?

eta: I can think of one reason. I'll share after your reply.

 

[Mccage]

A terrible idea for sure. Put the ball in Hooker's hands.

The only thing I can figure is that everyone in the stadium thought the same thing, so Heupel tried to do the unexpected.

But sometimes you just go ahead and do the obvious thing. Everyone always expected Jordon to take the last shot, right?

It was in Hookers hands...he handed it off!