Chiefs retreated 13 yards to convert a 3rd & 1 to a 1st & 10

[SlackerInc]

@Jasmine

“A bird in hand is worth two in the bush.”

The Ravens have a very tough defense. If they stopped them on 3rd down, then the Chiefs would have been faced with a 4th down gamble. By accepting the penalty, they got a whole new set of downs and were still within field goal range anyway.

For certain values of “within field goal range”. If they don’t gain a single yard, we’re talking about a 54 yard field goal, hardly impossible but also very far from a gimme.

So I think the “bird in the hand” truism better fits my argument than yours.

@Snarky_Kong

I think most teams have expected points projections. That is, they know that if you have 3rd and 1 on the 24 they tend to score x points and if they have 1st and 10 on the 37 they will tend to score y points.

It’s not terribly unreasonable to me to think that it’s possible that y > x. Especially if you’re unsure of your kicker.

This blog post gives some probabilities of reaching a 1st down from different yardage and down situations. (good memory borschevsky)

PhD Football: First Down Probability

Just by chance to get the 1st, the 3rd and 1 seems very slightly better. But from 1st and 10, I imagine, if you do get the 1st down you’re more likely to have extra yards on top. Meaning a 1st down from the 3rd and 1 is likely to be a short run while the 1st down from the 1st and 10 very well might be a big yardage play.

Overall, meh, doesn’t strike me as that weird.

You’re right about expected points, and I used to read Brian Burke’s Advanced NFL Stats blog all the time, until his EPA system was bought up by ESPN. It appears the old posts are still there, though, fortunately:

http://www.advancedfootballanalytics.com/index.php/home/stats/stats-explained/expected-points-and-epa-explained

1st and 10 from the 37: looks like about a 2.7 EPA. Agreed?

3rd and 1 from the 25: at least 3.2 EPA. Right?

The break-even point (where 1st and 10 would be equivalent to the 3rd and 1 from the 25) would be at about the 30 yard line. So Reid’s mistake was the equivalent of voluntarily starting the series seven yards further back from where he “should” be on 1st and 10. And not just any seven yards, but seven yards that make a field goal try much more difficult.

More straightforwardly, it was like spotting the other team a half point. Not lethal, but not advisable.

(I think in the calculations you made, you may have been forgetting to account for field position. I agree that just in terms of chance to get a first down, 3rd and 1 is only very slightly better than 1st and 10; but this also came with a “penalty” of moving back 12 yards.)

@Loach

In the 3rd quarter you are not playing to break a tie you are trying to get a touchdown.

Field goals are points too. Do you share the “never punt” philosophy of that famously eccentric coach? Personally, I think teams should punt less, but not never. That means some drives end up with zero points and voluntarily giving the ball to the other team (including the Chiefs in this case). How could you not see three points as superior to that? Get a FG on three different drives throughout the game, and you’ve got more points than a TD can match, even with a two point conversion.

Besides which, if you are desperate to score touchdowns, I submit that voluntarily retreating to 50% further from the end zone is not the best way to go about it. :dubious:

[SlackerInc]

@Cheesesteak

I suggest in the 3rd, you are still in the ‘compiling points’ stage, where you take whatever points you can get. This choice increased the likelihood of 0 points on that possession.

In any case, for this choice to be positive, you must get a 1st down in the next two plays. I’m not a big fan of those odds.

These are both good points. The first one is a variation on what I’ve been saying; the second is a new angle, nicely boiled down. If you end up getting to a third down on that series after retreating to 1st and 10 twelve yards back, you are guaranteed to be further back on that third down than you were on the original one. (Barring another weird penalty issue of course.)

[Snarky_Kong]

@SlackerInc

(I think in the calculations you made, you may have been forgetting to account for field position. I agree that just in terms of chance to get a first down, 3rd and 1 is only very slightly better than 1st and 10; but this also came with a “penalty” of moving back 12 yards.)

Yes. While I think it’s accurate to say “if you assume you get the first down, you’re more likely to have extra yards from a 1st and 10 than a 3rd and 1.” However, in our situation of interest those two first downs are at the 27 yard line and the 23 yard line, respectively. I forgot to think about that.

I agree with your reading of charts. I’d like to point out that the assumption here is that the Chiefs are an average team playing against an average defense and they have an average kicker. Having a great passing game, a bad running game, playing against a good run defense, and having a bad kicker would all make the 1st and 10 relatively more attractive. I’m not sure if those are true for the Chiefs, or if they’d make up the half point expectation if they are true, but it’s possible.

Probably a mistake.

[SlackerInc]

I find it interesting that there is virtually no discussion of this online, even though it led to their punting. If the Chiefs had lost, I feel certain this would be in the spotlight. Talk about results-based thinking! If you want your team to be optimally prepared for future games and the playoffs, any mistake in a close game should get the same level of scrutiny, regardless of whether they ended up getting away with it.

[eschereal]

Down and distance should not neglect field position. The standard is that yards are harder to get the closer you get to your opponent’s end zone, because the defense has less field to cover (the offense has less space to work in). Which is not a huge deal if you have a high probability of being able to punch it through on the ground, but the receiving corps is still out there trying to keep the secondary on their toes. So, I can see how a coach would feel more comfortable having more space to attack into.

I still think I would take the 3rd&1, but that invites another quandary: if you get half a yard, do you try again on 4th or trot out the kicker for high-probability points?

[EllisDee]

@eschereal

I still think I would take the 3rd&1, but that invites another quandary: if you get half a yard, do you try again on 4th or trot out the kicker for high-probability points?

My personal coaching philosophy would be that since I just failed to gain a yard on 3rd & 1, it would be foolish for me to try to gain a yard on 4th & 1 so I’d kick a field goal. If I really wanted the first, I’d try a pass the second time instead of another run like the one that just got stuffed.

However, I’d already be mindful of my logic on 3rd down so would probably try a play-action wheel route or crossing pattern or something on 3rd, then if incomplete run up the gut on 4th & 1.