The "Go For It" Discussion Thread.

[northerner]

If my memory is right, we were 2 of 5 on 4th down conversions against the Chiefs and scored 2 TDs for 14 points. If we would have kicked fgs all 5 times and made all 5, it would have been 15 points. This really seems pretty much a wash to me.

there are so many variables to consider - it hard to just tally them up as equals. passing up a chip shot FG at the 5 yard line is not same as passing up a 47 yard FG from the 30 yard line. Also, Mahomes starting a drive at his own 5 yard line is not going to be rattled as most QB's would be, so the possible upside of a failed 4th down at the 5 yard line is lessened (1 yard line or 2 yard line is a different story). it just didn't feel right at the time, and after thinking about it more, it still does not feel right.

however, overall, i am a fan of Staley's aggressiveness.

[Xenos]

there are so many variables to consider - it hard to just tally them up as equals. passing up a chip shot FG at the 5 yard line is not same as passing up a 47 yard FG from the 30 yard line. Also, Mahomes starting a drive at his own 5 yard line is not going to be rattled as most QB's would be, so the possible upside of a failed 4th down at the 5 yard line is lessened (1 yard line or 2 yard line is a different story). it just didn't feel right at the time, and after thinking about it more, it still does not feel right.

however, overall, i am a fan of Staley's aggressiveness.

Funny thing is that Mahomes threw an interception after we turned it over on a fumble the previous drive at their 2 yard line. That led to our third TD of the night. Going for it deep in their territory on 4th and manageable isn’t an issue IMO. Even against Mahomes.

[northerner]

Funny thing is that Mahomes threw an interception after we turned it over on a fumble the previous drive at their 2 yard line. That led to our third TD of the night. Going for it deep in their territory on 4th and manageable isn’t an issue IMO. Even against Mahomes.

totally true, and that was an awesome moment! you are bringing me back to that game! :-) I still feel like forcing them to start at their 1 or 2 yard line ups the stress level, as opposed to the 5 yard line. the threat of a safety is higher, including a safety on a failed running play. however, having them start at their 5 is still a plus defensively.

i guess it all comes back to the feel of the moment, the FG gives us 3-0 lead to open the game (it is not like we are playing catch up at that point). Overall, once we cross the 50, i can agree with a LOT of 4th down of calls. the inviting red carpet to second judge 4th down calls is what makes the discussion insane.

[Velo]

Kyle Shanahan kicked three field goals instead of going for it on 4th down in the first half of yesterday's playoff game, and those field goals proved to be the margin of victory.

(4:53 - 1st) 4th & 11 at DAL 35 Robbie Gould 53 Yd Field Goal

(9:40 - 2nd) 4th & 1 at DAL 22 Robbie Gould 40 Yd Field Goal

(3:03 - 2nd) 4th & 6 at DAL 34Robbie Gould 52 Yd Field Goal

You can argue that Staley would not have gone for it in the first instance, 4th & 11 at the Dallas 35 (again, he just might have)

But in the 2nd quarter, on 4th & 1 from the Dallas 22, and again on 4th & 6 from the Dallas 34, Staley would have gone for it instead of kicking from there. Shanahan opted for the points, and in the end, those 6 pts provided the margin of victory. Because the 49ers were leading by the margin of those two field goals at the end of the game, Dallas had to go into desperation mode in their final drive, because they had to score a TD to overcome those 6 pts, they couldn't kick a field goal to tie or win the game. I fear that Staley is going to stubbornly stick to his dogged adherence of analytics - ala Josh McDaniels - and not learn from his mistakes. How Shanahan managed yesterday's game in Dallas - where he was an underdog - is a model for how to win close games in the NFL.

[northerner]

Kyle Shanahan kicked three field goals instead of going for it on 4th down in the first half of yesterday's playoff game, and those field goals proved to be the margin of victory.

(4:53 - 1st) 4th & 11 at DAL 35 Robbie Gould 53 Yd Field Goal

(9:40 - 2nd) 4th & 1 at DAL 22 Robbie Gould 40 Yd Field Goal

(3:03 - 2nd) 4th & 6 at DAL 34Robbie Gould 52 Yd Field Goal

You can argue that Staley would not have gone for it in the first instance, 4th & 11 at the Dallas 35 (again, he just might have)

But in the 2nd quarter, on 4th & 1 from the Dallas 22, and again on 4th & 6 from the Dallas 34, Staley would have gone for it instead of kicking from there. Shanahan opted for the points, and in the end, those 6 pts provided the margin of victory. Because the 49ers were leading by the margin of those two field goals at the end of the game, Dallas had to go into desperation mode in their final drive, because they had to score a TD to overcome those 6 pts, they couldn't kick a field goal to tie or win the game. I fear that Staley is going to stubbornly stick to his dogged adherence of analytics - ala Josh McDaniels - and not learn from his mistakes. How Shanahan managed yesterday's game in Dallas - where he was an underdog - is a model for how to win close games in the NFL.

and the 49er defense is way better than ours, and Dak sucks. as always, there are many variables. if we had the 49er defense, i am sure that Staley might play his cards differently this season. the 49ers also have a dynamite place kicker - again, variables. the bottomless debate.....

[Velo]

and the 49er defense is way better than ours, and Dak sucks. as always, there are many variables. if we had the 49er defense, i am sure that Staley might play his cards differently this season. the 49ers also have a dynamite place kicker - again, variables. the bottomless debate.....

But Staley is supposed to be a defensive guru.

[JAFA]

I think Staley was also using this year to serve notice to the players that they WILL be put in 4th down / critical situations, situations where they MUST execute, and they better get used to it. Used to the pressure, knowing that they'll be in these situation in games and that they better practice and prepare accordingly, because he's not going to change.

I'm convinced that he was aware of the flaws in the team and knew that, barring a miracle, we weren't going anywhere in 21, although I'm sure he would have liked to get a playoff game under the team's belt. It's all part of changing the team's mentality. He was willing to take the hit this year to better prepare for the future.

My only disappointment with the Raider's game was that he didn't go for 2 to win it outright. The defense was NOT going to stop the Raiders in OT.

[CivilBolt]

I think Staley was also using this year to serve notice to the players that they WILL be put in 4th down / critical situations, situations where they MUST execute, and they better get used to it. Used to the pressure, knowing that they'll be in these situation in games and that they better practice and prepare accordingly, because he's not going to change.

I'm convinced that he was aware of the flaws in the team and knew that, barring a miracle, we weren't going anywhere in 21, although I'm sure he would have liked to get a playoff game under the team's belt. It's all part of changing the team's mentality. He was willing to take the hit this year to better prepare for the future.

My only disappointment with the Raider's game was that he didn't go for 2 to win it outright. The defense was NOT going to stop the Raiders in OT.

I think it was because a tie can get us in. Staley would have gone for two if that was not on the table.

[Steve]

I do wonder if the 'model' that they are using for making decisions take into account the probability of the other team scoring, or eventually winning if the play fails. If "going for it" was a 90% chance of success, but was a 50% chance of losing if it failed because of the time left in the game and score, and field position, I may not make that call to go for it.

The simple way to determine is using field position. In the past teams could calculate, on average how many points you can expect given a given field position. A similar method is figuring out how successful a drive will be, which is an "average" (which a good analytics team won't use a straight arithmetic average) for each drive.

So, say KC "usually" can expect about 75 or 80% of the time, will get around 15-20 yards every time they have a 1st down (we will use 80% and 15 yards because it simplifies the math). So, if KC starts on their own 25 (75 yards to go), it will take about 5 1st downs to get down to the endzone (15, 30, 45, 60, and finally 75 yards), so 0.80^5 = 33% chance of scoring a TD, although you probably factor in the red zone and/or goalline efficiency, instead of the usual yards per 1st down at that point. The point is, you can put a value on a team's chances of scoring points based on where they start on the field.

You can also do the same thing on the defensive side of things. Run the process in reverse. That gives you a sense of how effective our D and their D. Then you have to figure out some way to blend the two, which (if I was doing it) would be a matter of having all the numbers crunched and then trying different combinations of making a hybrid of the two until you begin to match what has actually happened.

If you do it before the game, it gives you a sense of how many "extra" possessions will we need to have to overcome they are better than us, in the statistical sense. During the game, you can play with the numbers and drive your decision-making.

The one part that I think people are forgetting is the non-analytical decision-making. That being the Mahommes/Rodgers/Brady factor. You can't just play to try and get a lead, you need a BIG lead. Until a team like ours is more TD's ahead of KC (GB or TB) than there is time to score on the clock, the game is in jeopardy. So, working in reverse, if you want to beat KC, you better keep trying to get ahead, because historically, KC is way, way more efficient late in the game than at the beginning. Some of that is the nature of offense, which requires more synchronization. Some of it is how KC adjusts to the D. Some of it is simply that in almost all sports it is easier to come back than to protect a lead.

But a good deal of it is that late in the game, pass rushers are tired, and not beating the OL, even if they abused them most of the game. Players get sloppy, aren't playing their techniques as well, but it is harder on the defense because the offense initiates action and the defense has to react.

[JAFA]

You're correct - forgot about the tie, but he must have been hoping that we'd win the coin toss and then score a touchdown, because in any other scenario where we needed to make a stop to tie or win we were going to be out of luck.

[northerner]

But Staley is supposed to be a defensive guru.

a good coach can help, but you need good players (this is true in every sport, and has been proven time and time again).

[Boltjolt]

But Staley is supposed to be a defensive guru.

And some players did improve while playing a new scheme. But the players overall especially depth isn't great. Murray, was a huge disappointment. White flourished. Tillery is getting better as is Nwosu but we need more on the DL.