[mgoetze]

So this year I decided to try and understand football before the super bowl. I watched a few games, and it seems like whenever there's a 2nd & 2 (or 2nd & 1, 2nd & 3) situation, the offense goes for a rushing play with a high probability of gaining 3-5 yards. The commentators don't seem to think this is controversial, or maybe they're just too busy talking about stuff unrelated to the game.

Wouldn't it make more sense to try a risky long pass play in these situations? After all, if it fails, you still have 2 more tries to make that safe short rushing play. Or am I missing something?

[wyman]

You really only have one more, as typically on 4th down teams either punt or kick a field goal; in most parts of the field, the risk of running and failing (hence turning the ball over) is unacceptable. Either you lose a likely 3 points (FG) or you give opps good field position.

There are middling field positions where you might be right. Also keep in mind that there's often less interest in doing what's right than in following conventional wisdom. No one's ever been sacked for following conventional wisdom.

[Fluffy]

I probably don't know much more than you on this game, but passes might be intercepted and that is probably why.

To show how little I know, I think 2/3 years ago, the SB was won by by a team because the running back executed an unexpected very long pass, I didn't even know a pass was allowed after quaterback handled the ball lol

[wyman]

It's illegal to throw forward if you are in front of the line of scrimmage. Otherwise throwing by anyone is fine.

[mgoetze]

 wyman, on 2013-January-06, 20:17, said:

You really only have one more, as typically on 4th down teams either punt or kick a field goal;

Yes, I seem to recall cherdano once mentioning that this is done too often. I just watched a game (Ravens vs. Bengals) where one team was down by more than a TD with 5:15 or so left in the 4th quarter. They brought in the punting team on 4th down and I thought, "uhhuh, why don't they just stop playing altogether if that's what they're going to do". Fortunately they restored my confidence in my own understanding of the game by making a first down instead (funnily enough, the punter was apparently supposed to do a pass play but ended up rushing instead because his receiver was covered).

[ArtK78]

 mgoetze, on 2013-January-06, 19:41, said:

So this year I decided to try and understand football before the super bowl. I watched a few games, and it seems like whenever there's a 2nd & 2 (or 2nd & 1, 2nd & 3) situation, the offense goes for a rushing play with a high probability of gaining 3-5 yards. The commentators don't seem to think this is controversial, or maybe they're just too busy talking about stuff unrelated to the game.

Wouldn't it make more sense to try a risky long pass play in these situations? After all, if it fails, you still have 2 more tries to make that safe short rushing play. Or am I missing something?

You are not missing anything. It makes eminent sense to attempt a play which can gain significant yardage when in 2nd and short situations. If you fail, you are in 3rd and short and should be able to make a first down. If you succeed, you gain significant yardage.

But football coaches are incredibly conservative (by the way, conservative here means stupid) and generally choose to make the first down on second and short.

A couple of years ago New England chose to attempt to make a first down on 4th and short in their own territory rather than punt in a game in which they led by less than 7 points late in the game. Had the play succeeded, the game would have been over, as New England could have used up the rest of the time without allowing its opponent to obtain the ball. The attempt failed, and coach Belichick was roundly criticized. But his tactic was correct - only the execution of the play was flawed.

Chicken *&%^ tactics like running short yardage plays on second and short are routinely criticized by Gregg Easterbrook in his column on espn.com called Tuesday Morning Quarterback.

[cherdano]

 mgoetze, on 2013-January-06, 19:41, said:

So this year I decided to try and understand football before the super bowl. I watched a few games, and it seems like whenever there's a 2nd & 2 (or 2nd & 1, 2nd & 3) situation, the offense goes for a rushing play with a high probability of gaining 3-5 yards. The commentators don't seem to think this is controversial, or maybe they're just too busy talking about stuff unrelated to the game.

Wouldn't it make more sense to try a risky long pass play in these situations? After all, if it fails, you still have 2 more tries to make that safe short rushing play. Or am I missing something?

FWIW, advancednflstats.com agrees with you:
http://www.advancedn...-3rd-downs.html

However, the difference isn't large, and I never understood whether their methodology properly accounts for sacks and scrambles.

Anyway, I think the risk of not converting 3rd & 2 may be bigger than you realize.

[mgoetze]

 cherdano, on 2013-January-06, 21:16, said:

However, the difference isn't large, and I never understood whether their methodology properly accounts for sacks and scrambles.

Also, of course, this methodology is based on the results obtained with the typically employed follow-up strategies, which may include too much punting on 4th & short. It could be that the advantage of passing on 2 & short is higher if you follow up failed attempts with not one, but two attempts at a low yardage play.

[mgoetze]

 cherdano, on 2013-January-06, 21:16, said:

FWIW, advancednflstats.com agrees with you:
http://www.advancedn...-3rd-downs.html

Some very interesting reading in the comments, BTW, thanks for the link!

[CSGibson]

There are a lot of considerations. A long pass play takes longer to develop, and consequently has a greater chance of allowing a sack, turning an easy first down into a long one. Additionally, interceptions on long pass plays are also a factor. Also, coaches like to pick their spots for those significant plays. If you always threw long on 2nd & short, the other team will notice that tendency, and you will be less effective in the long run. On the other hand, if you seldom do so, then when you do choose to do so, there is a much greater chance that the defence will be unprepared for the play.

[Cyberyeti]

 CSGibson, on 2013-January-06, 22:19, said:

There are a lot of considerations. A long pass play takes longer to develop, and consequently has a greater chance of allowing a sack, turning an easy first down into a long one.

This I think is the main point.

I think my all time favourite call in this situation was on goal to go from the 1 or 2 and the ball was snapped to Doug Williams who was a pretty immobile QB, he faked the handoff leaving a pile of 21 bodies and him waddling into the end zone with nobody within 10 yards.

[andrei]

 mgoetze, on 2013-January-06, 19:41, said:

So this year I decided to try and understand football before the super bowl.

I'll be in Austria on Feb 3rd and I'd like to see the game, but I have no idea which channel is it on, and the locals that I can ask, most likely, would not know.

Austria is not Germany, but still if you have any idea, I'd appreciate it, hopefully I can save some time on google search.

[billw55]

Actually, teams sometimes do air it out on second and short, going with the obvious thinking. On the other hand, defenses are prepared for that, and will often defend the long play, more or less conceding the short gain for a first down. So then offenses take it more often than they otherwise might .. and so on.

 wyman, on 2013-January-06, 20:37, said:

It's illegal to throw forward if you are in front of the line of scrimmage. Otherwise throwing by anyone is fine.

Yes, but only one forward pass per play, even if the receiver is still behind the line of scrimmage.

[mycroft]

<canadian>Well, converting on 2nd and short is good, because otherwise they have to punt.</canadian>

Seriously, though, I've seen a lot of option play done on 2nd and short, *if the team tends to play from the shotgun*. If they usually play out of the shotgun formation, then coming into close formation says "run coming". So they don't - but they set up this play with snap to QB, fake (or not fake) to RB coming up the path, with screen passes (which are high-percentage catches, and should get 2-3 yards) and a long(-ish, only taken if safe) option available. Now again, I'm used to seeing shotgun play in the CFL with the 65-yard-wide field and 3-down football (oh, and another receiver); the NFL's cramped quarters may not allow all those options as easily.

On a side note, you want stuff to do during the last 25 minutes of each half (that would be the last 2:45 on the clock). The 45-second play clock means that they need to take needless timeouts to stop the clock, which means they need several timeouts per team, which take time even if they aren't using the TO to actually talk about what they're doing, which means...bring a book (in the U.S., this is where lots of commercials are run, which is many people's reason to watch the Super Bowl. But those funny, expensive, spectacular commercials won't run in Germany; unless you get a U.S. feed direct, I guess.)

[mgoetze]

I don't watch live and wouldn't know how if I wanted to. It's not so bad with all the commercial breaks edited out.

[ggwhiz]

Also, depending on the score and strategic considerations if the defence is intent on stopping you by jamming up the line of scrimmage (not clear that you can make a 1st down if they stuff you here) one good block that gets the runner through the line and he might run for a loooong way.

It's called a Run Blitz where everyone that usually plays 5 or so yards back to prevent the big play gets right up in your face to prevent the 1st down but if they miss.........

ps. Football (maybe Baseball too) has been described as 15 minutes of action crammed into 3 1/2 hours.

[Bbradley62]

 mgoetze, on 2013-January-06, 19:41, said:

... it seems like whenever there's a 2nd & 2 (or 2nd & 1, 2nd & 3) situation, the offense goes for a rushing play with a high probability of gaining 3-5 yards. The commentators don't seem to think this is controversial...

There's something to be said for having achieved a first down, and thereby earning a whole new set of downs to "air one out".

[billw55]

 ggwhiz, on 2013-January-07, 11:59, said:

It's called a Run Blitz where everyone that usually plays 5 or so yards back to prevent the big play gets right up in your face to prevent the 1st down but if they miss.........

Can work, but very risky against an experienced QB who can recognize the defense and change the play.

[jjbrr]

 cherdano, on 2013-January-06, 21:16, said:

FWIW, advancednflstats.com agrees with you:
http://www.advancedn...-3rd-downs.html

However, the difference isn't large, and I never understood whether their methodology properly accounts for sacks and scrambles.

Anyway, I think the risk of not converting 3rd & 2 may be bigger than you realize.

I didn't read the whole article so it may say something to this effect but:

I doubt these stats even take into account the added equity from recent rules changes that benefit the offense (defenseless receiver, leading with the helmet, helmet to helmet contact, whatever they call it).

Others are obviously right that the efficacy of the play call depends on what the defense is trying to prevent and also obviously sometimes its better to reduce 3rd/4th down variance by just getting the first down on 2nd and short, but I'm almost certain that OP is right that teams are too conservative, especially in this specific situation.

[JLOGIC]

2nd and short is a well known spot to take a shot especially if you have a good run/play action game. 1 is definitely better than 2 or 3 though, but yeah even though the idea is well known the bad coaches are still too conservative. I feel like peyton manning and sean payton take a lot of shots on 2nd and short compared to most people, I have no data on that though just feel that way from watching their games.