Since you guys are curious about why we don't think Anderson is insane every time he goes for it. Arkstfan did a piece earlier on the statistics that Kevin Kelley (High School Coach that doesn't punt) discovered.

1. Statistically your odds are better of converting a 4th and three or less at any point on the field, than they are of holding the other team scoreless.

2. Fourth and short deep in your own territory is an acceptable risk because you'll likely give up a score if you punt regardless. While the numbers don't translate on 4th and long, statistically the odds were over 50 percent that the Cajuns score if we punt out of our own end zone.

3. Two point conversions will be successful roughly 58 percent of the time. With Arkansas State down 9 and 5 minutes left, we went for two instead of trying for one. The odds were 58 percent we convert the 2 point, and 58 percent that the Cajuns score the next possession, regardless. If we kick, its a 99 percent success rate, but you only have a 42 percent chance you get the ball back still down 1 score. From there, your odds really decrease because you need 8 points and still must face the 58 percent 2 point conversion chance. By going for two first, you are allowing yourself the ability to plan for two possessions, and odds were over 50 percent you were going to need two possessions regardless.

Confused?

(10-22-2014 11:45 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Since you guys are curious about why we don't think Anderson is insane every time he goes for it. Arkstfan did a piece earlier on the statistics that Kevin Kelley (High School Coach that doesn't punt) discovered.

1. Statistically your odds are better of converting a 4th and three or less at any point on the field, than they are of holding the other team scoreless.

2. Fourth and short deep in your own territory is an acceptable risk because you'll likely give up a score if you punt regardless. While the numbers don't translate on 4th and long, statistically the odds were over 50 percent that the Cajuns score if we punt out of our own end zone.

3. Two point conversions will be successful roughly 58 percent of the time. With Arkansas State down 9 and 5 minutes left, we went for two instead of trying for one. The odds were 58 percent we convert the 2 point, and 58 percent that the Cajuns score the next possession, regardless. If we kick, its a 99 percent success rate, but you only have a 42 percent chance you get the ball back still down 1 score. From there, your odds really decrease because you need 8 points and still must face the 58 percent 2 point conversion chance. By going for two first, you are allowing yourself the ability to plan for two possessions, and odds were over 50 percent you were going to need two possessions regardless.

Confused?

I cacluated a 12% chance of any of that happening.

but as for going for it on 4th down, if you knew you were going to do it, line up and go for it, don't throw some pass back to a punter. lol.

There was some coach a few years ago that said he would go for it on
4th down from then on. Does anyone remember who that was?

(10-22-2014 12:02 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  There was some coach a few years ago that said he would go for it on
4th down from then on. Does anyone remember who that was?

Kevin Kelley at Pulaski Academy in Little Rock, AR. He's done the math... he challenges all of the old "we've always done it that way" adages.

(10-22-2014 11:45 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Since you guys are curious about why we don't think Anderson is insane every time he goes for it. Arkstfan did a piece earlier on the statistics that Kevin Kelley (High School Coach that doesn't punt) discovered.

1. Statistically your odds are better of converting a 4th and three or less at any point on the field, than they are of holding the other team scoreless.

2. Fourth and short deep in your own territory is an acceptable risk because you'll likely give up a score if you punt regardless. While the numbers don't translate on 4th and long, statistically the odds were over 50 percent that the Cajuns score if we punt out of our own end zone.

3. Two point conversions will be successful roughly 58 percent of the time. With Arkansas State down 9 and 5 minutes left, we went for two instead of trying for one. The odds were 58 percent we convert the 2 point, and 58 percent that the Cajuns score the next possession, regardless. If we kick, its a 99 percent success rate, but you only have a 42 percent chance you get the ball back still down 1 score. From there, your odds really decrease because you need 8 points and still must face the 58 percent 2 point conversion chance. By going for two first, you are allowing yourself the ability to plan for two possessions, and odds were over 50 percent you were going to need two possessions regardless.

Confused?

1. It wasn't 4th and 3 or less.
2. It wasn't 4th and short. Your defense had held Louisiana on several possessions in a row previous to that drive, so try to get another stop.
3. No problems here.

It does make sense - unless you have an exceptional defense.

Oregon used to do this a lot and they didn't hem and haw and take time out - they knew what
they were doing and did it quickly.

(10-22-2014 01:03 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 11:45 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Since you guys are curious about why we don't think Anderson is insane every time he goes for it. Arkstfan did a piece earlier on the statistics that Kevin Kelley (High School Coach that doesn't punt) discovered.

1. Statistically your odds are better of converting a 4th and three or less at any point on the field, than they are of holding the other team scoreless.

2. Fourth and short deep in your own territory is an acceptable risk because you'll likely give up a score if you punt regardless. While the numbers don't translate on 4th and long, statistically the odds were over 50 percent that the Cajuns score if we punt out of our own end zone.

3. Two point conversions will be successful roughly 58 percent of the time. With Arkansas State down 9 and 5 minutes left, we went for two instead of trying for one. The odds were 58 percent we convert the 2 point, and 58 percent that the Cajuns score the next possession, regardless. If we kick, its a 99 percent success rate, but you only have a 42 percent chance you get the ball back still down 1 score. From there, your odds really decrease because you need 8 points and still must face the 58 percent 2 point conversion chance. By going for two first, you are allowing yourself the ability to plan for two possessions, and odds were over 50 percent you were going to need two possessions regardless.

Confused?

1. It wasn't 4th and 3 or less.
2. It wasn't 4th and short. Your defense had held Louisiana on several possessions in a row previous to that drive, so try to get another stop.
3. No problems here.

Yep. Anyone have a link to the football coach's discoveries and the data used? My professional background is statistics, and it seems like this could be easily debunked. Just kind of crazy to think a college head coach would adopt a high school head coach's philosophy based on stats and discoveries.

(10-22-2014 01:18 PM)Complacent Cajun Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 01:03 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 11:45 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Since you guys are curious about why we don't think Anderson is insane every time he goes for it. Arkstfan did a piece earlier on the statistics that Kevin Kelley (High School Coach that doesn't punt) discovered.

1. Statistically your odds are better of converting a 4th and three or less at any point on the field, than they are of holding the other team scoreless.

2. Fourth and short deep in your own territory is an acceptable risk because you'll likely give up a score if you punt regardless. While the numbers don't translate on 4th and long, statistically the odds were over 50 percent that the Cajuns score if we punt out of our own end zone.

3. Two point conversions will be successful roughly 58 percent of the time. With Arkansas State down 9 and 5 minutes left, we went for two instead of trying for one. The odds were 58 percent we convert the 2 point, and 58 percent that the Cajuns score the next possession, regardless. If we kick, its a 99 percent success rate, but you only have a 42 percent chance you get the ball back still down 1 score. From there, your odds really decrease because you need 8 points and still must face the 58 percent 2 point conversion chance. By going for two first, you are allowing yourself the ability to plan for two possessions, and odds were over 50 percent you were going to need two possessions regardless.

Confused?

1. It wasn't 4th and 3 or less.
2. It wasn't 4th and short. Your defense had held Louisiana on several possessions in a row previous to that drive, so try to get another stop.
3. No problems here.

Yep. Anyone have a link to the football coach's discoveries and the data used? My professional background is statistics, and it seems like this could be easily debunked. Just kind of crazy to think a college head coach would adopt a high school head coach's philosophy based on stats and discoveries.

Google Kevin Kelley Pulaski Academy and you should find a bunch of stuff. He wrote a book about it.

One key point though is that PA understand they have 4 downs, which changes play calling. They don't rely on fake punts because they know they are going to go for it regardless. That means a 3rd and 10 play may only be designed for 8 yards to make 4th down manageable.

They also go for two after every touchdown, and onside kick on every kickoff. A couple years ago they made national news because they played one of the best football programs in Arkansas, and scored 29 points before the other team had one snap from scrimmage.

(10-22-2014 11:45 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Since you guys are curious about why we don't think Anderson is insane every time he goes for it. Arkstfan did a piece earlier on the statistics that Kevin Kelley (High School Coach that doesn't punt) discovered.

1. Statistically your odds are better of converting a 4th and three or less at any point on the field, than they are of holding the other team scoreless.

2. Fourth and short deep in your own territory is an acceptable risk because you'll likely give up a score if you punt regardless. While the numbers don't translate on 4th and long, statistically the odds were over 50 percent that the Cajuns score if we punt out of our own end zone.

3. Two point conversions will be successful roughly 58 percent of the time. With Arkansas State down 9 and 5 minutes left, we went for two instead of trying for one. The odds were 58 percent we convert the 2 point, and 58 percent that the Cajuns score the next possession, regardless. If we kick, its a 99 percent success rate, but you only have a 42 percent chance you get the ball back still down 1 score. From there, your odds really decrease because you need 8 points and still must face the 58 percent 2 point conversion chance. By going for two first, you are allowing yourself the ability to plan for two possessions, and odds were over 50 percent you were going to need two possessions regardless.

Confused?

ULM followed that philosophy during the 2012 season and was about 70% successful going for it on fourth down (24/35). We were 6 of 7 on fourth downs in the game against Arkansas which was the major reason we won that game. In fact, that success was why Kelley's analysis made national headlines in college football at the time because HC Todd Berry mentioned it in an interview with ESPN. Since 2012 we have not had near as many fourth down opportunities...which is preferred...but we have not been as successful either, with closer to a 30% success rate.

(10-22-2014 01:21 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 01:18 PM)Complacent Cajun Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 01:03 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 11:45 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Since you guys are curious about why we don't think Anderson is insane every time he goes for it. Arkstfan did a piece earlier on the statistics that Kevin Kelley (High School Coach that doesn't punt) discovered.

1. Statistically your odds are better of converting a 4th and three or less at any point on the field, than they are of holding the other team scoreless.

2. Fourth and short deep in your own territory is an acceptable risk because you'll likely give up a score if you punt regardless. While the numbers don't translate on 4th and long, statistically the odds were over 50 percent that the Cajuns score if we punt out of our own end zone.

3. Two point conversions will be successful roughly 58 percent of the time. With Arkansas State down 9 and 5 minutes left, we went for two instead of trying for one. The odds were 58 percent we convert the 2 point, and 58 percent that the Cajuns score the next possession, regardless. If we kick, its a 99 percent success rate, but you only have a 42 percent chance you get the ball back still down 1 score. From there, your odds really decrease because you need 8 points and still must face the 58 percent 2 point conversion chance. By going for two first, you are allowing yourself the ability to plan for two possessions, and odds were over 50 percent you were going to need two possessions regardless.

Confused?

1. It wasn't 4th and 3 or less.
2. It wasn't 4th and short. Your defense had held Louisiana on several possessions in a row previous to that drive, so try to get another stop.
3. No problems here.

Yep. Anyone have a link to the football coach's discoveries and the data used? My professional background is statistics, and it seems like this could be easily debunked. Just kind of crazy to think a college head coach would adopt a high school head coach's philosophy based on stats and discoveries.

Google Kevin Kelley Pulaski Academy and you should find a bunch of stuff. He wrote a book about it.

One key point though is that PA understand they have 4 downs, which changes play calling. They don't rely on fake punts because they know they are going to go for it regardless. That means a 3rd and 10 play may only be designed for 8 yards to make 4th down manageable.

They also go for two after every touchdown, and onside kick on every kickoff. A couple years ago they made national news because they played one of the best football programs in Arkansas, and scored 29 points before the other team had one snap from scrimmage.

I believe in waiting to go for 2 when you absolutely have to. Almost everytime you go for 2 too early and don't convert, it comes back and bites you

(10-22-2014 01:21 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 01:18 PM)Complacent Cajun Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 01:03 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 11:45 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Since you guys are curious about why we don't think Anderson is insane every time he goes for it. Arkstfan did a piece earlier on the statistics that Kevin Kelley (High School Coach that doesn't punt) discovered.

1. Statistically your odds are better of converting a 4th and three or less at any point on the field, than they are of holding the other team scoreless.

2. Fourth and short deep in your own territory is an acceptable risk because you'll likely give up a score if you punt regardless. While the numbers don't translate on 4th and long, statistically the odds were over 50 percent that the Cajuns score if we punt out of our own end zone.

3. Two point conversions will be successful roughly 58 percent of the time. With Arkansas State down 9 and 5 minutes left, we went for two instead of trying for one. The odds were 58 percent we convert the 2 point, and 58 percent that the Cajuns score the next possession, regardless. If we kick, its a 99 percent success rate, but you only have a 42 percent chance you get the ball back still down 1 score. From there, your odds really decrease because you need 8 points and still must face the 58 percent 2 point conversion chance. By going for two first, you are allowing yourself the ability to plan for two possessions, and odds were over 50 percent you were going to need two possessions regardless.

Confused?

1. It wasn't 4th and 3 or less.
2. It wasn't 4th and short. Your defense had held Louisiana on several possessions in a row previous to that drive, so try to get another stop.
3. No problems here.

Yep. Anyone have a link to the football coach's discoveries and the data used? My professional background is statistics, and it seems like this could be easily debunked. Just kind of crazy to think a college head coach would adopt a high school head coach's philosophy based on stats and discoveries.

Google Kevin Kelley Pulaski Academy and you should find a bunch of stuff. He wrote a book about it.

One key point though is that PA understand they have 4 downs, which changes play calling. They don't rely on fake punts because they know they are going to go for it regardless. That means a 3rd and 10 play may only be designed for 8 yards to make 4th down manageable.

They also go for two after every touchdown, and onside kick on every kickoff. A couple years ago they made national news because they played one of the best football programs in Arkansas, and scored 29 points before the other team had one snap from scrimmage.

Wow, that makes it a different game for sure.

(10-22-2014 01:45 PM)IdahoCajun Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 01:21 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 01:18 PM)Complacent Cajun Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 01:03 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 11:45 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Since you guys are curious about why we don't think Anderson is insane every time he goes for it. Arkstfan did a piece earlier on the statistics that Kevin Kelley (High School Coach that doesn't punt) discovered.

1. Statistically your odds are better of converting a 4th and three or less at any point on the field, than they are of holding the other team scoreless.

2. Fourth and short deep in your own territory is an acceptable risk because you'll likely give up a score if you punt regardless. While the numbers don't translate on 4th and long, statistically the odds were over 50 percent that the Cajuns score if we punt out of our own end zone.

3. Two point conversions will be successful roughly 58 percent of the time. With Arkansas State down 9 and 5 minutes left, we went for two instead of trying for one. The odds were 58 percent we convert the 2 point, and 58 percent that the Cajuns score the next possession, regardless. If we kick, its a 99 percent success rate, but you only have a 42 percent chance you get the ball back still down 1 score. From there, your odds really decrease because you need 8 points and still must face the 58 percent 2 point conversion chance. By going for two first, you are allowing yourself the ability to plan for two possessions, and odds were over 50 percent you were going to need two possessions regardless.

Confused?

1. It wasn't 4th and 3 or less.
2. It wasn't 4th and short. Your defense had held Louisiana on several possessions in a row previous to that drive, so try to get another stop.
3. No problems here.

Yep. Anyone have a link to the football coach's discoveries and the data used? My professional background is statistics, and it seems like this could be easily debunked. Just kind of crazy to think a college head coach would adopt a high school head coach's philosophy based on stats and discoveries.

Google Kevin Kelley Pulaski Academy and you should find a bunch of stuff. He wrote a book about it.

One key point though is that PA understand they have 4 downs, which changes play calling. They don't rely on fake punts because they know they are going to go for it regardless. That means a 3rd and 10 play may only be designed for 8 yards to make 4th down manageable.

They also go for two after every touchdown, and onside kick on every kickoff. A couple years ago they made national news because they played one of the best football programs in Arkansas, and scored 29 points before the other team had one snap from scrimmage.

I believe in waiting to go for 2 when you absolutely have to. Almost everytime you go for 2 too early and don't convert, it comes back and bites you

I'd wait to.

The one point made it a one possession game. 8 points. Yes you need to get the two point conversion some time anyway but when you can bring in into a one possession game, you do it.

I understand having the knowledge now that you need to score twice more has some merit.

But knowing they only have a one possession lead puts pressure on the other team. The have to be smart with clock management, worry about field position. Maybe play for running the clock instead of striving for a first down?

It also serves as a motivator for your team - and keeps your fans in the game.. 12th man and all. When the players go down two possessions and are kicking the ball away, that translates to a STRONG (leading team has the ball) two possession lead for the other team. It is momentum killer after you have just scored.

Kick the extra point, make a Defensive stop and the other team has a weak, one possession lead. Players know they can still win and still have hope and drive.

Just my philosophy on the subject.

Idaho did that against us and I thought it was a big coaching error then. Turned out to be true imop in both games.

(10-22-2014 02:01 PM)The4thOption Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 01:45 PM)IdahoCajun Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 01:21 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 01:18 PM)Complacent Cajun Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 01:03 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  1. It wasn't 4th and 3 or less.
2. It wasn't 4th and short. Your defense had held Louisiana on several possessions in a row previous to that drive, so try to get another stop.
3. No problems here.

Yep. Anyone have a link to the football coach's discoveries and the data used? My professional background is statistics, and it seems like this could be easily debunked. Just kind of crazy to think a college head coach would adopt a high school head coach's philosophy based on stats and discoveries.

Google Kevin Kelley Pulaski Academy and you should find a bunch of stuff. He wrote a book about it.

One key point though is that PA understand they have 4 downs, which changes play calling. They don't rely on fake punts because they know they are going to go for it regardless. That means a 3rd and 10 play may only be designed for 8 yards to make 4th down manageable.

They also go for two after every touchdown, and onside kick on every kickoff. A couple years ago they made national news because they played one of the best football programs in Arkansas, and scored 29 points before the other team had one snap from scrimmage.

I believe in waiting to go for 2 when you absolutely have to. Almost everytime you go for 2 too early and don't convert, it comes back and bites you

I'd wait to.

The one point made it a one possession game. 8 points. Yes you need to get the two point conversion some time anyway but when you can bring in into a one possession game, you do it.

I understand having the knowledge now that you need to score twice more has some merit.

But knowing they only have a one possession lead puts pressure on the other team. The have to be smart with clock management, worry about field position. Maybe play for running the clock instead of striving for a first down?

It also serves as a motivator for your team - and keeps your fans in the game.. 12th man and all. When the players go down two possessions and are kicking the ball away, that translates to a STRONG (leading team has the ball) two possession lead for the other team. It is momentum killer after you have just scored.

Kick the extra point, make a Defensive stop and the other team has a weak, one possession lead. Players know they can still win and still have hope and drive.

Just my philosophy on the subject.

Idaho did that against us and I thought it was a big coaching error then. Turned out to be true imop in both games.

Idaho did that right at the end of the 3rd quarter or the start of the 4th. At that point it doesn't make sense because you are guaranteed several possessions. In our case, we had 5 minutes, so it became pretty important to how we managed our timeouts the rest of the game.