4th Down in the Red Zone--take the points?

[StormHawk42]

Kirk has been quite aggressive with the 4th and shorts in the red zone this year. But in a game like this, where we know points are a premium, do we change it up and take the FG?

On the one hand, points are hard to come by in this game and every one is valuable

On the other, going for it obviously keeps the 7 points a possibility or keeps the drive alive and if you fail, you pin a stagnant NW offense deep in their own territory.

What say you? I say take the points this week and kick the FGs.

 

[EpenesaEpenesa]

4th and 1 go. 4th and 3, take the points

 

[cubsMDdmb]

Very few of our gambles have paid off in the end as far as scoring more points goes. Everyone seems to like the riskier Ferentz, but it really hasn't worked out well, other than in the win loss record, which is really all that matters. Other than getting a few first downs on 4th and inches plays, I can't remember any big gambles paying off, although I'm sure someone will remind me of them.

To answer the question, I think it depends on how our offense looks. If we've been successful in gaining 3 or 4 yards at a time running, then go for it. If not, take the points.

 

[Pepperman]

Very few of our gambles have paid off in the end as far as scoring more points goes. Everyone seems to like the riskier Ferentz, but it really hasn't worked out well, other than in the win loss record, which is really all that matters.

I love the aggressive Kirk, especially early in the game. But to be behind the decisions, one has to understand two things:

1) Expected value (I'll explain if it's not clear)
2) Emphasizing PROCESS over outcome

 

[bagdropper]

Iowa's best 4th and short seems to be sneaks. With a compromised Beathard, I'd guess that possibly we won't see the gunslinger mentality this weekend unless it's absolutely necessary.

The way this game shapes up...points is points. Granted, Koehn seems to have extra point issues recently...but the prior zone run play to get first downs even us in the cheap seats will see a continent away. We seem to have issues passing for the 1st down the last two weeks...so, FG's as applicable seems plausible.

All this assuming it's the game we believe we'll see. Very low scoring.

 

[HawkeyeinOmaha]

4th and 1 go. 4th and 3, take the points

Agree. 4th and 1 this year has been almost automatic.

 

[Hawk8595]

Agree. 4th and 1 this year has been almost automatic.

4th and 2...not so much.

Take the points. How many times have we gone into the 4th quarter wishing we had the points that were there to take in the 1st? So far, it hasn't bit us but it will.

 

[icantfindausernamethatisntused]

Very few of our gambles have paid off in the end as far as scoring more points goes. Everyone seems to like the riskier Ferentz, but it really hasn't worked out well, other than in the win loss record, which is really all that matters. Other than getting a few first downs on 4th and inches plays, I can't remember any big gambles paying off, although I'm sure someone will remind me of them.

To answer the question, I think it depends on how our offense looks. If we've been successful in gaining 3 or 4 yards at a time running, then go for it. If not, take the points.

Our first touchdown of the season came after we had converted a 4th and 2 at Illinois State's 14 yard line. However, I don't know of any other touchdowns coming during the same drive as a 4th down conversion.

Like all things, the risk-reward needs to be considered. Early in the game I think you can play a little more risky. For example, lets say going for it on 4th and goal at the 2 yard line yields a 60% chance of a touchdown. The expected return is 60% * 7 points = 4.2 points, and therefore I would support going for the touchdown. However, late in the game the certainty of points could very well be more appealing. For example, if you're down by 1 in the same situation in the 4th quarter, I'd say take the points with the field goal.

Additionally, there is also an obvious element of play-calling and execution. Against Illinois we went for it when it was 4th and goal at Illinois's 1 yard line early in the 2nd quarter. I fully support that decision, especially given how good the interior of our offensive line had been. However, the play we called was a fade route to VandeBerg to the corner of the endzone. That is a low percentage play call (especially without an elite WR) and if I had known that would be the call I would have just rather kicked a field goal.

 

[Pepperman]

Take the points. How many times have we gone into the 4th quarter wishing we had the points that were there to take in the 1st? So far, it hasn't bit us but it will.

Equivalently, there could be a game where Iowa is ahead by 4 late in a game, and it is BECAUSE we scored a TD instead of settling for the FG. Or maybe we're ahead by 8 because we went for it and it worked.

You, of course, have a valid point. But this all comes down to expected value of the situation, and early in the game it is always worth the pursuit of the higher expected outcome. Possessions are not infinite, and you have to do the smartest thing with each one.

 

[thirdandpunting]

Field goals aren't guaranteed either... Keep going for it

Maximize points

7 is better than 2 field goals

 

[icantfindausernamethatisntused]

Field goals aren't guaranteed either... Keep going for it

Maximize points

7 is better than 2 field goals

Of course field goals aren't guaranteed, but we do agree that they are far more certain than converting a 4th down, correct? Thus, even if going for it on 4th down yields a higher expected benefit (i.e., more points), that should not be the end of the discussion.

For example (an extreme example), if Iowa is down by 1 point with two seconds left and the ball at the 2 yard line and it's 4th and goal, we absolutely should kick the field goal rather than try to convert the 4th down even though attempting to convert the 4th down might statistically yield a higher expected benefit (i.e., more than 3 points).

 

[bagdropper]

I will say one thing...the claim that was made in the column I wish I had known about many years ago. I was always a "take the points" guy until I read this and paid more attention to it following through the years.

When Gregg Easterbrook wrote columns for ESPN during football seasons past, he made a weekly point of showing when teams went for it on 4th downs and failed...yet found ways to win the game - and visa versa. His claim was you have to prove to your players that you as a coach are willing to take calculated risks to win the game even where "the book" says to kick the ball be it a punt or FG.

I believe this new mojo Iowa is employing is a classic example of Easterbrook's claims...with the caveat that maybe mid 4th quarter 4th and 1 from the 4 versus 1st quarter 4th and 1 from the 4th are not necessarily equal.

Game situations dictate different actions, so there is no absolute.

All I know is Iowa is throwing away the book this year in this regard (might be a Brian Ferentz influence...and those visits he made to other programs and coaches), and so far, so good...even though they aren't always converting. The very attempt seems to help overall, even if they failed in the attempt.

If Kirk thinks his team needs to go for it if for no other reason that to send them a message that benefits them later in the game, by all means go for it.

 

[LincolnHawkeye]

I'd say it totally depends on the situation, if it's longer than 4th and 5, definitely kick it. If it's 4th and 2-5, I'd like to see us go for it, but not do the typical dive right up the middle, that never seems to work. Probably a play action rollout or quick slant would work better. And on 4th and 1, I think we can manage to get 1 yard with a sneak or quick run play.

 

[C/Seahawk]

Kirk has been quite aggressive with the 4th and shorts in the red zone this year. But in a game like this, where we know points are a premium, do we change it up and take the FG?

On the one hand, points are hard to come by in this game and every one is valuable

On the other, going for it obviously keeps the 7 points a possibility or keeps the drive alive and if you fail, you pin a stagnant NW offense deep in their own territory.

What say you? I say take the points this week and kick the FGs.

Whether we are aggressive and go for it or we simply take the points, I just want the decisions to be consistent. I have no issues with KF's more aggressive style as it relates to going for it on 4th down, despite disagreeing a time or two, it seems to be working and provided he remains consistent I'm all for it.

 

[farhawks]

I believe KF going for it says more about their confidence in their defense. So with that said I think he still rolls the dice.

 

[ichawk24]

When it is 4th down with one second left in the first half, and we're on the 22 yard line, I prefer the points.

 

[DavenportHawk8]

Depends on the juncture of the game.

1st quarter and your driving I say go for it.

If its in the 3rd or 4th quarter in a tight ball game, you gotta take the points.

 

[Hawk8595]

Equivalently, there could be a game where Iowa is ahead by 4 late in a game, and it is BECAUSE we scored a TD instead of settling for the FG. Or maybe we're ahead by 8 because we went for it and it worked.

You, of course, have a valid point. But this all comes down to expected value of the situation, and early in the game it is always worth the pursuit of the higher expected outcome. Possessions are not infinite, and you have to do the smartest thing with each one.

This discussion is impossible to be right or wrong because we are not talking specifics. However, I will say this, there have been several times this year that I have jumped out of my chair and said nooooo,... don't do that. I have yet to be wrong and I'm wrong a lot.

Disclaimer: I'm not at the game because of distance and age so don't rag on me about that.

 

[Titanhawk2]

At least I hope we've learned that the kicker is not going to get us a first down or touchdown when he has to run more than 10 yeards

 

[J_Heater]

Kirk was pretty aggressive last year but when you are 7-5 people don't notice that stuff.

 

[soybean]

Time and score should dictate this.

 

[BioHawk]

I think a lot of that also hinges on how Kirk thinks the defense matches up and the likelihood they will get in scoring position again. Up to this point, Kirk has been confident the defense would minimize the opposition and he has been correct. If Iowa is playing Michigan, he probably takes the points if we haven't been moving the ball that well.

 

[denmar81]

Take the points in low scoring games, of which I think Tomorrow's game will be

 

[citizenHawk]

It's somewhat a percentage thing. As our old friend Mike would say, "No half measures.."
If you miss on one aggressive decision, and succeed on the next, it all evens out.

Play aggressive. Play to win.