The Official Go-Hard-Go-Fast-Offense Critique Thread

[Jeff Lebowski]

It's fun to daydream sometimes about how GFGH could be supplemented with this:



I know (or least suspect) that this drum has been beat many times on CS.

It's not likely to happen for the simple reason that head coaches and OCs are overwhelmingly risk-averse and mathematically illiterate. But can you imagine how this kind of philosophy, combined with GFGH, could energize an offense and freak out a defense?

That is so awesome. Love it.

[Harry Tic]

Look at all the whining about Bronco going for 2 against Boise State last year though and it is easy to see why the coaches don't like it.

Vic raises a good point. The risk averse, mathematically illiterate HC and OC is really just a reflection of the risk averse, mathematically illiterate fan. Fans like to think that if they were calling the shots, they'd be gutsy playcallers, but the moment you fail on 4th or on a two-point conversion, they ride you out of town on a rail. It would undoubtedly take time to condition a fanbase to learn to think differently.

[Indy Coug]

There are some from the other side who are mathematically illiterate to think that coaches can sufficiently avail themselves of the Law of Large Numbers to consistently make the expected value of not punting pay off for them when playing in a sport with very few possessions and even fewer scoring plays.

If football morphs into a game with 50-100 possessions a game and 82 or 162 game seasons, then maybe they can really leverage the not punting strategy to their consistent benefit. Then again, by that point everyone else would probably adopt the strategy, thereby removing the benefit of doing so.

Variance is a bitch.

[Vic Vega]

There are some from the other side who are mathematically illiterate to think that coaches can sufficiently avail themselves of the Law of Large Numbers to consistently make the expected value of not punting pay off for them when playing in a sport with very few possessions and even fewer scoring plays.

If football morphs into a game with 50-100 possessions a game and 82 or 162 game seasons, then maybe they can really leverage the not punting strategy to their consistent benefit. Then again, by that point everyone else would probably adopt the strategy, thereby removing the benefit of doing so.

Or you can just believe the boys will make it pay off to let them go for it on 4th and if they can't, let the D rise to the occasion and make some good stands. At the end of the year you can point at the numbers and say "I was right."

[Indy Coug]

Or you can just believe the boys will make it pay off to let them go for it on 4th and if they can't, let the D rise to the occasion and make some good stands. At the end of the year you can point at the numbers and say "I was right."

Yes, you can elect to go the faith route, or you can elect to rely on shoddy mathematics.

[Uncle Ted]

This may be the paper the above coach is referring to... http://emlab.berkeley.edu/users/drom..._CORRECTED.pdf

It is a Cal Berkeley, not a Harvard, professor that did the study.

[Harry Tic]

There are some from the other side who are mathematically illiterate to think that coaches can sufficiently avail themselves of the Law of Large Numbers to consistently make the expected value of not punting pay off for them when playing in a sport with very few possessions and even fewer scoring plays.

If football morphs into a game with 50-100 possessions a game and 82 or 162 game seasons, then maybe they can really leverage the not punting strategy to their consistent benefit. Then again, by that point everyone else would probably adopt the strategy, thereby removing the benefit of doing so.

Variance is a bitch.

Yes, you can elect to go the faith route, or you can elect to rely on shoddy mathematics.

So you believe that coaches aren't generally too conservative on fourth down? That makes you kind of the outlier among statisticians that look at this stuff, doesn't it? You should publish a paper or something.

[Vic Vega]

Yes, you can elect to go the faith route, or you can elect to rely on shoddy mathematics.

Or you can be less weak and realize you influence the results and can make it happen. With the added bonus of knowing the numbers look okay as well. If you are going to give up the 1st time you miss on 4th down, don't do it, but over the coarse of a game things could look good.

BYU has been good under Anae on 3rd down. Why not make it the same on 4th and short as well.

[Harry Tic]

There are some from the other side who are mathematically illiterate to think that coaches can sufficiently avail themselves of the Law of Large Numbers to consistently make the expected value of not punting pay off for them when playing in a sport with very few possessions and even fewer scoring plays.

If football morphs into a game with 50-100 possessions a game and 82 or 162 game seasons, then maybe they can really leverage the not punting strategy to their consistent benefit. Then again, by that point everyone else would probably adopt the strategy, thereby removing the benefit of doing so.

Variance is a bitch.

Anyway, my point was that the philosophy would make an interesting complement to GFGH, which does seem to net us enough plays from scrimmage that we could expect to see not only some statistically meaningful patterns emerge, but a psychological advantage as well.

And I just don't get your point about the philosophy's futility since everybody else would eventually adopt it if it were beneficial to do so. The point, obviously, is to secure at least a temporary advantage before other teams adopt the same strategy. That's, um, kind of how it goes.

[Jeff Lebowski]

There are some from the other side who are mathematically illiterate to think that coaches can sufficiently avail themselves of the Law of Large Numbers to consistently make the expected value of not punting pay off for them when playing in a sport with very few possessions and even fewer scoring plays.

If football morphs into a game with 50-100 possessions a game and 82 or 162 game seasons, then maybe they can really leverage the not punting strategy to their consistent benefit. Then again, by that point everyone else would probably adopt the strategy, thereby removing the benefit of doing so.

Variance is a bitch.

If everyone adopts the strategy, how would that remove the benefit of doing so?

(speaking of mathematically illiterate...)

[Jeff Lebowski]

And I just don't get your point about the philosophy's futility since everybody else would eventually adopt it if it were beneficial to do so. The point, obviously, is to secure at least a temporary advantage before other teams adopt the same strategy. That's, um, kind of how it goes.

Indy's math is so bad that even the liberal arts guy is correcting him. Wow.

[Indy Coug]

If everyone adopts the strategy, how would that remove the benefit of doing so?

(speaking of mathematically illiterate...)

What I mean is that there is no competitive advantage to be gained because everyone else will have adopted the same strategy.

[The_Douger]

So they all decide to start doing this at the same time?

[Jeff Lebowski]

What I mean is that there is no competitive advantage to be gained because everyone else will have adopted the same strategy.

But under that scenario it would be foolish not to do it, otherwise you would be at a competitive disadvantage.

[Uncle Ted]

Indy's math is so bad that even the liberal arts guy is correcting him. Wow.