10-13-2024, 11:44 AM
Stanford went for it on fourth down four times during the game. They succeeded once.
1) 13:37 in the 2nd quarter, fourth and one at the ND 49. Lamson ran three yards for a first down. Score was 7-7.
2) 11:13 in the 2nd quarter, fourth and five at the ND 41. Daniels sacked for a seven yard loss. Score still 7-7.
3) 3:54 in the 2nd quarter, fourth and three at the ND 44. Daniels pass incomplete. Score was 14-7.
4) 4:51 in the 4th quarter, fourth and two at the ND 43. Lamson sacked for a four yard loss. Score was 49-7.
To be clear, no matter what Stanford did on these downs the path to victory (at the time) was either very narrow or non-existent.
All these attempts took place in "no man's land". A field goal from the ND 41 has to travel 58 yards. That isn't absolutely impossible, but it is a low-probability outcome. A punt from the 41 will most probably gain about 30 yards in field position. If it goes into the end zone it will be less. From further back a punt should gain expected yards pretty linearly. For those reasons going for it on fourth down becomes a consideration.
IMO the second and third attempts were very, very "questionable". The second was ill-advised because of the need to get five yards. Stanford's average yards per play in this game was 3.4. It wasn't even a 50/50 event. At the time the score was tied and Stanford had moved the ball fairly well. We weren't desperate. College teams make mistakes frequently. These mistakes often "kill" drives. Long drives are therefore difficult to execute. Giving your opponent a "short" field to work with is a very bad idea. The "bend but don't break" defense has less opportunity for the opponent to stop themselves. These factors IMO argued very strongly to punt the ball. Daniels getting sacked for a loss of seven wasn't a directly foreseeable event but it wasn't exactly a surprise either. ND of course scored on the ensuing possession. Going for it on fourth down didn't "cause" that, but it sure made it a lot easier for ND.
The third attempt was very questionable for somewhat different reasons. The distance was three yards. That was a bit better than a 50/50 shot based on YPP. There were some psychological arguments in favor of going for it. ND had fumbled and given Stanford the ball near midfield. Stanford undoubtedly wanted to capitalize on the "short field" and score a TD to tie the game. The counter-arguments to that psychology are that the wheels had started to come off the Stanford offense. The previous possession had ended in a 3 and out. In the current possession Daniels had been forced to scramble twice. The third down play was a designed run by Daniels that was stopped for no gain. We weren't moving the ball, period.
At that point in time, our "expected yards per play" wasn't good. We needed to regroup. There was 3:54 remaining in the half. We were only behind by 7. Punt the ball and bet that ND can't go 85-90 yards. At that moment the match-up of the ND offense vs the Stanford defense was much better than visa-versa. We didn't punt and ND took 2:37 to go the 56 yards to score. Had we done so ND would have needed to go say 86 yards, which perhaps they couldn't. Time could have also become a factor. In summary, three yards was way too far given how we were playing and making ND drive the entire field possibly would have got us out of the half trailing only by 7.
The first time we went for it on fourth down IMO it was "aggressive but reasonable". Of course, that opinion is influenced by the fact it was successful :-). The two main considerations making it "reasonable" are 1) we only needed a yard and 2) our offense had gone down the field and scored a touchdown fairly readily. Lamson has shown repeatedly he can find a crack and get a yard. It isn't asking much and the chance of success could be rated as "very high". Our offense was also playing better than most of us expected. We were on a bit of a roll and wanted to stay on it. I wouldn't have been outraged had we punted. We were just barely over the 50. The field would be quite short had we failed. Either choice would have been "reasonable" IMO.
The fourth time was basically after the game was over. We were behind 49-7 with 4:51 remaining. It didn't matter what we did.
1) 13:37 in the 2nd quarter, fourth and one at the ND 49. Lamson ran three yards for a first down. Score was 7-7.
2) 11:13 in the 2nd quarter, fourth and five at the ND 41. Daniels sacked for a seven yard loss. Score still 7-7.
3) 3:54 in the 2nd quarter, fourth and three at the ND 44. Daniels pass incomplete. Score was 14-7.
4) 4:51 in the 4th quarter, fourth and two at the ND 43. Lamson sacked for a four yard loss. Score was 49-7.
To be clear, no matter what Stanford did on these downs the path to victory (at the time) was either very narrow or non-existent.
All these attempts took place in "no man's land". A field goal from the ND 41 has to travel 58 yards. That isn't absolutely impossible, but it is a low-probability outcome. A punt from the 41 will most probably gain about 30 yards in field position. If it goes into the end zone it will be less. From further back a punt should gain expected yards pretty linearly. For those reasons going for it on fourth down becomes a consideration.
IMO the second and third attempts were very, very "questionable". The second was ill-advised because of the need to get five yards. Stanford's average yards per play in this game was 3.4. It wasn't even a 50/50 event. At the time the score was tied and Stanford had moved the ball fairly well. We weren't desperate. College teams make mistakes frequently. These mistakes often "kill" drives. Long drives are therefore difficult to execute. Giving your opponent a "short" field to work with is a very bad idea. The "bend but don't break" defense has less opportunity for the opponent to stop themselves. These factors IMO argued very strongly to punt the ball. Daniels getting sacked for a loss of seven wasn't a directly foreseeable event but it wasn't exactly a surprise either. ND of course scored on the ensuing possession. Going for it on fourth down didn't "cause" that, but it sure made it a lot easier for ND.
The third attempt was very questionable for somewhat different reasons. The distance was three yards. That was a bit better than a 50/50 shot based on YPP. There were some psychological arguments in favor of going for it. ND had fumbled and given Stanford the ball near midfield. Stanford undoubtedly wanted to capitalize on the "short field" and score a TD to tie the game. The counter-arguments to that psychology are that the wheels had started to come off the Stanford offense. The previous possession had ended in a 3 and out. In the current possession Daniels had been forced to scramble twice. The third down play was a designed run by Daniels that was stopped for no gain. We weren't moving the ball, period.
At that point in time, our "expected yards per play" wasn't good. We needed to regroup. There was 3:54 remaining in the half. We were only behind by 7. Punt the ball and bet that ND can't go 85-90 yards. At that moment the match-up of the ND offense vs the Stanford defense was much better than visa-versa. We didn't punt and ND took 2:37 to go the 56 yards to score. Had we done so ND would have needed to go say 86 yards, which perhaps they couldn't. Time could have also become a factor. In summary, three yards was way too far given how we were playing and making ND drive the entire field possibly would have got us out of the half trailing only by 7.
The first time we went for it on fourth down IMO it was "aggressive but reasonable". Of course, that opinion is influenced by the fact it was successful :-). The two main considerations making it "reasonable" are 1) we only needed a yard and 2) our offense had gone down the field and scored a touchdown fairly readily. Lamson has shown repeatedly he can find a crack and get a yard. It isn't asking much and the chance of success could be rated as "very high". Our offense was also playing better than most of us expected. We were on a bit of a roll and wanted to stay on it. I wouldn't have been outraged had we punted. We were just barely over the 50. The field would be quite short had we failed. Either choice would have been "reasonable" IMO.
The fourth time was basically after the game was over. We were behind 49-7 with 4:51 remaining. It didn't matter what we did.