4th down pass before losing touchdown

[Libertarian Hog]

In the 4th quarter with 3:18 left, score tied 21-21, ball on Arkansas 44, 4th down with 2 to go for first down, Bret Bielema decided to go for the first down with a pass rather than punt.  The pass was incomplete, Mississippi State took over and scored the touchdown which beat us.  In this situation if the Hogs make it, Arkansas keeps the ball and gets to continue the drive from the 46 or so.  If they don't the Hogs chance for a win is considerably reduced since MSU gets the ball near field goal range and they have a short field to the goal line.  I think most good coaches in this situation would punt and hope for overtime or to get the ball back.

The reasoning behind the decision to pass rather than punt in this situation is discussed at https://sports.yahoo.com/bret-bielema-4th-call-led-mississippi-st-winning-score-made-halftime-221045873.html   .  Here is a quote from that article, "We made the decision at halftime that the next critical down, short yardage down that we were going to go for it," .  I think it is better to make decisions of this type based on the current situation rather than what you decided at halftime.  What yard line the ball is on and how much time is left in the game should be considered rather than a pre-ordained decision that the next critical down, short yardage down that we were going to go for it.

[MultipleScoreGasms]

The big question I had with that call wasn't the call, but the "no call."  The defender impeded the route of the receiver, fell down in his path making contact, and prevented the receiver's forward motion on the route.  In Tuscaloosa or Athens, that's PI.  In Fayetteville, not so much.

I question running the "Wild Hog" on 3rd and 3 more than the pass on 4th and 2.  Enos was the only person watching that game anywhere, who didn't already realize we were going to snap the ball to an up back who weighed less than 200 pounds, and ask him to "tip toe" through a LOS that had been overwhelmed by the D-Line all game long.

[hoglady]

Give the freakin ball to Williams both times.
He was running great the entire game / getting positive yards with most every carry.

[hoglady]

And this also where Cole Kelley's ill-advised behavior cost his team.

[311Hog]

both calls were very "Nutter Butter esque".  i just put my head in my hands....

[311Hog]

And this also where Cole Kelley's ill-advised behavior cost his team.

It was almost like the coaches forgot that Cole was suspended....

[cjack]

Give the freakin ball to Williams both times.
He was running great the entire game / getting positive yards with most every carry.

Exactly.  It doesn't seem like rocket science, but CBB pulled back to back stupid calls.  I suppose since they talked about it during halftime, it could be called a halftime adjustment.

[MC_Hog]

Give the freakin ball to Williams both times.
He was running great the entire game / getting positive yards with most every carry.

And if they run twice & get stuffed, ya'll would be whining why didn't they pass. They are only stupid plays when they don't work. Did everyone miss that the receiver was being held or he would have been in position to make the catch. The DB got a double handful of jersey just before the ball got there.

[hoglady]

And if they run twice & get stuffed, ya'll would be whining why didn't they pass. They are only stupid plays when they don't work. Did everyone miss that the receiver was being held or he would have been in position to make the catch. The DB got a double handful of jersey just before the ball got there.

If you're a running team and you can't make 2 yards with 2 attempts you deserve to lose.
Williams was running well - getting positive yards.
I would certainly take my chances with him over the 3rd down play with Nance and a pass play without the receiver who had been practicing it all week. (That play was practiced with Nance, who was hurt the play before).

[Rayzback]

It was almost like the coaches forgot that Cole was suspended....

Probably decided weeks ago to run that play in situations where the game was on the line... didn't factor in the Cole situation.

[Hoggish1]

  Here is a quote from that article, "We made the decision at halftime that the next critical down, short yardage down that we were going to go for it,"

This should say it all to anyone paying the slightest bit of attention.  Long had to go because he had no clue he was presiding over an idiot.

[hawgXi]

This should say it all to anyone paying the slightest bit of attention.  Long had to go because he had no clue he was presiding over an idiot.

Jeff long had to feel confident 5 yrs ago after the departure of john L snith that it can't get any worse than this........  wrong.

Yes these late calls were a combination of "hard headed hootie" with les miles game management skills, imo

[texhog22]

I have a question. If you are going to have a "jumbo" package with Cole Kelly. Why not on 4th and short or 3rd and short for that matter, why not have Agim in the backfield. Didn't he run the ball a lot in high school

[SlickWilly]

Give the freakin ball to Williams both times.
He was running great the entire game / getting positive yards with most every carry.

Preach.

[hobhog]

Moot point.

[Rayzback]

Preach.

Agreed, He's earned some hard yards this year.

[urkillnmesmalls]

I have a question. If you are going to have a "jumbo" package with Cole Kelly. Why not on 4th and short or 3rd and short for that matter, why not have Agim in the backfield. Didn't he run the ball a lot in high school

Ummm...because when he fumbled, it would go down as one of the dumbest things any coach have ever done in the history of football?   

What I thought was great was when they sent in Ty Storey, and the announcers said it was the "Steamboat Package" and that the coaches eyes lit up when they talked about this.  They said he could really scoot."  Paraphrased.  I was thinking...really, when was this revelation made?  Then we ran the play and I thought...."At best, that was a little flat bottomed fishing boat."    

[hoglady]

Ummm...because when he fumbled, it would go down as one of the dumbest things any coach have ever done in the history of football?   

What I thought was great was when they sent in Ty Storey, and the announcers said it was the "Steamboat Package" and that the coaches eyes lit up when they talked about this.  They said he could really scoot."  Paraphrased.  I was thinking...really, when was this revelation made?  Then we ran the play and I thought...."At best, that was a little flat bottomed fishing boat."    

Oh - that was one messed up play right there.

[urkillnmesmalls]

Oh - that was one messed up play right there.

Some plays have a slim chance.  That one had ZERO.  NONE.  I had this burning hope that we had some wicked pop pass and it was about to compete with Tretola's play for an all-time great call.  I genuinely thought..."There's no way he's going to run it just like Kelley would...EVERYONE would see that coming."  Then he took the snap and reality slapped me in the face like a Rick Flair chest chop. 

In Arkansas HS football, Brandon Allen ate people alive with his running ability.  AA was pretty decent as well.  Ty Storey...not so much, unless I missed something in the game I went to watch him play.  All of them look like club footed stiffs in the SEC.   

[HogBreath]

Some plays have a slim chance.  That one had ZERO.  NONE.  I had this burning hope that we had some wicked pop pass and it was about to compete with Tretola's play for an all-time great call.  I genuinely thought..."There's no way he's going to run it just like Kelley would...EVERYONE would see that coming."  Then he took the snap and reality slapped me in the face like a Rick Flair chest chop. 

In Arkansas HS football, Brandon Allen ate people alive with his running ability.  AA was pretty decent as well.  Ty Storey...not so much, unless I missed something in the game I went to watch him play.  All of them look like club footed stiffs in the SEC.   

Seems like Charleston once won a state championship game by driving 80-90 with not much time on the
clock, with Story basically running the ball each play.  Think the opponent was Junction City.

[code red]

Give the freakin ball to Williams both times.
He was running great the entire game / getting positive yards with most every carry.

This.  But I think this is another nail for Bret.  Rutgers failed fake punt in their territory.  Same at Bama.  Failed onside kick vs Auburn......to start the half.   Sam irwin Hill kicking off?  Da.  You think Gus didn't know what was going on.  I mean the man lives a fantasy world of football logic.

[Pigsknuckles]

Oh - that was one messed up play right there.

Austin and Ty were tossing a ball back and forth on the sideline most of the game. I figured Storey would eventually come in at some point...but for that? I was beyond flabbergasted.

[kodiakisland]

If you're a running team and you can't make 2 yards with 2 attempts you deserve to lose.
Williams was running well - getting positive yards.
I would certainly take my chances with him over the 3rd down play with Nance and a pass play without the receiver who had been practicing it all week. (That play was practiced with Nance, who was hurt the play before).

We have rarely been a running team with CBB.

[WaltonCollege]

Awful playcalling. On a 4th and 2 we throw a deep ball to a receiver that has basically zero game experience. Just like that fake bobbled fumble on 4th and short v SC. Enos tries to get too cute sometimes.

[Pigsknuckles]

And if they run twice & get stuffed, ya'll would be whining why didn't they pass. They are only stupid plays when they don't work. Did everyone miss that the receiver was being held or he would have been in position to make the catch. The DB got a double handful of jersey just before the ball got there.

I think the frustration is that CBB has a tendency to play to his teams weaknesses instead of it's strengths (ala Miss State 2015). As far as the no call, that could have gone either way. If the defenders position is established, he is not required to get out of the receivers way. Our record is not good when we place our fortune on the whistle of an official.

[Poker_hog]

It was dumb on many levels.  Optimal strategy would be to score with less than a min left.  That play was designed to score on that play.  Even if the play would have worked I have no doubt MSU would have scored and beat us in overtime.  Just another example of many of poor in game decision by bert.  Whatevs.  No need to pile on, the fat guy will be gone soon enough.

[jkstock04]

This.  But I think this is another nail for Bret.  Rutgers failed fake punt in their territory.  Same at Bama.  Failed onside kick vs Auburn......to start the half.   Sam irwin Hill kicking off?  Da.  You think Gus didn't know what was going on.  I mean the man lives a fantasy world of football logic.

Remember the blackjack analogy when he was hired when he boasted or claimed to know about odds of football plays like the odds at a blackjack table? Lolz what a joke.

I'm no mathematician but odds/by the book wise I'm going to guess the right move was to punt. Doing what we did was more akin to going all in on one hand with the deck count -12 if you get blackjack lingo like Bielema supposedly is an expert.

[WizardofhOgZ]

Remember the blackjack analogy when he was hired when he boasted or claimed to know about odds of football plays like the odds at a blackjack table? Lolz what a joke.

I'm no mathematician but odds/by the book wise I'm going to guess the right move was to punt. Doing what we did was more akin to going all in on one hand with the deck count -12 if you get blackjack lingo like Bielema supposedly is an expert.

Remember - MSU had just gone through us like a hot knife through butter to score a TD immediately before the possession we are discussing. If we punt to them with 3 minutes to go, I think there's an 70-80% chance they get close enough for at least a winning FG.

Alternatively, if we go for it, there are two outcomes - we either make it (convert the first down), or we don't. I'd say we have a one out of three chance of converting. If we don't convert (which is what happened), they have a 95% chance of scoring to win. However, if we DO convert, then we have maybe a 20% chance of scoring ourselves, a 30% chance we don't score, but possess the ball until regulation ends, and a 50% chance that we run the clock down and end up giving them the ball deep in their end of the field with less than a minute to play (giving them a < 20% chance to win in regulation).

Admittedly, those numbers are estimations - but plausible (not exaggerated), and the percentages of us winning/losing don't change too much if you move them up or down a reasonable amount. But if you run those numbers out, it equates to a 73% chance that we lose (if we go for it). In other words, the metrics work out that our chances of winning/losing in regulation are pretty much the same, whichever decision is made. Obviously, we only KNOW for sure the one that did play out - so it's easy to say "we should have taken the other". Hindsight being 20/20 and all.

But, I repeat - it wasn't the decision to go for it that lost the game, per se; it was the play call/execution that doomed us.  In roulette, you can put your chip on "35", and your odds of success are very low; alternatively, you can put the chip on "red" and have almost a 50% chance of success.  We called a play that was "35", when we should have placed a chip on "red".

[Libertarian Hog]

I think this is a lot of baloney.  You say, "if you run those numbers out, it equates to a 73% chance that we lose (if we go for it)."   But nowhere in your post have you done any computation, you've just come up with some wild probabilities and then by some mysterious process come up with 73%.

And you say, "In other words, the metrics work out that our chances of winning/losing in regulation are pretty much the same, whichever decision is made."  But you provide no justification whatsoever for why this is true. 

You say, "But, I repeat - it wasn't the decision to go for it that lost the game".  I don't know what you are repeating.  But in making this statement you are not telling us anything we don't already know.  It is never the case that one play call loses the game.  In judging one play call you should ask the question, is it the play call which maximizes your teams probability of winning.

[WizardofhOgZ]

I think this is a lot of baloney.  You say, "if you run those numbers out, it equates to a 73% chance that we lose (if we go for it)."   But nowhere in your post have you done any computation, you've just come up with some wild probabilities and then by some mysterious process come up with 73%.

And you say, "In other words, the metrics work out that our chances of winning/losing in regulation are pretty much the same, whichever decision is made."  But you provide no justification whatsoever for why this is true.

You're right about one thing; I did the computation quickly in my head and made a slight error; the estimated probability that we lose in regulation if we go for it is actually (approximately) 67%, not .73%.  That's using the probabilities for each event I posted in my prior post - which I think are realistic and non-agenda driven, if not exact (who can know exactly?).  "Wild probabilities"?  Don't think they are.

The computations?  Probability 101.

[(2/3 * (.95)] + [(1/3) * ((50%) * (20%))] = .6667 (i.e., two chances out of three).

If you strongly disagree with the percentages presented in my earlier post, let's see how changing them might alter this calculation.

I used 1/3 for our chances of converting a first down on 4th and 2.  I think this is pretty fair, but let's lower it to just 1/4.  I say if we fail, there is a .95 chance they score.  Hard to criticize that number.  I said that IF we successfully converted, there was a 50% chance we either (a) scored ourselves; or (b) kept the ball the rest of the game.  Let's say it was only 40%.  And I said if we did have to give it up to them (after converting the first down and running some clock) deep in their end of the field, they'd have a 20% chance of scoring, which I think is more than fair (given time left and field position); but let's increase it to 30%.

Making all of those changes, our odds of losing (in regulation) if we go for it rises to 75.75%.

I still maintain that, IMO, punting to them with 3 minutes to go - in that situation, where they had just gone right through us for a TD - would have resulted in a 70% or greater probability that we lose.  So - the two choices were about equal.  One gives us a chance to live or die by our own hand, and the other is more passive.  I agree with the more aggressive play (going for it) in that situation.  Not the "all or none" play call, but the attempt to convert.

You say, "But, I repeat - it wasn't the decision to go for it that lost the game".  I don't know what you are repeating.  But in making this statement you are not telling us anything we don't already know.  It is never the case that one play call loses the game.  In judging one play call you should ask the question, is it the play call which maximizes your teams probability of winning.

I said "repeat" because I have posted that opinion in other threads.  And while YOU may "know" this already,your comment in the OP of this thread would lead me to believe that you do NOT "know it": 

In the 4th quarter with 3:18 left, score tied 21-21, ball on Arkansas 44, 4th down with 2 to go for first down, Bret Bielema decided to go for the first down with a pass rather than punt.  The pass was incomplete, Mississippi State took over and scored the touchdown which beat us.  In this situation if the Hogs make it, Arkansas keeps the ball and gets to continue the drive from the 46 or so.  If they don't the Hogs chance for a win is considerably reduced since MSU gets the ball near field goal range and they have a short field to the goal line.  I think most good coaches in this situation would punt and hope for overtime or to get the ball back.