Gregg Easterbrook and me
OK, I think I'm a fairly smart guy, and I also think Gregg Easterbrook, while a talented writer is sort of an asswipe. (He is the writer, remember, who castigated Harvey Weinstein for being a money-grubbing Hollywood type. Those lines are pretty far apart, and it's not too hard to read between them.) But after I wrote about how idiotic it was for the 49ers to punt on Sunday, Easterbrook has to go out and utterly put the smackdown on this in his Tuesday Morning Quarterback column today. This quote really sums it up nicely:
NFL coaches punt in opposition territory, or on short yardage, in order to avoid blame -- if a team goes for it and fails the coach is blamed, whereas if a coach does the safe thing and kicks and then loses, the players are blamed.
What's more, he goes further suggesting that teams should never punt. Ever!
That's a bit bold but here are some choice excerpts:
[University of California economist David] Romer put the opening quarters of all NFL games from 1998 to 2004 into a database, then analyzed when coaches ordered punts, when they went for it, and how these decisions had an impact on field position on subsequent possessions. Here are Romer's three key conclusions. First, inside the opponent's 45, go for a first down on any fourth-and-7 or less, unless a field goal would decide the game. Second, inside the opponent's 33, go for a first down on fourth-and-10 or less, unless a field goal decides. In Romer's sample years there were 1,068 fourth downs in which the above formulas said go for the first down, yet NFL coaches kicked all but 109 times -- meaning they went for it only about 10 percent as often as they should have. Finally, Romer's numbers say that an NFL team should try for the first down on any fourth-and-4 or less, regardless of where the ball is on the field. Of course some fourth-down tries would go down in flames and even create easy scores for the other side. But over the course of a season of rarely punting, Romer maintains, the team that eschewed the punt would score more than it otherwise would, while its opponents would score less.
First, obviously Easterbrook is quoting a researcher - an economist from Cal, so points there for tapping into the blue and gold. And these conclusions make a lot of sense - of course, this is looking at it from a macro perspective: on any given punt, there would be a huge amount of questioning. It would take a full season - one most coaches wouldn't live through after the media and ownership got through with them - to gauge whether this strategy ever made sense.
Suppose an NFL or major-college coach came into a season determined to go for it any time it was fourth-and-4 or less. I don't think a coach should be doctrinaire about this. I'd punt if it was fourth-and-4 inside my 20, and I'd be inclined to punt in the second half if protecting a lead. But otherwise, the coach commits to going for it instead of punting, even if the first few attempts backfire. Surely a strategy of rarely punting would sometimes boomerang, but on balance it could lead to more scoring for your team while depriving the other team of the ball. The strategy could cause exhaustion and panic on the parts of defenses that thought they had done their jobs by forcing fourth down, only to discover your offense had no intention of passively jogging off the field. Teams that rarely punted might pile up big advantages in points and time of possession. If Don Shula's "coach who doesn't punt" appeared on the NFL scene, that coach, Tuesday Morning Quarterback suspects, would revolutionize football. Player talent being equal, that coach might blow the doors off the National Football League.
That would be something worth watching, that's for sure.
Edited to add -- Wow, I didn't read the entire article before posting snippets of it above, and I was really shocked to see the following (no, not the fact that the Texans cheerleaders pose looking like they've been swathed in baby oil), but this, because it's almost EXACTLY my sentiments about the other terrible play in the 49ers game:
Single Worst Play of the 2006 Season So Far: Trailing 24-3, the Niners had third-and-goal on the Eagles' 1. Frank Gore fumbled and Nesharim defensive tackle Mike Patterson returned the rock 98 yards, effectively ending the game. The bad thing about this play was not that instead of making it 24-10, San Francisco trailed 31-3. The bad thing was not that Patterson, who's heavyset, huffed and puffed and had to jog the final 30 yards. The bad thing was not that sportscasters thought it was funny that a highly paid professional athlete is too heavy to sprint 100 yards, rather than asking what message about fitness and healthy diet this sends to the young. The reason this was the Single Worst Play of the 2006 Season So Far was that the Niners failed to chase Patterson down. Watch the replay; Alex Smith is the sole red jersey visible. Vernon Davis and Gore were hurt on the play and couldn't run, but that still leaves a Ticonderoga-class defensive tackle plodding the length of the field and eight of 11 Niners not catching him. According to the Game Book, this play lasted 21 seconds, allowing plenty of time to catch Patterson. San Francisco 49ers, you have committed the Single Worst Play of the 2006 Season So Far.