Mike Smith's 4th Down Decision in Atlanta, Predictably, was Pilloried by the Media
By Jason Lisk
The Saints stuffed Michael Turner before he could get back to the line. New Orleans went on to move the ball close enough for a 26 yard game winning field goal.
Over 1,000 articles have already been written detailing the overtime decision of Mike Smith. A quick review suggests at least 90% are negative towards Smith’s decision. Mike Smith is a standup guy, and after the game said the decision was his. Among his thoughts that a howling media probably didn’t listen to as they searched for their blurb, Smith mentioned it was less than a half a yard, and that didn’t want Brees getting ball because they had lost in that situation before. Both of these: the relative distance and the opponent’s offensive strength, are valid considerations in these decisions. You often hear that coaches can’t rely on just math but must take the specifics in account; that only applies though when they are conservative. When they are appropriately aggressive considering the scenarios, they are fools.
Let’s sample some of the thousands of pieces saying pretty much the same thing. From the Washington Post, and a thousand others: The gamble backfired. Gamble, gamble, gamble. One gets the sense that sportswriters would sit at a blackjack table all night against dealer odds, but don’t double down on 11 against 6. That’s Gambling.
From Pat Yasinkas of ESPN, “Blame Begins, Ends With Mike Smith.” Yasinkas puts not only the game–the entire game, because the Falcons would have clearly won by punting in overtime and had no other chances to make plays and the players executed perfectly–but the entire season on this Smith decision. Hyperbole much? By the way, Smith is one of the more aggressive coaches on fourth down, and in the 3rd quarter, went for it on 4th and 1 in field goal range in a close game, a decision that some coaches would not have made. Seems on results, his decisions are a wash and they would not have been in overtime anyway without that touchdown they scored on the next play.
Jason Cole of Yahoo says that Smith panicked. Some hack from New Orleans called it a Scarecrow Call (as in no brain). Chris Chase of Shutdown Corner calls it foolish, then fails to go through any kind of analysis that might show how the scenarios play out.
Not all of it was negative. Brian Burke of Advanced NFL Stats went through the probabilities that are based on actual NFL results and said the numbers were slightly in favor of Smith’s decision. I’m sure people railing on this decision also complained about how overtime was so unfair in the past for the team that won the toss. A punt by Atlanta there gives the Saints slightly better field position than a receiving team in overtime (before the kickoff line was moved back), and Drew Brees is pretty good. The Falcons were an underdog with a kick, and a big underdog if they failed, and a favorite if they converted that fourth and inches. I won’t go through all the math but it is in Burke’s post.
Mark Bradley of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution also defended the decision by his hometown coach, pointing out that he was criticized for giving the ball back last year against Drew Brees, when they never got it again and the Falcons lost at home, and that twice in the last three years he has punted away to Brees late and paid. He also quotes Dunta Robinson:
"Said Dunta Robinson, who we should note plays defense for the Falcons: “We were more bothered when we saw the punt team going out there [which it did before Smith called timeout and changed his mind] than when we saw the offense. We felt there was no way we weren’t going to get that first down.”"
Good decisions sometimes fail. Bad ones work out. I’m not going to say this was the most genius thing ever, but the decision was absolutely defensible given the circumstances. Whether it is one play or twenty, this decision was no more a gamble than giving Brees the ball back in overtime at around his own 30.
As for that bad overtime decision I referenced? Mike Sherman of Texas A&M kicked a field goal on 4th and 1 inside the 5 against Kansas State in the fourth overtime. He was a massive underdog once he did so, as the only way they won was on an immediate stop and a Kansas State missed field goal, while the Wildcats were chewing them up on the ground and highly likely to get a touchdown to outright win it.
Meanwhile, a conversion there is almost a sure touchdown. By my estimation, A&M would have needed only a 35-40% chance of converting as the break even point to make it the right decision. Given that 4th and 1’s are around 65% there, it was a massive conservative error. 322 articles, about 25% of those dealing with Atlanta in overtime, discuss the A&M loss, but few mention that massive error. (this one did).
The howling is 20x louder, though, on a decision that is actually supported by the game circumstances. I’m beginning to think that sportswriters are the ones who have built all those Casinos in Vegas, by not understanding what gambling really is.
[photo via Getty]