Nice analysis of Lanning's 4th down results

[pezsez1]

Great read, and the limited data seems to support what many of us likely feel.

The biggest takeaway, in my opinion: Under Lanning, the Ducks are just 4-14 on high-stakes fourth-down plays.
 
https://www.oregonlive.com/ducks/2023/1 ... or-it.html

Also worth noting: The Ducks are significantly better on fourth down when they have a lead (probably against weaker opponents) and when they have fewer than 2 yards to go.

[bellsduck]

Seems like this is being beaten to death.
Big deal, he's aggressive. It's not like it's 4th and 27.
As has been pointed out in other threads and other news stories, the plays were there to be made. Unfortunately they weren't. If they did work, he'd be celebrated as making the best calls ever.
I'd rather that then him being so conservative we're asking, why doesn't he go for it more.

[pezsez1]

I also prefer an aggressive lean to a conservative lean. But the data indicates that perhaps he is overly aggressive to the detriment of the team. He is just a second-year coach and I'm confident he will figure it out.

[StevensTechU]

I also prefer an aggressive lean to a conservative lean. But the data indicates that perhaps he is overly aggressive to the detriment of the team. He is just a second-year coach and I'm confident he will figure it out.

Really depends on the data point you look at. Overall success rate is quite high.

[pezsez1]

It does, but the data indicates it's mostly successful when it doesn't really matter as much. I'm guessing that's mostly against weaker competition in games where we dominate at the LOS.

[73duck]

I missed most of this because I was too depressed to go near anything having to do with football for most of the week. Not kicking the FG before the half was a crazy decision, but so was the fake punt against Colorado. I tried not to get too carried away about either call.

[OregonFan4Life]

I read an article where Urban Meyer talked about the 4th downs, he basically said that he doesn’t think it’s Lanning looking at analytics but rather just being an aggressive young coach. He said he was similar to Lanning early in his career where he was going for it a lot to be aggressive and wanted that mindset to spread amongst the team. Later in his career he started to be a little less aggressive and had more of a “gut feeling” for when he should go for it and when he shouldn’t. He expects Lanning to get the same feel as he gets more experienced. I think it’s fair to consider the lack of success on crucial 4th downs a learning curve for Lanning. I’d rather have an aggressive coach than a conservative coach though so I’m happy with the 4th down aggressiveness.

[ducks5ever]

Great read, and the limited data seems to support what many of us likely feel.

The biggest takeaway, in my opinion: Under Lanning, the Ducks are just 4-14 on high-stakes fourth-down plays.
 
https://www.oregonlive.com/ducks/2023/1 ... or-it.html

Also worth noting: The Ducks are significantly better on fourth down when they have a lead (probably against weaker opponents) and when they have fewer than 2 yards to go.

I read it too and had a few of thoughts.

1. Dan Lanning is a smart guy but he's not an offensive minded coach. It's interesting to see that he is quite rigid in his philosophy in going for it on 4th down.

2. Assuming this is 1 of Lanning's deeply rooted philosophies, the analysis isn't exactly fair. By that, I mean that it's not exactly fair to pull up numbers from last year (and even this year), and say that this is representative of how things will go in the future. What I'm getting at is that the roster is on an upwards trajectory. Generally speaking, the talent level is improving (maybe aside from QB - doh!). So it's not fair to say that his lack of success on 4th downs in critical situations last year (with a roster that he largely inherited), is relevant to his future 4th down success rate.

Of course it's possible that this becomes a trend, but I haven't seen enough to rule out the contrary idea that his 4th down success rate could be much better in the future with a better roster (and possibly a better/more experienced play caller).

[gogreen55]

I wonder how much practice time they specifically dedicate to 4th down plays? If you are going to have this super aggressive mindset and you know that you are going to be going for it at twice the rate of most other teams, you better be dedicating twice the amount of time to practicing it. Spending twice the amount of time to scheming the opponent for those situations. Having twice the number of plays that you feel your team has mastered, at your disposal. Their execution of the 4th down plays against Washington left a lot to be desired, which is often a reflection of the preparation.

[rsbgduck]

I wonder how much practice time they specifically dedicate to 4th down plays? If you are going to have this super aggressive mindset and you know that you are going to be going for it at twice the rate of most other teams, you better be dedicating twice the amount of time to practicing it. Spending twice the amount of time to scheming the opponent for those situations. Having twice the number of plays that you feel your team has mastered, at your disposal. Their execution of the 4th down plays against Washington left a lot to be desired, which is often a reflection of the preparation.

Preparation? I completely disagree, the plays were their to be made, wide open receivers. The preparation was their, scouting for the right play, running the right plays. The issue was execution of the plays from the Oline to not finding the open receiver. You can prepare all you want but it’s not going to do a bit of good if the players don’t execute for whatever reason. I see DL perspective and I’m ok with the calls to go for it. Me personally, I would of taken the 3 points going into halftime and gone into the 3ed quarter with the momentum and confidence. The rest I would of done the same. That’s just me and it’s easy making the right call from the stands or couch, more so when Sunday morning quarterbacking from said couch.

[gogreen55]

I wonder how much practice time they specifically dedicate to 4th down plays? If you are going to have this super aggressive mindset and you know that you are going to be going for it at twice the rate of most other teams, you better be dedicating twice the amount of time to practicing it. Spending twice the amount of time to scheming the opponent for those situations. Having twice the number of plays that you feel your team has mastered, at your disposal. Their execution of the 4th down plays against Washington left a lot to be desired, which is often a reflection of the preparation.

Preparation? I completely disagree, the plays were their to be made, wide open receivers. The preparation was their, scouting for the right play, running the right plays. The issue was execution of the plays from the Oline to not finding the open receiver. You can prepare all you want but it’s not going to do a bit of good if the players don’t execute for whatever reason. I see DL perspective and I’m ok with the calls to go for it. Me personally, I would of taken the 3 points going into halftime and gone into the 3ed quarter with the momentum and confidence. The rest I would of done the same. That’s just me and it’s easy making the right call from the stands or couch, more so when Sunday morning quarterbacking from said couch.

Yeah, the problem is you don't seem to comprehend what all the term "preparation" encompasses. Hopefully the coaches manage to get a better handle on the concept, or the lack thereof will continue to manifest itself on the field in these game deciding situations (as it has over, and over, and...you get the idea).

[OregonFan4Life]

I wonder how much practice time they specifically dedicate to 4th down plays? If you are going to have this super aggressive mindset and you know that you are going to be going for it at twice the rate of most other teams, you better be dedicating twice the amount of time to practicing it. Spending twice the amount of time to scheming the opponent for those situations. Having twice the number of plays that you feel your team has mastered, at your disposal. Their execution of the 4th down plays against Washington left a lot to be desired, which is often a reflection of the preparation.

I agree, I know I’ve said this many times but I can’t believe we don’t have better playcalls also for those moments. You’d think Stein would have at least one play up his sleeve when we need 2 yards to save the undefeated season but apparently not. It honestly feels that our 4th down decision making is more reactive than proactive.

[Phalanx]

It seems like there should be more depth here than 'he didn't make it in crucial situations, therefore he shouldn't do it'. Like I detailed after the Washington game, the punt at the end actually worked out pretty well for the Ducks; they got the ball back with time to get down the field for a reasonable field goal attempt. Chances are, if Washington had a longer field, they would have run out the clock. The 2nd time he went for it instead of kicking the field goal, it also worked out. They pinned Washington deep and got the ball back with great field position and went down and scored a touchdown. So in those cases, the missed fourth down play is not the end of the analysis - you have to follow the sequence all they through.

Beyond this, there is also a motivational factor. Lanning is clearly good at pumping his guys up. I imagine going for it on 4th down is part of that. I recall a point in the game where the Huskies had scored that first easy touchdown on a layup 26-yard Penix pass, and it looked like he could do that all day. So how does Lanning respond? On the Ducks' next possession, they score a TD and he goes for two on the road vs. a hostile crowd and a top-rated team. F-you, Washington, now we're ahead 8-7. How you like them apples? So maybe the team got more comfortable after that. I certainly did, as a fan. Not only might that be a motivation to play well as a team, but also, maybe kids watching that want to come play for Lanning because they know he will give them a chance for those big moments. Who scored that 2-point conversion. Was that Justin Herbert's little brother? The Justin Herbert who is making bank in the NFL now? Huh, maybe they got something going at Oregon.

I just think there is more to it than the superficial analysis we are getting in an article from the Oregonian, who hasn't had much of a chance so far this season to do their piling-on-after-a-loss routine. I mean, they have to make the most of this; who knows when they will get another opportunity?

[Phalanx]

It does, but the data indicates it's mostly successful when it doesn't really matter as much. I'm guessing that's mostly against weaker competition in games where we dominate at the LOS.

Who is to say when it matters and when it doesn't? What if the successful 4th-down attempt/ aggressive play call actually led to the domination that causes you to discount the importance of it? I know this is anecdotal, but I really think that UCLA game last year could have gone much differently if Oregon doesn't do that onside kick. UCLA seemed to be matching Oregon stride-for-stride until that point. The Ducks scored a TD to go up 17-10, and instead of letting UCLA once again answer back to tie it, they get the onside kick and score again to go up by a two-touchdown margin 24-10. That margin was pretty near the same as the final score of 45-30. So maybe the Oregonian would not consider that a 'crucial' instance because of the lead at the end, but if it didn't happen, it's probably a much more winnable game for the Bruins.

[pezsez1]

I'm not sure if that UCLA play is part of the 4 of the 14 "high stakes" moments referenced in the story. And I'm sure there are a few other instances we could nitpick. Bottom line though is there are pretty clear trends in this data. If you support Lanning's current level of aggression, then it's easy to make the argument that "players just need to execute better." That said, Bo Nix is about as great of a college QB you can ask for and we're still not converting when it counts. Perhaps it's not realistic to expect perfect execution in such high-pressure situations especially when playing against a high-caliber defense that's also expected to execute at a high level.

The best coaches in college football aren't known for being ultra aggressive. It's often the coaches of underdog teams (like Jonathan Smith or the late Mike Leach) that are known for taking more shots -- because that's often what they have to do in order to have a shot at winning. I love that Lanning is aggressive, but I don't think it can be reasonably argued that his ultra aggressive tendancies help us against top-tier competition. On the contrary, I'm pretty sure opposing coaches see that as a weakness that can be exploited.

He's only a second-year HC and I'm sure he'll figure out how to flex his aggression when it makes sense to do so.