Should we have gone for it on fourth down?

**CopRaven** · 12-01-2014, 11:19 AM

There's already a thread about the third down on the last FG drive, but I thought the fourth down also is worthy of disussion.

With 2:27 to go we faced a 4th&4 from the Chargers' 14. As we all know, Tucker made the kick to put us op by 6, but apparently that's not worth much with this defense.

Instead of kicking the FG, should we have gone for it? The Chargers had no timeouts left, so a first down would win the game (as would a touchdown). If you don't convert, the Chargers get the ball at their own 14 and have two minutes to get in field goal range, which they would have done without a doubt.

The way our defense had been playing, I almost think that even if we're stopped on fourth down, we're in better position to win the game than we were with the Chargers marching up the field for a touchdown. They would kick the FG to tie it, game would have gone into overtime, and we'd have a 50% chance of winning. The Chargers would probably be conservative once they got into FG range, so I don't see them scoring a TD.

All in all, I thought that play might have been the one to be bold and call a trick play to win the game, just like the Rams did when they upset the Seahawks.

What do y'all think?

**Dade** · 12-01-2014, 11:22 AM

IMO the Ravens should've ran Forsett on 3rd down. If he didn't pick up the first, then, yes go for it on 4th. Anyone watching the game knew that if San Diego got the ball back they were going to get a TD.

**lowrider** · 12-01-2014, 11:23 AM

2 words:

HELL YES!

I talked about this yesterday. More than likely they would have played for a tie had we not gotten the 1st down. I'm still pissed about it because our defense was showing no signs of life the whole game.

**wickedsolo** · 12-01-2014, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by Dade

IMO the Ravens should've ran Forsett on 3rd down. If he didn't pick up the first, then, yes go for it on 4th. Anyone watching the game knew that if San Diego got the ball back they were going to get a TD.

This.

Run it and if you get it, great. Keep the drive going. If you don't, ok, well you've run time off the clock and you still get a FG.

Regardless, the Chargers took less than 2 min to score and that was largely in part to a lengthy PI call on Levine which put them right on the goal line. I'm just not sure it would have made a difference outside of getting a 1st down there and/or scoring a TD.

**veritas** · 12-01-2014, 11:39 AM

I don't think that SD would have played for the tie had we had a 3 point lead. They would have played to score the TD and win but would have kicked a FG in the unlikely case that the defense held. Having said that, going for it on 4th down would not have been a bad move at all. In the final analysis, with our defense, a 6 point lead is no better than a 3 point lead.

If SD scores a TD, they win in either case so, unless you have a two score lead, the points are meaningless. The smart move would have been to call runs on both 3rd and 4th down in an attempt to get the 4 yards. Even if you fail, you take extra time off the clock, perhaps a minute or so. You also save your timeout so it's better all around. That might have been a good spot to have Taliaferro in the game but I guess, since the Pitt fumble, he's being punished. That's dumb coaching, IMO.

**BMann** · 12-01-2014, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by CopRaven

The way our defense had been playing, I almost think that even if we're stopped on fourth down, we're in better position to win the game than we were with the Chargers marching up the field for a touchdown. They would kick the FG to tie it, game would have gone into overtime, and we'd have a 50% chance of winning. The Chargers would probably be conservative once they got into FG range, so I don't see them scoring a TD.

All in all, I thought that play might have been the one to be bold and call a trick play to win the game, just like the Rams did when they upset the Seahawks.

What do y'all think?

I agree. It was one of those instances where a 3-point lead would've been better than a 6-point lead, as the latter put SD in a TD-or-nothing mindset. Who knows how they would've played that final drive knowing a FG would've tied the game? One thing we know it hindsight: It definitely couldn't have worked out any worse for us!

**bmorecareful** · 12-01-2014, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by Dade

IMO the Ravens should've ran Forsett on 3rd down. If he didn't pick up the first, then, yes go for it on 4th. Anyone watching the game knew that if San Diego got the ball back they were going to get a TD.

I agree with this. A 4th and 4 is a pretty tall order, but get even 2 yards on 3rd down with a Forsett run and you're in a much better spot at 4th and 2.

That's assuming league-average type of performance in that down and distance, though. The Ravens are probably a worse-than-average short yardage/red zone team, though, so that might skew the odds unfavorably.

I'd still have gone for it. I believe the Ravens also faced a 4th and 1 inside Chargers territory earlier in the game and I would have gone for that as well. Teams should go for it on 4th down inside enemy territory much more than they already do, especially in short yardage and close to the end zone.

**Greg** · 12-01-2014, 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by Dade

IMO the Ravens should've ran Forsett on 3rd down. If he didn't pick up the first, then, yes go for it on 4th. Anyone watching the game knew that if San Diego got the ball back they were going to get a TD.

THIS! The coaching took away our best chance to seal the win. We couldn't give SD the ball back if at all possible. The FG meant nothing except to tell them they had to go for the win. We would have been better off with a 3 point lead, they may have played for a FG and we may have had more time to go for a win or at least winning it in OT if we get the ball first and score a TD.

**ed from Bel Air** · 12-01-2014, 11:50 AM

Ozzie should draft 7 cornerbacks next year. (I'm not kidding).

**alien bird** · 12-01-2014, 11:52 AM

Yes, the Ravens should have run it on third down and gone for it on fourth down.

1) The Ravens' coaches were apparently already planning on going for it on fourth down by lining up for a fake, which San Diego noticed and the Ravens inexplicably called a time out they could have used at the end of the game. (Calling a time out there was dumb, but that's another thread). If they had a plan to go for it on fourth down already, why throw on third down? Run it twice. It takes more time off the clock or forces the Chargers to use all their time outs. And if you convert, the game is over.

2) Some people will argue that if the Ravens went for it and didn't convert, San Diego would have only needed a FG to tie. But that is exactly why they should have gone for it - convert and the game is over, miss out and your lead is only three. But, by going up six, it made San Diego a desperate team that had to go for a touchdown. Had San Diego been down only three, would they have been more conservative, taking time off the clock and trying to just get into FG range? Maybe they don't risk going for a touchdown in that situation and instead take the sure three. Against a team that can move the ball, a 4-6 point lead is the most vulnerable one of all.

**saintmatthew** · 12-01-2014, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by CopRaven

There's already a thread about the third down on the last FG drive, but I thought the fourth down also is worthy of disussion.

With 2:27 to go we faced a 4th&4 from the Chargers' 14. As we all know, Tucker made the kick to put us op by 6, but apparently that's not worth much with this defense.

Instead of kicking the FG, should we have gone for it? The Chargers had no timeouts left, so a first down would win the game (as would a touchdown). If you don't convert, the Chargers get the ball at their own 14 and have two minutes to get in field goal range, which they would have done without a doubt.

The way our defense had been playing, I almost think that even if we're stopped on fourth down, we're in better position to win the game than we were with the Chargers marching up the field for a touchdown. They would kick the FG to tie it, game would have gone into overtime, and we'd have a 50% chance of winning. The Chargers would probably be conservative once they got into FG range, so I don't see them scoring a TD.

All in all, I thought that play might have been the one to be bold and call a trick play to win the game, just like the Rams did when they upset the Seahawks.

What do y'all think?

Well, it looks like they had a trick play but it got sniffed out. I would have run it anyway and saved the TO.

**lowrider** · 12-01-2014, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by veritas

I don't think that SD would have played for the tie had we had a 3 point lead. They would have played to score the TD and win but would have kicked a FG in the unlikely case that the defense held. Having said that, going for it on 4th down would not have been a bad move at all. In the final analysis, with our defense, a 6 point lead is no better than a 3 point lead.

If SD scores a TD, they win in either case so, unless you have a two score lead, the points are meaningless. The smart move would have been to call runs on both 3rd and 4th down in an attempt to get the 4 yards. Even if you fail, you take extra time off the clock, perhaps a minute or so. You also save your timeout so it's better all around. That might have been a good spot to have Taliaferro in the game but I guess, since the Pitt fumble, he's being punished. That's dumb coaching, IMO.

I agree about running on both 3rd and 4th downs. I don't necessarily agree that they would have scored a TD any way. There's simply no way to know for sure but it could have changed how they approached that final drive. My guess is that Rivers would have dinked and dunked his way down into the red zone and for the final score, instead of trying the long pass that scored the final TD. Also, with a 3 point lead our master D coordinator may have approached how he played the final drive differently. He MIGHT have been inclined to try and keep them out of FG range instead of playing prevent. But at the end of the day no one really knows how things would have turned out if we had played 4 downs instead of just 2.