Imagine this: Super Bowl Sunday, the clock is ticking, and a coach faces a decision that could make or break the game. Should they go for it on fourth down, or play it safe and take the points? This seemingly simple choice has become one of the most polarizing debates in football today, dividing fans, coaches, and analysts alike. But here's where it gets controversial: while modern analytics scream 'go for it,' some of the game's greatest minds argue that this approach is stripping football of its strategic soul.
Take, for instance, a hypothetical scenario in Super Bowl 60: The New England Patriots are in the red zone, facing a fourth-and-short. Coach Mike Vrabel is torn—does he trust his team to convert, or does he opt for the safer field goal? Meanwhile, if this situation arises for the Seattle Seahawks, the outcome is almost predictable. Coach Mike Macdonald is notorious for taking the points, a strategy that has become as much a part of his identity as his playbook.
The phrase 'take the points' has become a lightning rod in football circles. Modern play-calling leans heavily on aggressive fourth-down attempts, especially in the opponent's territory. The logic? Converting on fourth down yields a greater reward than the risk of failing. Or so the thinking goes. Every weekend, from college fields to NFL stadiums, coaches are rolling the dice on fourth downs more than ever before. And every time they do, a heated debate erupts on social media: was it the right call?
Consider two recent examples that highlight the stakes. The Denver Broncos lost the AFC Championship Game in part because Sean Payton chose to go for it on fourth-and-1 from the Patriots’ 14-yard line and failed. On the flip side, the Indiana Hoosiers clinched the national championship when Curt Cignetti called a quarterback draw on fourth-and-4 from Miami’s 12-yard line, resulting in an iconic touchdown dive by quarterback Fernando Mendoza. Two similar situations, two wildly different outcomes. One team celebrated a title; the other left the field wondering what could have been.
Despite high-profile failures, the analytics crowd is winning the debate—at least for now. In 2025, NFL teams went for it on nearly 34 percent of fourth-down opportunities in opponent territory, the highest rate this century, according to TruMedia data. I’ve long advocated for trusting the numbers, but coaches like Mike Martz offer a compelling counterargument. Martz, the mastermind behind the St. Louis Rams’ ‘Greatest Show on Turf,’ is appalled by the overreliance on analytics.
‘There’s a stupidity to this where numbers take over, and it’s insane,’ Martz told me. ‘It shouldn’t be that way. It’s always about people. It always will be about people.’ Martz believes the game’s strategic depth is being sacrificed for a numbers-driven approach. ‘Analytics has gotten way too big of a bite with what’s happening in football today, and it’s unjustified,’ he said. ‘Those numbers are based on other teams with different players, different plays, and different defenses. The only commonality is the situation: fourth-and-1.’
The math behind going for it is straightforward: the win probability gained from converting outweighs the risk of turning the ball over, especially deep in opponent territory. NFL rule changes before the 2024 season further tilted the scales. Teams now start drives at the 30-yard line after kickoffs, making the risk of failing in the red zone seem less daunting. After all, if you fail, the opponent starts far enough away that your defense has a chance to hold them to a three-and-out.
But Martz sees flaws in this logic. ‘You still have to play defense to get a stop,’ he points out. More critically, he argues, coming away empty-handed after a long drive can be psychologically devastating for an offense. ‘The thing you don’t want to do is come off that field after a 70-yard drive and not get points,’ he said. ‘There’s a psychology to it. You just take the points as you can get them.’
Taking the points isn’t foolproof. Kickers make 97 percent of attempts within 35 yards, while teams convert fourth downs only about 57 percent of the time. It’s no wonder fans are frustrated when teams opt for the lower-percentage play. Yet, the data shows teams are getting better at converting fourth downs in the red zone—even if it didn’t feel that way when Jarrett Stidham’s pass fell incomplete in the AFC Championship Game.
In 2020, teams attempted 159 fourth-down conversions in the red zone, succeeding 51 percent of the time. Fast forward to this season, and the attempts jumped to 237, with a 57 percent success rate. This is the most frequent red zone fourth-down aggression since TruMedia began tracking in 2000, the year after Martz’s Rams won the Super Bowl. Back then, teams attempted just 92 red zone fourth-down conversions.
The Patriots, under Vrabel, led the league this year with an 83 percent conversion rate. The Seahawks, meanwhile, went for it only twice in the red zone, opting instead for 19 field goals, tied for the league lead. Martz acknowledges there are times when going for it makes sense—usually late in the game or when a coach knows the opponent’s tendencies. He recalls a 2011 playoff game as the Chicago Bears’ offensive coordinator, where he called a fourth-down play that resulted in a touchdown pass from Jay Cutler to Kellen Davis, sealing a 35-10 victory.
‘I couldn’t wait to call that play,’ Martz said. But he remains skeptical of the analytics-driven approach. ‘Owners have invested heavily in analytics departments, and it’s here to stay,’ he admitted. ‘But it takes away from the human element of the game. You might as well plug your game plan into a computer and send the coaches home. It’s sickening to me. When somebody says ‘analytics’ on TV, I just run to the bathroom to vomit.’
And this is the part most people miss: football is as much about intuition and strategy as it is about numbers. So, here’s a thought-provoking question for you: Is the game better off when coaches trust their gut, or should they let the data dictate their decisions? Let us know in the comments—we’d love to hear your take on this divisive issue.
