This is something I was debating with a few friends.

Say a player is running towards the end zone (within 20 yards). It's obvious he's going to get tackled before he makes it in.

Would you consider it more advantageous for the offensive player to go down within 10-15 yards? Or should he push to get within 10 yards or closer, and try to get every little bit that he can out of the run?

My opinion is that if a player goes down within 10-15 yards, he gives his team a better chance to score. Most plays that could be run for a touchdown from 8 yards, could be run from 12. So you've pretty much got the same playbook to pull from, minus maybe a few plays.

On the plus side, if you go down at the 8 yard line, your team has only 3 (maybe 4, depending on the situation) plays to get to the end zone. If you go down at the 13 yard line, you can extend that to 6 (maybe 7 or 8, once again depending on the situation) plays to try to do the same thing, as long as you can get those 10 yards for a first down.

Sure, you've got to go a little further. But in my opinion, the tradeoff of having to cover a few more yards is worth the possible extra set of downs.

Does anybody know if this is ever coached or recommended (i.e. telling a player to go down at the 12-yard line instead of fighting to get to the 8)? Or is this just some crazy idea that doesn't really work in execution?