The Coach That Never Punts

gkIrish

Greek God
Messages
13,184
Reaction score
1,004
I think it's brilliant. I'm one of those guys that thinks teams should always go for it on 4th and goal within the 4 yard line so this sort of aggressiveness appeals to me.
 

IrishInFl

Back in Florida
Messages
5,288
Reaction score
424
I like the dude. He uses numbers to his advantage, read Freakonomics and says the phrase winner winner chicken dinner. Can't get much better than that.
 

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
There is a chapter of the book "Scorecasting" dedicated to this guy. Great stuff and a great book for those interested.

It's basically "Freakonomics" for sports.

I'll have to pick that up.

I wouldn't be surprised to see more coaches taking this philosophy. It seems crazy, but numbers don't lie. People thought Billy Bean was crazy with sabermetrics, but now it is in every front office of every MLB team.
 

dublinirish

Everestt Gholstonson
Messages
27,326
Reaction score
13,091
Seen this guy featured before, the variety of onside kicks they have is just outstanding. Its not just the same kick every time, love the creativity
 

rikkitikki08

Well-known member
Messages
4,261
Reaction score
3,090
I think how they added the percentages and ratios makes it extremely interesting. I can see more teams on the high school level doing this but on the college and NFL level? Not going to happen
 

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
I think how they added the percentages and ratios makes it extremely interesting. I can see more teams on the high school level doing this but on the college and NFL level? Not going to happen

I would think that there would be far less variation in the metrics in college vs high school.
 

Rack Em

Community Bod
Messages
7,089
Reaction score
2,727
Somebody change the title to "The Coach Who Never Punts" before dshans explodes and opens a wormhole to a a parallel universe in which he voted for George H.W. Bush and his grammar is atrocious.
 

irishfan

Irish Hoops Mod
Messages
7,205
Reaction score
607
Love it in high school. I don't know about you guys, but we probably netted about ~25 yards a punt in high school when I played, and the other team probably started out on their own ~35 after a kick off. I think risking the 20-30 yards of field position is worth going for it barring things like 4th and long, or certain score-scenarios (i.e. I'd punt it up 2 scores late).
 

notredomer23

Staph Member
Messages
17,636
Reaction score
17,563
I think variants of it could be successful at the college level. I definitely think the onside kick aspect could definitely work, but never kicking field goals and never punting would result in more failures than successes.
 

NDWorld247

New member
Messages
2,474
Reaction score
302
As a special teams coordinator for my HS team, I love the onside kick philosophy and have tried to convince our coaches to employ it. We have a great defense so I haven't been successful in convincing the HC to do it EVERY time, but we do it about 25% of the time. I'd estimate our success rate is about 25-33%, but it would be higher if we committed to do it all of the time. Every time the other team returns it beyond their own 40 (we kick from our 40), I hate that we didn't try an onside kick.

As far as not punting...I'm not as convinced. I faked a punt from our own 5 about 4 weeks ago, like a week or so after Charlie Weis did it at Kansas (which was really dumb given the circumstances of that game). We didn't convert but our defense stopped them. I felt terrible at the time. I don't regret the decision because it was late in the game, our offense wasn't moving the ball and we needed a spark, but I couldn't imagine doing that in the 1st quarter.

My conclusion is...in youth football, onside kick every time and no punting is great. In high school football, onside kick every time is great, but not so sure about never punting. In college, neither strategy should be implemented. Field position is much more important at the college level and onside kick every time/never punting would put the HC on the fast track to getting fired and never hired again.
 

JTLA

Active member
Messages
231
Reaction score
73
In the book...

In the book...

I would think that there would be far less variation in the metrics in college vs high school.

In the "Scorecasting" book I mentioned before, the math guys still say the numbers support using this philosophy in college and the NFL. Remember, this is just a math problem to them and they crunch numbers like you wouldn't believe.

The Arkansas HS coach featured here mentions that he's had lots of college and NFL coaches come visit, consult, and study his system.

The authors' conclusion based on comments from those college and NFL coaches?

Coaches punt and kickoff to save their jobs, not win games.

In short, even if the math is solid, these coaches know that if it goes wrong, even once, it will cost them their jobs. If they go with conventional thinking and the team loses, it's less on them than if they go against convention. The downside outweighs the upside.
 

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
I think variants of it could be successful at the college level. I definitely think the onside kick aspect could definitely work, but never kicking field goals and never punting would result in more failures than successes.

The math says differently. There is a statistical likelihood for everything you do in football.


Field position is much more important at the college level and onside kick every time/never punting would put the HC on the fast track to getting fired and never hired again.

I would say that field position means the same to everyone. The only variable that is different is statistical likelihood of success/failure. I would argue that in college football; things like level of competition, consistency of play and sophistication of plays make drilling down your percentages much easier.

I will not be surprised at all if a college team tries this at some point. They would have a much easier job of measuring the metrics and if they have a good defense and an offense that doesn't turn the ball over (sounds like a team last year), then the numbers are on your side.

Again… it wasn't long ago that saber metrics were considered completely nuts. People probably thought the same thing when teams started taking tremendous risks by *gasp* throwing the ball downfield.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
In the "Scorecasting" book I mentioned before, the math guys still say the numbers support using this philosophy in college and the NFL. Remember, this is just a math problem to them and they crunch numbers like you wouldn't believe.

The math says differently. There is a statistical likelihood for everything you do in football.

It's a little different, I believe. This guy NEVER EVER EVER punts. I think the NFL rule of thumb in the research I've read is "punt only on 4th-and-5 or longer," and never in the red zone.

Think about it like this. If you have 4th-and-goal from the 3, the likelihood that you score if you go for it is like 40-45%. That gives you an "expected" outcome of roughly 3 points (40-45% of 7), whereas a field goal attempt ALSO has an expected outcome of just under 3 points. Expected outcome being equal, going for it and failing leaves your opponent with worse field position than kicking a field goal and then kicking off, so going for it is preferred in that situation.

All of this math goes out the window in clock management situations. Obviously, if there's three seconds on the clock and you're down by 2, you kick a field goal all day long because the benefit of the extra four points associated with a touchdown is useless to you at that point.
 
Last edited:

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
It's a little different, I believe. This guy NEVER EVER EVER punts. I think the NFL rule of thumb in the research I've read is "punt only on 4th-and-5 or longer."

NFL teams punt on 4th and inches all of the time. It happened last night, I believe.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
If anyone else is a major nerd, here's some scholarly research from a Berkeley professor on the issue.

http://emlab.berkeley.edu/users/dromer/papers/PAPER_NFL_JULY05_FORWEB_CORRECTED.pdf

h2Z7Ers.png
 

dshans

They call me The Dribbler
Messages
9,624
Reaction score
1,181
Forget the dotted lines and dashed line --- I want COLOR!!!

[COLOUR!!! for my Canadian friends.]

Though I'm sure that I still wouldn't comprehend the graph and my eyes would instantly glaze over and de-focus.
 

GoldenToTheGrave

Well-known member
Messages
1,907
Reaction score
772
These are also the results against a generic opponent, so I don't think these can be used as an end all be all metric.

If you're facing a tougher, more physical team, a 4th and 1 might be tough to make. You may not want to take that chance if your O-line is massively outclassed.

Another important factor to consider is that a college football season isn't an infinitely repeating game. You only have 12 games, and you have to win them all to have a spot (usually). In this case the increased variability of results may outweigh the probabilistic advantage for a team aiming for a NC. Just like most people wouldn't bet their home on a 55/45 bet, even though the odds are in your favor (the extra money isn't worth the risk of being homeless).

The example I would refer everyone to is last year's Stanford/Oregon game. Had Oregon opted for field goals in the red zone instead of going for it on 4th down (I believe twice), there would have been no tie, no overtime, and a NC berth.
 

connor_in

Oh Yeeaah!!!
Messages
11,433
Reaction score
1,006
Everytime I see this thread pop up in the topics I always think of...


...The Bus That Couldn't Slow Down

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/dsA4FnwrR7E" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Top