re: The Coach who never punts

quote:

---

Football is Xs and Os. Not variables and percentages.

---

Everything is numbers. Those X's and O's translate to numbers. You draw up good plays because they have a higher % chance of working. You recruit good defenders because they decrease the % chance of your opponent scoring, etc.

What people don't realize is, the aggressive strategy is better OVER THE LONG RUN.

You can't point to a single instance or play and say "OMG it didn't work that makes it a bad strategy"

Of course if you go for and don't make it the arm char QB's will be like "OMG YOU SHOULD HAVE PUNTED IT WTF!"

That's what they call 'results oriented' thinking.

You can't base the quality of the decision purely on a single individual result.

Sometimes the best play goes badly, that doesn't make it not bad. If something has a 99% chance of working and it doesn't work, should you not have called it?

Sometimes a bad play goes well, that doesn't make it good. If something has a 1% chance of working and it does, should you have called it?

Someone mentioned Hugh Freeze and Ole Miss against Bama earlier this year. I think his going for it was absolutely the best calls and maximized Ole Miss's chance of actually winning the game.

The underdog should always be very, very aggressive. When you're not as good you can't win straight up, you want high variance plays, etc.