Started By
Message
The Coach who never punts
Posted on 11/14/13 at 10:47 pm
Posted on 11/14/13 at 10:47 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGDaOJAYHfo
Some of you may have heard of this guy, high school coach out of Arkansas. He never punts, ever. Goes for an onsides kick almost every time as well. Goes for 2 almost every TD as well.
As crazy as this strategy sounds, it's actually frequently the mathematical best play.
Coaches punt on 4th down way, way, way too much.
The fundamental element at play behind all of it is simply that possession of the football is way more valuable and important than most coaches realize.
Giving away possesion of the ball voluntarily is therefore almost always quite stupid.
Each possesion is on average worth a certain number of points, you may average say 2.5 points per possesion. By giving up possesion you are costing yourself on average 2.5 points.
All punting does is reduce the chance the opponent scores on you, but almost never by enough to offset the the points you effectively lost.
So you may ask yourself, why haven't coaches everywhere adopted such a strategy? Simple.
Human nature.
Human beings have a strong preference for lower variance, lower risk plays, even when the higher variance, higher risk play is actually superior.
As such, the average fan and the media talking heads would crucify a coach who "gambled" so much as foolish and reckless, even though he's giving his team the best chance to win.
Some of you may have heard of this guy, high school coach out of Arkansas. He never punts, ever. Goes for an onsides kick almost every time as well. Goes for 2 almost every TD as well.
As crazy as this strategy sounds, it's actually frequently the mathematical best play.
Coaches punt on 4th down way, way, way too much.
The fundamental element at play behind all of it is simply that possession of the football is way more valuable and important than most coaches realize.
Giving away possesion of the ball voluntarily is therefore almost always quite stupid.
Each possesion is on average worth a certain number of points, you may average say 2.5 points per possesion. By giving up possesion you are costing yourself on average 2.5 points.
All punting does is reduce the chance the opponent scores on you, but almost never by enough to offset the the points you effectively lost.
So you may ask yourself, why haven't coaches everywhere adopted such a strategy? Simple.
Human nature.
Human beings have a strong preference for lower variance, lower risk plays, even when the higher variance, higher risk play is actually superior.
As such, the average fan and the media talking heads would crucify a coach who "gambled" so much as foolish and reckless, even though he's giving his team the best chance to win.
This post was edited on 11/14/13 at 10:48 pm
20
Posted on 11/14/13 at 10:50 pm to IAmReality
Too much to spend time reading .... but I say bring back the drop kick.
Posted on 11/14/13 at 10:54 pm to IAmReality
I remember reading some workup awhile back saying going for it on 4th down is mathematically the best call if you do it every single time
Posted on 11/14/13 at 10:58 pm to IAmReality
Football is Xs and Os.
Not variables and percentages.
Not variables and percentages.
Posted on 11/14/13 at 10:58 pm to IAmReality
Tl; dr
Posted on 11/14/13 at 10:59 pm to IAmReality
quote:
The Coach who never punts
Hugh Freeze against Bama this year?
ETA: Oh, wait, that's field goals.
This post was edited on 11/14/13 at 11:00 pm
Posted on 11/14/13 at 11:09 pm to FourThreeForty
quote:
Football is Xs and Os.
Not variables and percentages.
He gets it done. Since 2003 he is 124-22 running this style of football. That includes a 10-0 record heading into the playoffs this season as well as 3 state titles.
Posted on 11/14/13 at 11:19 pm to FourThreeForty
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.
This post was edited on 11/14/13 at 11:21 pm
Posted on 11/14/13 at 11:21 pm to IAmReality
quote:This is Oregon's approach to the game. For the most part it's been fairly successful.
As such, the average fan and the media talking heads would crucify a coach who "gambled" so much as foolish and reckless, even though he's giving his team the best chance to win.
Posted on 11/14/13 at 11:23 pm to IAmReality
Currently my cousins HS coach at PA 
Posted on 11/14/13 at 11:31 pm to IAmReality
The difference is he is coaching high school. The vast majority of high school teams do not have a good punter and thus the risk ratio is lower when going for it when you would otherwise punt.
For instance, in high school if you are punting from inside your own ten the other team is almost guaranteed to get the ball inside your 45 yard line and will frequently already in FG range when they take over. In college and especially the NFL, such a scenario frequently finds the other team on their OWN 35-40 yard line. That is a HUGE difference. Also, with regards to the onside kick, in most states high school teams kickoff from the 40 and most kickers cant kick it through the endzone. Thus, it benefits them far more to try an onside than it would a college or pro team.
This strategy works in high school, it would not work at higher levels. Now, I agree that most coaches should go for it more often than they do (it is almost always better to go for it on 4th and 7 or less on your opponent's side of the field) but going for it every time is stupid at higher levels.
I do hate it when coaches choose to punt on 4th and 5 from the other team's 45, though.
For instance, in high school if you are punting from inside your own ten the other team is almost guaranteed to get the ball inside your 45 yard line and will frequently already in FG range when they take over. In college and especially the NFL, such a scenario frequently finds the other team on their OWN 35-40 yard line. That is a HUGE difference. Also, with regards to the onside kick, in most states high school teams kickoff from the 40 and most kickers cant kick it through the endzone. Thus, it benefits them far more to try an onside than it would a college or pro team.
This strategy works in high school, it would not work at higher levels. Now, I agree that most coaches should go for it more often than they do (it is almost always better to go for it on 4th and 7 or less on your opponent's side of the field) but going for it every time is stupid at higher levels.
I do hate it when coaches choose to punt on 4th and 5 from the other team's 45, though.
Posted on 11/14/13 at 11:32 pm to Oregunslinger
quote:
This is Oregon's approach to the game. For the most part it's been fairly successful.
Yeah teams should definitely go for 2 more. It's one of the easiest things to prove with elementary school math.
Let's just say a 1 point PAT is 100% (it's not but let's just say it is).
If you are less than 50% to convert a 2 point conversion, you should kick the point. If you are greater than 50%, you should go for 2.
Every time you miss a 2 is cancelled out by a time you make a 2. If you make it more than you miss, you come out ahead.
It's the same story with punting. Punting still gives the other team the ball and therefor a chance to score. All punting does is reduce the chance the other team will score.
But maintaining possesion denies them the chance to scoer at all AND gives you a chance to score.
In other words, the best defense is almost always doing everything you can not to give them the ball.
Posted on 11/14/13 at 11:33 pm to scrooster
Hell yeah bring back the drop kick, but let it be worth 4 points! Usher in the era of the "triple threat" quarterback.
Posted on 11/14/13 at 11:35 pm to IAmReality
You make a very good point about high school special teams.
If you can consistnetly punt and kickoff and pin your opponent down very deep insie the 10, that does make kicking more appealing than otherwise.
At high level play never punting is probably a bad blanket strategy, but not going for a 4th down on your opponents side of the field is almost always terrible.
The point behind all this is coaches tend to pick the conversative approach way too often. If a coach played "perfect" strategy from a game theory point of view you'd see much more 4th down attempts and more aggressive play in general.
If you can consistnetly punt and kickoff and pin your opponent down very deep insie the 10, that does make kicking more appealing than otherwise.
At high level play never punting is probably a bad blanket strategy, but not going for a 4th down on your opponents side of the field is almost always terrible.
The point behind all this is coaches tend to pick the conversative approach way too often. If a coach played "perfect" strategy from a game theory point of view you'd see much more 4th down attempts and more aggressive play in general.
Posted on 11/14/13 at 11:38 pm to IAmReality
quote:Great points. The major draw back is the field goal kicking unit. As you can see from our program, it sucks. The kickers hardly ever kick, so when they do need to make a clutch kick, they tend to choke because they don't have the experience. It also makes it hard to recruit decent kickers. Who wants to kick for a team that never kicks?
In other words, the best defense is almost always doing everything you can not to give them the ball
Posted on 11/14/13 at 11:55 pm to IAmReality
Auburn would be interested in this HS mickey mouse shite.
Posted on 11/15/13 at 12:17 am to Roger Klarvin
Well wouldn't the percentages change according to the skill level of the players on the field? So saying they don't have good punters doesn't mean that much considering not every high school team has 5 star recruits either.
Players in the NFL are pretty evenly matched so the odds could be close to the same or even better for pro teams. Imagine the Broncos or Saints adopting this style. I don't know know what would happen but with QB's like Manning and Brees orchestrating your offense and a solid special teams that practices onside kicks regularly it could be scary.
Players in the NFL are pretty evenly matched so the odds could be close to the same or even better for pro teams. Imagine the Broncos or Saints adopting this style. I don't know know what would happen but with QB's like Manning and Brees orchestrating your offense and a solid special teams that practices onside kicks regularly it could be scary.
This post was edited on 11/15/13 at 12:19 am
Posted on 11/15/13 at 12:21 am to Mad_Mardigan
Just need a big Oline and rush for 2.5 every play, seems like a decent strategy
Especially in HS where one good Olineman can outmatch an entire side of the Dline.
I'm with crazy coach, roll the dice
Especially in HS where one good Olineman can outmatch an entire side of the Dline.
I'm with crazy coach, roll the dice
Posted on 11/15/13 at 12:30 am to JoeSmooth
I mean it just seems like it makes sense. Will you get every onside kick? No. Will you score a touchdown on every drive? No. But neither will the other team. I bet there would be a lot more first downs and touchdowns if more teams had a mindset similar to this. Offenses would be putting up huge numbers.
Posted on 11/15/13 at 2:07 am to Mad_Mardigan
quote:
Well wouldn't the percentages change according to the skill level of the players on the field? So saying they don't have good punters doesn't mean that much considering not every high school team has 5 star recruits either.
A bad college punter can be an amazing high school one, relatively speaking. Same with kickers. I remember being at one where the team attempted a PAT after their first two touchdowns. Their "kicker" was barely able to get the ball in the air, and neither PATs were even close to being good.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News