Cut Hanson

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

You also need to check the likelihood that you will go 95 yards for a TD, don't you? Also add in the likelihood of a turnover, some of which will be TDs.

That's the problem with these statistical "systems". They fail to account for all factors and game situations (how tired opposing defense are etc. etc. the list is endless).

Point about how tired the opposing defense is: This system helps. Lets say its first quarter, you convert here, but fail to convert 7 plays later 35 yards down the field.

The opposing team is in the exact same position as if you punted, EXCEPT: the opposing defense is now 7 plays tireder. And your defense is 7 plays more rested. Which will benefit you in the 4th quarter. Even though you didn't go 95 yards for the TD.

 

[T-ShirtDynasty]

Fascinating read. Gonna have to to forward it to my boy's high school coach.

 

[spacecrime]

In the NFL, where you could take a 0-0 into the third quarter quite often?

Often, huh? Of the 240 NFL games played so far this year, how many were 0-0 into the third quarter?

Often? How about none that I know of. What does happen often is that you are just past midfield, say the opponents 45, and punt. More often than not the other team gets the ball back to where you would have turned it over on downs anyway.

I would punt on my 10, but I think punting past the 50 yeard line when you have 4 or fewer yards to go is counter-productinve gnerally. It depends on the situation, of course, just like going for a 2-point conversion.

But if there were fewer punts in opponents territory, I believe teams would do better.

 

[Deus Irae]

You also need to check the likelihood that you will go 95 yards for a TD, don't you?

Not really, because there's insufficient data, since you're going the 95 yards in normal game situations but using 4 downs per 10 yards needed instead of 3. What's happening is that the coach using this system is the only one making the data, so the data is minimal and based largely upon just one test subject.

 

[Gwedd]

Indeed,

However, by going for it on 4rg down, you only need to average 2.5 yards per play, vice the 3.3+ for a 3-down series. Especially if you have a couple bruising backs, you could start wearing down another team fairly quickly. Thing is, there's probably very few NFL backs who can't average 2.5 yards per carry, and if you could just keep rotating them in to keep them fresh, it'd be a meatgrinder out there for the defense.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Onside kick isn't as high a percentage a play as the #'s say. I checked one page that said in 2004 it was successful 23% of the time, but I don't know how much of those conversions came on a suprise onsides. Plus if a team has a week + to prepare for your onside kick, knowing it's going to come on each kickoff, the success rate goes down alot lower. Not worth the risk/reward unless you have zero faith in your defense from the start.

The 4 downs argument does make since, 4th down is a much more convertible play than an onsides kick as long as its within 10 yards. One thing I can never stand is when a team has 4th and inches from inside their own 30 and the announcers always say "No way you go for it this part of the field"... Why wouldn't you consider, I mean unless you have a stud punter the other team will most likely get good field position anyway.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

Onside kick isn't as high a percentage a play as the #'s say. I checked one page that said in 2004 it was successful 23% of the time, but I don't know how much of those conversions came on a suprise onsides. Plus if a team has a week + to prepare for your onside kick, knowing it's going to come on each kickoff, the success rate goes down alot lower. Not worth the risk/reward unless you have zero faith in your defense from the start.

Lets stick with that 23% number, but round it to 25%. One out of four time you are getting the ball back instead of the other team getting it in pretty good field position. The other 3/4 of the time you are giving the other team 2-1st downs better field position. That is a trade off I am willing to make. Particularly if my defense plays the bend don't break and is very strong in the red zone.

I think a team that prepared for onside kicks as a standard part of their every game strat would be able to up that number significantly.

If the other team does spend all week preparing for the onside kicks that is less time they are spending preparing for our offense and defense. This is the effect the wildcat had on many teams post-NE for MIA which now only occasionally uses it, but every team must spend time preparing for it.

In the vast majority of the time on onside kick attempt it is tried it is by a desperate weaker team against a stronger team that is in control of the game. So the success rate would naturally be lower.

And finally you would not do the onside kick 100% of the time. About 25% of the time you aim it to bounce between 10 and 5 yard line and while the other team is in the onside recovery mode you down it on the one yard line.

 

[RayClay]

Often, huh? Of the 240 NFL games played so far this year, how many were 0-0 into the third quarter?

Often? How about none that I know of.

Often isn't the word I should have used. Scoreless first halves happen a only a few times a year. Scoreless halves by one team, or scoreless quarters by one or both more often. It happens, though.

Washington Redskins place-kicker Shaun Suisham (6) unsuccessfully attempts a field goal in the final play of a scoreless first half in their NFL football game against the Cleveland Browns at Fedex Field in Landover, Md., Sunday, Oct. 19, 2008.

I have no idea how many total, though.

I would punt on my 10, but I think punting past the 50 yeard line when you have 4 or fewer yards to go is counter-productinve gnerally...But if there were fewer punts in opponents territory, I believe teams would do better.

Agreed. I'm only talking about deep in your own territory.

 

[RayClay]

Not really, because there's insufficient data, since you're going the 95 yards in normal game situations but using 4 downs per 10 yards needed instead of 3. What's happening is that the coach using this system is the only one making the data, so the data is minimal and based largely upon just one test subject.

The data applies to very high scoring high school teams. I have no problem with that, the coach is successful. Its hard to correlate with a more defense oriented NFL. Doesn't mean you can't adapt and apply the principle to different data.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Lets stick with that 23% number, but round it to 25%. One out of four time you are getting the ball back instead of the other team getting it in pretty good field position. The other 3/4 of the time you are giving the other team 2-1st downs better field position. That is a trade off I am willing to make. Particularly if my defense plays the bend don't break and is very strong in the red zone.

.

IMO it sounds too risky to assume that it would work 1/4th of the time just based on those #'s. Especially like I said when teams will get to expect that it is coming and are better prepared for it. The onsides is done so rarely now that I don't think teams spend too much time on it. Think of the dynamics of recovering an onside kick, it is really a difficult play to execute as it is. Now when teams put extra time into preparing to defend it, makes it even more difficult.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

IMO it sounds too risky to assume that it would work 1/4th of the time just based on those #'s. Especially like I said when teams will get to expect that it is coming and are better prepared for it. The onsides is done so rarely now that I don't think teams spend too much time on it. Think of the dynamics of recovering an onside kick, it is really a difficult play to execute as it is. Now when teams put extra time into preparing to defend it, makes it even more difficult.

Then do what the Dolphins did. Pick the toughest team you have week 1-3. Say Titans, Colts, Steelers, Chargers (which every one of those we got during week 1-3) and do it on every kick off (they won't be expecting it)

Then thereafter only do it every once in while - roughly once a game. Some games not at all some games up to twice. When you think they are not expecting it. Then even though you are not going to run the play that often the other team has to spend all week preparing for it.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Then do what the Dolphins did. Pick the toughest team you have week 1-3. Say Titans, Colts, Steelers, Chargers (which every one of those we got during week 1-3) and do it on every kick off (they won't be expecting it)

Then thereafter only do it every once in while - roughly once a game. Some games not at all some games up to twice. When you think they are not expecting it. Then even though you are not going to run the play that often the other team has to spend all week preparing for it.

I think it's a good idea to come out and do it the first time you kick off in those games, definately. After it works once they'll catch on pretty fast though, so I wouldn't do it every kickoff. But yeah if you pick your spots right I could see doing it maybe 10-15 times or so over the course of the season. Thats assuming, of course, you don't have a great defense.

 

[Disco Volante]

We should try this our first playoff game.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

I think it's a good idea to come out and do it the first time you kick off in those games, definately. After it works once they'll catch on pretty fast though, so I wouldn't do it every kickoff. But yeah if you pick your spots right I could see doing it maybe 10-15 times or so over the course of the season. Thats assuming, of course, you don't have a great defense.

First game you use it do it every kickoff. Keep in mind your squad has been practicing it all preseason and all week and you will have 5-8 different variants in the playbook, they aren't going to be able to make "half time adjustments" just like we couldn't against the wildcat.

Then after that game you do it only once in a while.

 

[Deus Irae]

The data applies to very high scoring high school teams. I have no problem with that, the coach is successful. Its hard to correlate with a more defense oriented NFL. Doesn't mean you can't adapt and apply the principle to different data.

What works at one level (See Steve Spurrier's offense, quarterbacks and wide receivers) won't necessarily work at another (See Steve Spurrier's offense, quarterbacks and wide receivers). Therefore, while you could look at the data from high school or college, many times it's going to have very little translation to the NFL. That's why NFL teams aren't out there running the option, "Wildcat", single wing, etc... as main formations and styles. The days when such things were successful as staples in the NFL are gone.

Now, what you can do is look at the data from the lower levels (college, high school) and determine whether or not you think it's worth the time and effort to gamble on it in the pros. However, the data itself won't serve as any sort of definitive guideline. Just as an example, Tebow has had tremendous success in college, but I don't think either of us expects that NFL teams will be rushing to scrap their offenses and build around Tebow as a runner/passer in the spread formation.

 

[RayClay]

First game you use it do it every kickoff. Keep in mind your squad has been practicing it all preseason and all week and you will have 5-8 different variants in the playbook, they aren't going to be able to make "half time adjustments" just like we couldn't against the wildcat.

Then after that game you do it only once in a while.

Personal opinion, I'd like to hand you the ball and and make you go 80 yards every possession. Of course you'll get three or none sometimes.

Of course a horrible defense, or great offense, could change that.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

Of course a horrible defense, or great offense, could change that.

What if you have a mediocre mid field defense because of injuries and an inexperienced secondary, but an awesome red zone defense. Doesn't that kinda make where the other team gets the ball irrelevant. Because odds are they are going to get to the red zone one way or another if they have the ball, and the battle really becomes can you stop them when they get down there.

 

[RayClay]

What if you have a mediocre mid field defense because of injuries and an inexperienced secondary, but an awesome red zone defense. Doesn't that kinda make where the other team gets the ball irrelevant. Because odds are they are going to get to the red zone one way or another if they have the ball, and the battle really becomes can you stop them when they get down there.

Not at all. While the other team moves down the field small chunks at a time, the coaching staff compiles and analyzes tendencies.

Some years are better than others, but you might have noticed over many successful seasons and 3 SBs, the Patriots always seem to get their big plays, including sacks and interceptions, late in the half or the game.

They tend to give up yards, but not points, early. Funny how often that has happened over the years.

Plus, Those "total yards" don't count on the scoreboard.

And you're not required to defend the midfield. Starting from the 20, you can still allow a lot of yards before field goals are even possible.

 

[JSn]

So... anyone think there will a load of squib kicks and "going for it on 4th" today w/ the wind being an issue?

Sure hope we win the coin toss.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

if we need to punt cassel can do it.