|
Post by spreadattack on Jan 5, 2009 15:32:24 GMT -6
Sorry if this has been posted before highschool.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=892888... As a result, his 2008 team did not punt during 14 games. Such an unorthodox strategy may seem like lunacy, but it was successful: Pulaski won the 5A state title on Dec. 6. Kelley's team only punted twice in 2007 − once as an act of sportsmanship to prevent running up the score − and never after that Dollarway game. ... If Pulaski has a fourth-and-8 at its own 5-yard line, Kelley said his explosive offense likely will convert a first down at least 50 percent of the time. If it fails to convert, statistical data from the college level shows that an opponent acquiring the ball inside the 10-yard line scores a touchdown 90 percent of the time. If Pulaski punts away (i.e., a 40-yard punt with a 10-yard return) the other team will start with the ball on the 38-yard line and score a touchdown 77 percent of the time. The difference is only 13 percent. ... The Pulaski coach has adopted an unusual approach to kickoffs as well. About 75 percent of the time, he uses an onside kick instead of a standard kickoff. To illustrate why, Kelley again relies on numbers. If his team does not recover the onside kick, the opponent likely will field the kick around its own 47-yard line. On a typical kickoff, the other team usually starts around the 33-yard line. "You're only giving up 14 yards," Kelley said. "And you get a chance to get the ball." Pulaski features seven different kinds of onside kicks, including bunching eight players on one side of the field and three on the other; faking the kick with one kicker while another player shifts over to kick to a vacated spot in coverage; clustering all 11 players before spreading out just as the ball is kicked; bouncing a hard kick off the turf for a jump ball and launching a "helicopter kick" by kicking a ball placed on the ground against the tee. The latter strategy causes the ball to spin like a helicopter's propeller and move like a curveball.
|
|
|
Post by coachinghopeful on Jan 5, 2009 16:42:18 GMT -6
Coach Kelley's strategy is intriguing and actually makes a lot of sense when you look the rationale and side effects of what he's doing. That said, it's important to look at the situation he's in here. Kelley had won multiple state championships before he ever started his "no punt" strategy and already had one of the best teams in the state. He could afford to gamble for a year and be safe in his job, and he also had enough raw talent to make it work and bail him out when it didn't.
Could most other coaches get away with this? I doubt it.
Could Pulaski have still gone undefeated with a more conventional approach to special teams? Quite possibly.
Also, the math cited in the article is questionable. Coach Kelley cited statistical analysis of Div 1A games as his basis for a HS strategy, and we all know how different the college game is from HS. I haven't read the article in about a week, when I saw it on another site, but another, more mathematically inclined, poster on there pointed out some major issues with the way the stats were figured, as well.
As I said, though, I do see a lot of very good reasons to go for it more often than most coaches do, but every time is overkill IMO. It's like deciding that throwing the ball causes too many turnovers so you run it every single down, or that passing the ball gets more yards and points so you just throw every snap. Sometimes a team might have enough raw talent to get away with this, but if they aren't much better athletically than their opponents (or drop a game because it doesn't work) it bites them and everyone calls for the coach's head.
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Jan 5, 2009 17:06:45 GMT -6
If I can't make 3rd and 2...
What makes me think I'm going to make 4th and 2?
Its 4th and 2 for a reason... the reason is I couldn't get 10 yds in 3 plays... More than likely, on one of those plays... I lost yards or didn't gain any yards. Knowing that, every yard I gain on special teams... is a plus.
|
|
|
Post by kcbazooka on Jan 5, 2009 17:27:30 GMT -6
I remember one year not punting when we were inside the ten yard line -- going against a monster wind there had already been a couple of punts against the wind that had gone about ten yards. So we go for and don't make it. When I turn around I could see fans with pitchforks, a noose and tub of tar and feathers.
the opponents score and my wife is checking my life insurance policy...
anyway - this all happens in the third quarter - we come back and win the game with the wind on about a forty yard pass.
one of the posters is right, Coach Kelley's team probably had some studs. Looks like he had a tremendous quarterback and probably had a defense that could shut down a team even with bad field position.
I do understand the philosophy - but not sure I could live with it...
|
|
|
Post by Yash on Jan 5, 2009 17:27:46 GMT -6
Kids in our league have a hard enough time catching a punt. I'm taking my chances on them dropping a punt and me falling it rather than going for it on 4 and 3 from my own 20 yard line.
|
|
|
Post by chadp56 on Jan 5, 2009 18:10:35 GMT -6
That article was fascinating. It might have sold me more on the onside kick than not punting though because I don't think I can say that my on 4th down. Spreadattack, you are one of the more astute guys on this forum. What do you think about his math, and more importantly this strategy? This seems like something you would write about on your blog smartfootball.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jan 5, 2009 19:12:05 GMT -6
That article was fascinating. It might have sold me more on the onside kick than not punting though because I don't think I can say that my on 4th down. Spreadattack, you are one of the more astute guys on this forum. What do you think about his math, and more importantly this strategy? This seems like something you would write about on your blog smartfootball.blogspot.com/ I appreciate the plug. I'm not sure what to make of this. I agree that I think coaches should go for it on fourth down more; when you're down on the other team's goal line about the score, and don't get your first down, you are still statistically more likely to score than they are even though they have first and 10 because they are so backed up. Similar issues as field goals become less likely. Big thing I'd say here is this guy has a lot of assumptions going on and I'm not sure (a) I agree, and (b) that they would be the same for everyone. A lot depends what kind of kicking/punting game you have. I watched the Colts-Chargers game and I think the Chargers punter was MVP; he consistently put the Colts their own <15 yard line; although he wasn't scoring points his kicks did almost as much by changing the expected points for both teams dramatically. I also watched Leach go for it on some questionable downs against Ole Miss and Ole Miss was right there in scoring range. Also, this: First, again, depends what kind of punter you have. If your guy might shank it out of bounds after 10 yards a lot, maybe go for it. But I'm with you, is your 4th and 8 from your own 5 conversion percentage really 50%? I'm not so sure. And I'm also not so sure that "only 13%" is entirely insignificant. Most close games are decided by probabilities of less than 13%. I would bet that the offense's difference of scoring from way backed up to merely backed up is still pretty small, making the "only 13%" more significant on a relative basis. But I do think there might be something to his onside kick thing, but again I really don't know. According to ever reliable Wikipedia, in the NFL 23% of onside kicks were recovered. I can't find any other data. Now, maybe if you practice it all the time you get better (they claim to have all those onside kick procedures), though the other team will also have to deal with it (then again, if you practice it every week and the other team only when they play you, that's an advantage for you). But note that it creates a paradox: you don't punt/kick field goals, presumably because you have a weak kicker, but you do onside kick all the time. I guess it means that when you look for a kicker you want the best onside kick guy rather than a guy who can kick 30 yarders. Dunno. In any event, there is something to coaches going for it more on 4th down. I know plenty of folks will say that all this stat stuff undervalues emotion/momentum/etc and it's true each team is unique (the NFL has an advantage both with so many stats and the similarity in the talent levels/specialization among teams; high school has such wide variance). And it's also true that when it doesn't work, parents get out the pitchforks. Anyway, I do think Romer knows a bit what he is talking about; Belichick is a fan: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/04/AR2007110401212.html
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jan 5, 2009 19:24:45 GMT -6
As a footnote, here is Urban Meyer on the general issue of stats, etc:
"They say statistics are for losers, but losers are usually the ones thinking that," Meyer said. "Statistics are great. Our whole game plan is based off statistics. Our management of the game is based off statistics. Our recruiting is based off statistics. Everything we do is analyzed. Is that the bottom line? No. You can't analyze the heart of Tim Tebow."
|
|
|
Post by waltflanagansdog on Jan 5, 2009 19:34:03 GMT -6
First game of the season PA found itself in a 4th and 10 situation from inside it's 5. He went for it. Didn't get it. Opposing team scored, gained momentum, won the game.
I've seen them play several times...even coached against them. As many coaches would probably get fired for some of the things they do, it is effective. The onsides kick everytime can bite them in the tail. Twice during the playoffs I watched the opposing team pick it up and run return it for TD's.
|
|
|
Post by chadp56 on Jan 5, 2009 19:44:32 GMT -6
Good point. The article didn't mention that probability. Who knew a statistics major could be so handy for football coaching. Still not sure knowing it would have helped would have prevented me from going into PE
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Jan 5, 2009 23:45:05 GMT -6
Statistics? How about your conversions on 4th down increase against the bad teams... and decreases against the good teams. So you play a couple of bad teams and convert 4 of 4 4th downs... and against the good team, you convert 1 of 6 4th downs. Overall... they are converting 50% of their 4th down attempts... Really?
|
|
|
Post by mariner42 on Jan 6, 2009 0:47:40 GMT -6
I watched the Colts-Chargers game and I think the Chargers punter was MVP; he consistently put the Colts their own <15 yard line; although he wasn't scoring points his kicks did almost as much by changing the expected points for both teams dramatically. I'd love to hear more about this. I understand the phrase and concept, but some in depth coverage would be very interesting for me. I'm not a natural stats guy, so this is both foreign and exciting to me. Edit: by 'this' I mean the idea of expected points based on field position, etc.
|
|
pbids
Freshmen Member
Posts: 67
|
Post by pbids on Jan 6, 2009 1:12:10 GMT -6
I've been thinking about tampering with the idea of using the short punt formation on 4th downs. My reasoning is that it is still an offensive down and I'm thinking there might be an advantage in treating it that way.
1) You can use that extra down to convert and in some field situations you can scheme for 2 downs on 3rd down.
2) You are always a threat to run a play on 4th down. So the defense can't commit a player to return the kick.
Some things I would have to consider are...
1) My punter would have to be my QB or someone already on the field that can throw like a QB.
2) There would need to be solid keys called on the line that tell you when to go for it and when to punt. For example they leave a man uncovered or severely mismatched or drop 2 returners deep and leave the middle open. Or you punt when they play a regular defense or if you want the field position.
I think this would drastically raise the percentage of converting rather than just going for it to go for it. Seems like a more efficient way to use 4th down. You're not surrendering completely, but you're not playing stupid.
|
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 164
|
Post by tedseay on Jan 6, 2009 7:13:55 GMT -6
I've been thinking about tampering with the idea of using the short punt formation on 4th downs. My reasoning is that it is still an offensive down and I'm thinking there might be an advantage in treating it that way. 1) You can use that extra down to convert and in some field situations you can scheme for 2 downs on 3rd down. 2) You are always a threat to run a play on 4th down. So the defense can't commit a player to return the kick. Some things I would have to consider are... 1) My punter would have to be my QB or someone already on the field that can throw like a QB. 2) There would need to be solid keys called on the line that tell you when to go for it and when to punt. For example they leave a man uncovered or severely mismatched or drop 2 returners deep and leave the middle open. Or you punt when they play a regular defense or if you want the field position. I think this would drastically raise the percentage of converting rather than just going for it to go for it. Seems like a more efficient way to use 4th down. You're not surrendering completely, but you're not playing stupid. Coach: A buddy of mine in Connecticut does something similar. He lines up in his base unbalanced-line single wing on fourth down, and then quick kicks the ball -- usually. The point is the defense can't assume it's a kick, and he can audible to a run or pass if the "punt-receiving team" shows any obvious weaknesses...
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jan 6, 2009 9:03:39 GMT -6
I watched the Colts-Chargers game and I think the Chargers punter was MVP; he consistently put the Colts their own <15 yard line; although he wasn't scoring points his kicks did almost as much by changing the expected points for both teams dramatically. I'd love to hear more about this. I understand the phrase and concept, but some in depth coverage would be very interesting for me. I'm not a natural stats guy, so this is both foreign and exciting to me. Edit: by 'this' I mean the idea of expected points based on field position, etc. Here's a couple articles (keep in mind that the godfather of a lot of this stats stuff was Virgil Carter, former NFL QB (I think played for Bill Walsh and maybe Paul Brown too, but he was a stats guy): www.advancednflstats.com/2008/02/going-for-it-on-fourth-down.htmlwww.advancednflstats.com/2008/09/whats-safety-really-worth.htmland then this David Romer paper. It's long and complicated, but if you skip to the very back, there are some charts/graphs about expected point values by field position (see the above articles for more plain language explanations): elsa.berkeley.edu/~dromer/papers/PAPER_NFL_JULY05_FORWEB_CORRECTED.pdf
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jan 6, 2009 9:04:47 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by chadp56 on May 10, 2009 7:14:03 GMT -6
I'm going to get this thread going again and ask the question, at what yard line and distance to go do you think going for it on 4th down statistically becomes the best option?
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on May 10, 2009 9:17:54 GMT -6
Statistics? How about your conversions on 4th down increase against the bad teams... and decreases against the good teams. So you play a couple of bad teams and convert 4 of 4 4th downs... and against the good team, you convert 1 of 6 4th downs. Overall... they are converting 50% of their 4th down attempts... Really? This has always been my argument against going for a 2-point conversion all of the time. I used to coach with a guy who would say, "converting 50% of 2-point PATs is just as good as converting 100% of 1-point PATs". While the math makes sense, in practice, it seldom works. You might convert 4 out of 4 two-point PATs against a bad team but then, the next week, you might be 0-4 on 2-point PATs against a good team. The 50%-as-good-as-100% argument breaks down, especially if you lose that second game by less than four points, which is the amount of points you took off the board by going for two instead of kicking for one.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on May 10, 2009 9:30:57 GMT -6
at what yard line and distance to go do you think going for it on 4th down statistically becomes the best option? I don't think that is the only question you need to ask yourself. You have to consider the situation. - What is the score?
- How much time is left in the game or in the half?
- Can the other team score quickly?
- What position will you be leaving your defense in if you don't convert?
There are probably other questions, as well. I will say that, unless it is late in a game that we are losing, I am not going to go for it on 4th Down unless we are past the other team's 45 yard line or so. Most high school punters are usually within the 25-35 yard range on their kicks, so, if we have a 4th and 2 on the defense's 45, we are going to punt and try to pin them deep and make them work the length of the field to score. Possibly, they will turn the ball over or we will stop them and then get the ball back around the same place where we first had to punt.
|
|
|
Post by dg1694 on May 10, 2009 10:33:46 GMT -6
I'm all for statistical probabitlity as a basis for study, but the thing that stuck with me are that he's calling a 13% scoring differential and a 14 yard field position difference no big deal -- those are HUGE differences!
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on May 10, 2009 13:05:40 GMT -6
I've been thinking about tampering with the idea of using the short punt formation on 4th downs. My reasoning is that it is still an offensive down and I'm thinking there might be an advantage in treating it that way. 1) You can use that extra down to convert and in some field situations you can scheme for 2 downs on 3rd down. 2) You are always a threat to run a play on 4th down. So the defense can't commit a player to return the kick. Some things I would have to consider are... 1) My punter would have to be my QB or someone already on the field that can throw like a QB. Why does that have to be your punter? Couldn't it be someone else you could get the ball to via the snap or otherwise?
|
|
|
Post by joe83843 on May 10, 2009 14:13:13 GMT -6
I'm going to get this thread going again and ask the question, at what yard line and distance to go do you think going for it on 4th down statistically becomes the best option? I think Homer Smith went over this question in detail in his Clock Management Book. If memory serves he brings up a lot of the same variables 19delta did, and then he spends some time discussing them. That also may have been one of the chapters he has a handy chart on to help you make that decision, but I can't remember.
|
|
|
Post by schultbear74 on May 10, 2009 16:35:52 GMT -6
the punt this year saved us a bunch. We were fortunate to have had no punter this year worth a crap. Instead we let our QB punt. He knuckleballed it and we didn't have anything run back on us. This also put stress on the return team because our QB was our second best run threat and his backup was our first.
|
|
|
Post by outlawjoseywales on May 10, 2009 16:56:51 GMT -6
Thanks for reviving the thread. As usual with these "national sensation" stories, the truth is somewhere in the middle.
To me, the article should have been written by the guy who faced them...gambler00. The post by gambler was 100% better than the article written, but writers don't want to go to the trouble of looking for the truth, when a headline will do. Great points gambler, and another reason the Huey board is the finest in football. Thanks for posting.
Now onto extra-points. Last year, we were terrible. I got a knew kicker who looked fine in Spring practice, looked fine in 2-a-days. But when he came to game time, he was a complete nut. Just couldn't kick it for some crazy reason. He would do fine in practice, but missed every single kick. Wait, he did make 1 FG and 1 extra point. We scored lots of TD's too.
So half way through the season, I just quit trying, starting going for 2 the rest of the time. No FG's, No extra points, I would rather fall down on a bed of rusty nails than to waste another down kicking last year. But then again, we only had 2 close games all year, the 1st one and the 9th one. So you have to factor that in too.
OJW
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on May 10, 2009 17:28:38 GMT -6
gambler: good post, great insight. thanks
OJW: good stuff. yea if you can't hit the PAT's and you get get some percentage of your 2 point conversions (33% of your two point conversions is about as good -- sort of -- as 65% of your PATs) then you gotta make the switch.
|
|
|
Post by superpower on May 10, 2009 18:39:26 GMT -6
My teams haven't attempted a FG or PAT kick for at least 6 seasons. We have been between 60-70% on 2 pt. conversions for the past three years, and while I agree with 19delta's asssessment above, I also have never had a high school kicker who was any better than 70-80% on PAT kicks. I think we are better off going for two because it fits into our identity of physical football, and we sure save a lot of practice time by not having to work on PAT/FG team.
Getting back to the not punting idea, I am not as radical as the coach in the article, but we have gone for it on 4th down inside our 10 before, and we only punted something like 9 times in 12 games last year (and our punter made all-league!).
|
|
|
Post by airman on May 10, 2009 18:40:38 GMT -6
IT is not only passing teams which do not punt. I know several double wing coaches who do not put either. they feel they have 4 downs to get 3.5 yds per down. it is talked about in the The Toss about not punting the ball.
If I was to pick a run offense instead of passing the ball it would be the double wing offense. limited plays, can be a warp speed no huddle attack and you do not have to punt.
|
|
|
Post by coachks on May 10, 2009 19:23:46 GMT -6
The onside kick argument is very interesting. I think I'm going to go through the tape and check out our kick coverage.
|
|
|
Post by outlawjoseywales on May 10, 2009 20:24:40 GMT -6
I'm not sure about the onsides kick everytime, that makes me too nervous. But we gave up on kicking deep years ago. I figured that the worst thing that I could do was to kick the ball to their best and fastest kid. Just could never figure that one out.
If we did have a kicker that could threathen the endzone for a touchback, we'd kick it off the hash to one corner of the endzone. However, I haven't had a kid like that for a while.
So we have kicked short for years. We kick to the 25 yard line and I want it to hit between the hash and the numbers. If a kid can drop the ball onto the 25 he gets a big bear hug from me, that's for sure.
We will kick it to that number until the other team moves their best returner over there, then we just have the kicker kick to the other one. Kinda' surprised how slowly guys pick up on this really. But maybe it's not common, I don't really know.
All I know is that it makes sense to me, is easy to do, and messes the other team up-so that's good for us.
This year, what I did was take our pitiful kicker and give him the job of dropping the ball right on the 25. He did that well.
OJW
|
|
|
Post by olinecoach61 on May 11, 2009 6:38:06 GMT -6
I f you have a high scoring offense I could see these ideas working. For an average team, I think putting yourself in a situation where your d is often in a tough spot would not be a wise idea. If you can score easily, it doesn't hurt so much when you turnover on downs inside your own 20, if my team can't score I'm going to be alot more conservative.
|
|