|
|
Post by TreyGun on Nov 22, 2014 15:34:37 GMT -6
I'm sure that majority of the coaches on this board have heard of Kevin Kelly aka The Coach That Never Punts. He talks at many clinics plus has been featured on Sport Center, Sport Science, etc. Anyways those who have looked into his theories have found that every decision he makes is based on odds and statistics for example: he always kicks onside kicks because in high school football a team gets on average the ball on the -34 on a kick return and gets the ball on the -47 on a failed onside kick, Pulaski Academy (his team) recovers 1/3 of the onside kicks. So he believes that this risk is acceptable to take.
My question is has anybody who has researched him and his theory and analytics found what numbers he looks at? Or any other information at all on whether going for it on fourth down, onside kicks, etc? if so please post it on here or message it to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Nov 22, 2014 21:21:59 GMT -6
The problem with using those numbers in high school is the vast differences between teams. Some teams are awful and some are awesome and the distribution of punting talent is highly erratic. I would bet that if you could really pin down the variables it would show that most teams punt way too often, but the quality of your punter is the biggest factor. I'm pretty sure his stats aren't really valid, but if you have a (very) good offense and a (very) bad punter it may be worthwhile to never punt and save the practice time for a season.
|
|
|
|
Post by huskerhoyahawk on Nov 23, 2014 16:44:03 GMT -6
The stats in high school are somewhat skewed due to the vast talent disparities. However, this guy really knows what he is doing. Everything he does is about giving his offense as many chances as possible to score. I'm not sure if I'd ever go as far as him and never punt, but it certainly has me thinking about going for it more often.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using proboards
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 18:20:05 GMT -6
Tough experiment. If you fail & it blows up in your face you could be polishing up the ol' resume.
Duece
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Nov 23, 2014 18:43:11 GMT -6
True. If you fail conventionally it's the kids' fault. If you fail unconventionally it's your fault.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 19:45:46 GMT -6
Not sure what stats he's looking at. You see this quoted sometimes from NFL stats or FBS schools.
The conventional=acceptable vs. unconventional=unacceptable thing is huge here. People in SEC country still make fun of Hal Mumme a and look down on him, even though he's been one of the most influential coaches in the last 50 years. You tell people you're running West Virginia's offense and you're cool. Tell them you're running Mumme's offense from UK and they look at you cross-eyed. They just remember him as being so unconventional, especially in terms of not punting and kicking inside, that he's considered a fool.
The coach from the OP has a ton of talent at his disposal. He was Gus Malzahn's successor, IIRC, so he not only came into a great program, but also came into a program that was conditioned to accept doing things differently and has been very successful with it. Most of us don't have that.
Still, I've coached on teams who were lucky to get the punt past the LOS at times and usually only got off 20-yard punts, at best. If you're only walking away with 15 yards net on punts, it makes sense to take more shots.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachfloyd on Nov 23, 2014 20:02:17 GMT -6
I think you can be unconventional wo taking it to this extreme. Gimmicks on special teams is the easiest way in my opinion. Last year we ran polecat on most of our two point conversions and were over 50 percent. Now when we scored it was great but if we didn't we were morons. Instead of regular punt, rugby punt with fakes. Switch up your kickoffs. Basically just be a pain in the butt to your opponent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 20:15:24 GMT -6
Polecat on 2 pt tries is good, as are doing things like shifting and motioning on punts.
Some coaches get addicted to gimmicks and try to focus on them, though. "Unconventional," a lot of times, goes hand in hand with being unsound or with coaches being full of themselves and trying to win through scheme rather than through fundamentals.
The thing is that, as a coach, you will always be second guessed. On fri, I watched one of the best programs in our state. They are dominant and have multiple state titles over the past decade). They were playing another great program in the 3rd round who has also own state. The game was 14-14 in the 3rd. You'd think the coaches of both programs were retarded from listening to the people in the crowd. Several of the morons around me were calling for a coaching change for the home team, who won 35-14.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2014 5:42:46 GMT -6
True. If you fail conventionally it's the kids' fault. If you fail unconventionally it's your fault. Not my words, but if that's how you feel, sure. I'd say failing is on the coach nowadays pretty much 100%, whether it be conventionally our unconventionally. Duece |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Nov 24, 2014 6:54:53 GMT -6
True. If you fail conventionally it's the kids' fault. If you fail unconventionally it's your fault. Not my words, but if that's how you feel, sure. I'd say failing is on the coach nowadays pretty much 100%, whether it be conventionally our unconventionally. Duece I agree. If the kids aren't good players, that seems to fall on the coach now as well. As @coacharnold mentioned, sitting with the fans at games (not yours obviously) can be eye opening. I guarantee that if you go to the upcoming state championship games in Louisiana, several of the fan bases will be muttering for a "new coach" based on the fact that they lost in the title game. This will be Les Miles' and LSU's first time in 4 years to win less than 10 games (currently 7-4 with one game and a bowl to play). People want him "gone" |
|
|
|
Post by CS on Nov 24, 2014 7:45:25 GMT -6
I'm from the state(my pic is actually in their stadium) and PA has many advantages that go into being successful with these "gimmicks." 1) year in year out they have great talent. they are a private school so i'm sure you guys know the advantage to that
2) Their conference is terrible! Seriously though it's one of the worst in the state.
3) They have a feeder system that most in the country don't have. Some rich guy has a sports complex that would rival any youth program in the country as far as facilities go and they start on his stuff real early.
I had the opportunity to watch their semi-final game last year against Morrilton and I feel like they lost the game because of not punting. He gave a very good team field position inside the +30 twice which resulted in 2 TD's and threw a pic on a 4th down that got ran back into their territory that also resulted in a TD.
|
|
|
|
Post by keysersoze on Nov 24, 2014 10:47:09 GMT -6
I had the opportunity to watch their semi-final game last year against Morrilton and I feel like they lost the game because of not punting. He gave a very good team field position inside the +30 twice which resulted in 2 TD's and threw a pic on a 4th down that got ran back into their territory that also resulted in a TD. We certainly punt a lot less than we used to and we also go for two a lot more than we used to but it's all based on the situation. I spent a lot of time researching some of what Coach Kelley talks about and found a chart that the professor he references came up with. It showed a curve of down and distances w/ field position and where the probability of getting the first down vs. the consequences of failing to convert were about even. This to me made a lot of sense but who is going to look at a chart every time it's 4th and 6 from your 22 yard line and see what the chart says. At that point you make a decision based on who your opponent is and how things have gone for you so far. We took away from it that once we hit the -40 yard line, we're not going to punt unless it's 4th and a mile or the situation dictates it based on info from that game. |
|
|
|
Post by realdawg on Nov 24, 2014 11:00:35 GMT -6
You can be unconventional without never punting. Just in smaller ways. We always rugby punt. This year it was bc we didn't have a punter and the only kid we could find punted better on the run. One year our qb was our punter. So he basically had the option to pull it down and go get the first down if they didn't not contain him. You can water bucket huddle on PAT. We had several plays off of this and had about a 75 percent effectiveness rate. We also used to huddle and fake the on side kick every time on kickoff till NC changed the rules making that illegal this year.
|
|
|
|
Post by TreyGun on Nov 24, 2014 11:54:24 GMT -6
Thanks for all the replies and for your 2 cents, but I am looking for the data he uses, or the name of the professor he got his info from. Keysersoze if you have that chart I would like to see it. Not saying that I agree 100% with what he does, but I do believe that if you are not willing to evolve as a coach then sooner or later you will get left behind. So if you have any of his stuff please post it or pm me. Thanks fellas
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2014 18:39:17 GMT -6
Not sure what stats he's looking at. You see this quoted sometimes from NFL stats or FBS schools. The conventional=acceptable vs. unconventional=unacceptable thing is huge here. People in SEC country still make fun of Hal Mumme a and look down on him, even though he's been one of the most influential coaches in the last 50 years. You tell people you're running West Virginia's offense and you're cool. Tell them you're running Mumme's offense from UK and they look at you cross-eyed. They just remember him as being so unconventional, especially in terms of not punting and kicking inside, that he's considered a fool. The coach from the OP has a ton of talent at his disposal. He was Gus Malzahn's successor, IIRC, so he not only came into a great program, but also came into a program that was conditioned to accept doing things differently and has been very successful with it. Most of us don't have that. Still, I've coached on teams who were lucky to get the punt past the LOS at times and usually only got off 20-yard punts, at best. If you're only walking away with 15 yards net on punts, it makes sense to take more shots. Mumme is also coaching at Belhaven...NAIA...far drop from Kentucky. Again, being successful and unconventional is 1 thing, being unsuccessful and unconventional is fired. My point is, whatever you do, better add up to wins. I think being unconventional and losing gets you fired quicker than the other way around. Again, just MHO... Duece |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2014 18:55:25 GMT -6
Not sure what stats he's looking at. You see this quoted sometimes from NFL stats or FBS schools. The conventional=acceptable vs. unconventional=unacceptable thing is huge here. People in SEC country still make fun of Hal Mumme a and look down on him, even though he's been one of the most influential coaches in the last 50 years. You tell people you're running West Virginia's offense and you're cool. Tell them you're running Mumme's offense from UK and they look at you cross-eyed. They just remember him as being so unconventional, especially in terms of not punting and kicking inside, that he's considered a fool. The coach from the OP has a ton of talent at his disposal. He was Gus Malzahn's successor, IIRC, so he not only came into a great program, but also came into a program that was conditioned to accept doing things differently and has been very successful with it. Most of us don't have that. Still, I've coached on teams who were lucky to get the punt past the LOS at times and usually only got off 20-yard punts, at best. If you're only walking away with 15 yards net on punts, it makes sense to take more shots. Mumme is also coaching at Belhaven...NAIA...far drop from Kentucky. Again, being successful and unconventional is 1 thing, being unsuccessful and unconventional is fired. My point is, whatever you do, better add up to wins. I think being unconventional and losing gets you fired quicker than the other way around. Again, just MHO... Duece That was exactly the point I was trying to demonstrate. People forget that Mumme did get UK to their first bowl games since dinosaurs roamed the earth and had them competing as a solid middle of the pack SEC team (at a time when the SEC East had 3 legit National Title contenders) for a few years by doing that unconventional stuff. For UK, who was barely a step above the little sisters of the poor and used to getting thumped by 50 every time they played an SEC game when Mumme took over, that was pretty impressive. Aside from his last year, at 2-9, they weren't bad at all by UK standards, yet everyone in SEC country thought he was a joke even when taking UK to bowls because what he was doing was so different. Everyone loved making fun of the foolishness of "Mumme Funball." Yes, in his final year he got in major trouble with the NCAA, went 2-9, and was deservedly canned, but other coaches have done far worse things and are remembered in a more positive light by the fanbase. Mumme was just "too weird" or "crazy" because he defied the conventions of his day, though no one would really bat an eye right now if UK had went out and hired Kliff Kingsbury or Dana Holgerson to take over and do things almost exactly as Mumme did them in '99. The unconventional has now become conventional. |
|
|
|
Post by freezeoption on Nov 24, 2014 20:14:22 GMT -6
people forget he started at iowa weslyn, his system is solid, i think schools don't look at him because he has some trouble at schools with getting in trouble with the ncaa, i think the naia is a lot easier on the rules, maybe that is where he likes to be, with new rules on ko it is harder to do the onsides, the article your looking for with the article on by the professor it is on the internet, just search for it, i think it was in one of my coaching magazines, i remember reading it, plus i think kelly credits it in the afca newsletter that came out at the beginning of this season with the web address
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Nov 24, 2014 20:15:33 GMT -6
Thanks for all the replies and for your 2 cents, but I am looking for the data he uses, or the name of the professor he got his info from. Keysersoze if you have that chart I would like to see it. Not saying that I agree 100% with what he does, but I do believe that if you are not willing to evolve as a coach then sooner or later you will get left behind. So if you have any of his stuff please post it or pm me. Thanks fellas A quick google search brought up this eml.berkeley.edu/~dromer/papers/PAPER_NFL_JULY05_FORWEB_CORRECTED.pdfProfessor David Roemer- UC Berkeley (How appropriate..Berkeley) Here is another written piece on the subject: deadspin.com/5874392/are-nfl-coaches-getting-smarter-about-fourth-down-strategyThe problem with trying to use large compilation of statistics is that "they" are oblivious to the situation at hand. Using such compiled data includes the results from MANY situations, and thus kind of washes out data that might be important/unique for the choice you are having to make. I will say though, that THINKING about these topics and situations is a good thing. So I feel the key at the HS level is to change the mindset from "oh well, its 4th down.. Punt Team" to "why are we punting the ball. What do we gain. Is this bettering us in THIS situation?" |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2014 6:49:11 GMT -6
And look guys, I know it looks like I'm knocking Mumme, I'm not, love the guy, love me some Mike Leach. I actually LOVE unconventional football (one of my favorite sports movies is Moneyball). What MY point is, you better win if you're going to do those things, b/c if you don't, it's probably going to get real ugly, real fast. I tried introducing platooning at a place where 2 way players had been the norm since Moby Dick was a minnow, and you'd have thought I was Michelle Obama pushing my healthy lunch plan on a bunch of fat kids! We didn't win either, and that was quite a short-lived story. If you are going to go down that rabbit hole of unconventional, you better go w/guns loaded...
Duece
|
|
|
|
Post by coachwoodall on Nov 25, 2014 10:35:23 GMT -6
I am with Deuce on that, you better have the perception of the evil genius if you're going to not follow the norms of your situation. Even your own coaches might think you've lost your mind if you pull out the bag of tricks.
To the data mentioned above, several years ago I looked at it and ruminated hard over it's portents. The data is not applicable to the high school level. However, I did take away a tie bit that might be of help. The idea of being ahead of the odds on going for it on 4th down is that you need to have very good data on how effective your offense is, and you need a good sampling of how well you run the ball. Also, to make the decision making as accurate as possible you need to also be tracking that data in real time during the game. Also you need to have a full understanding of the field zone you are working in. It's hard enough to get sound data on what you opponent's tendency is at the +35 on 3rd and 4; much less you average yards per rush during the season with your 21 personnel on the -45 versus a odd front that blitzes 35% of the time and compare that to what that data is in the game you're in during the middle of the second quarter.
If you can calculate that within the time the ball is spotted and during the 25 second clock, then you got yourself making of a gridiron Kasperov.
When I had the means to make the call, I basically stated that if it is 4th and 3 or less we were always going for it, unless we were in an endgame situation. Then from there it was based on more on the game flow/feel. Part of it was selling the kids that we were doing it because we believed in them and their ability to succeed if given one more chance.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachmonkey on Nov 25, 2014 10:45:50 GMT -6
There was a team in my area who did this one year. It cost them a trip to the state finals. The next year they punted. Not all the time, but when it made sense to punt. I think it was something like ball on their own 10 yard line, a minute or less to go and up by less than 6. The team stopped them on 4th down, got the ball and punched it in. Like Deuce said, sounds good in theory, but if it blows up in your face watch out.
|
|
|
|
Post by keysersoze on Nov 25, 2014 11:20:33 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by td4tc on Nov 25, 2014 11:52:04 GMT -6
We did this for a few years after I read some of coach Kelly's stuff and talked by email.
I was tired of watching my punter shank it for a net of 15 or better yet finally hit a decent punt but put the ball in the hands of their designated playmaker for a big return and net of 15.
We had a balanced offence and our QB was our punter so when we did feel the need to kick he dropped back slightly from the GUN and one step quick-kicked it so we cheated on Puhulski's methods a bit.
I will say posters above have hit it on the head that you will be criticized. Fans watch Sunday afternoon games and just assume you have to punt or kick a field goal according to NFL rules or you are an idiot. They don't even get it when the chains only have to move 15 yds for the change in possession. That's a little more than one first down. You can't be faint hearted with this
The upsides (that you may not consider) other than the obvious increase in potential possessions was
1) the other team never got to put their actual punt return team out there including their stud WR returner because we didn't allow this by giving the illusion that we were going all the time. It is important to limit that kid's touches as much as possible IMHO
2) When we did have to go for it in a really critical part of the game the kids didn't have any added stress because they were so used to doing it (surprisingly NB)
3) We save a lot of special team time
4) Improved our play calling on 3rd down because we didn't have to pass it on 3rd and 6 knowing that we were going for it on fourth
5) can still quick-kick it
6) once other teams get your routine , now can "fake the fake punt" ie.have him drop back a little like he is going to quick-kick it and then throw a normal pass concept out of that look while their DB's run back to receive. Or snap to an upback like a more traditional fake.
Anyway, we had a great percentage of getting first downs but now with the offence not as strong have switched to the rugby punt which is almost as cool. Rugby punter has to have the green light to run, throw a "to the sticks" out route or kick it on every punt play. Very tough to defend and if he's your Q then you have all the above advantages as well.
All in all, I admire that coach Kelly guy for thinking outside the box and getting it done.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Nov 25, 2014 13:04:15 GMT -6
Fixed that up a bit. Again, I do not believe the data is valid for HS or even for current NFL decision making (as the rules are different). What IS valid is to think about the value of punting, and determine if you are getting that value. As mentioned above, if your kicking game is bad, and you aren't capable of improving it through coaching, then not utilizing it might be the better choice. |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitdundied on Nov 30, 2014 10:28:12 GMT -6
I am going to clear up a couple of things. First he was not Gus Malzahn's successor as Gus has never coached at Pulaski Academy. Second Gus successor was Josh Floyd who is now coaching a 7A school in Alabama. Third he Kevin Kelly is great football coach and basically built PA into what they are. He is highly disliked in the Arkansas coaching ranks whether he deserves to be or not I will not weigh in on in a public fashion. They PA are in the state championship again this year. The rule changes we have seen in federation limiting all players to five yards from the ball on kickoffs are partly as a result of people complaining about PA's tactics during kickoffs. Smyly you can message me sometime as it seems we may know each other.
|
|
mhs99
Junior Member
Posts: 250
|
Post by mhs99 on Nov 30, 2014 22:21:38 GMT -6
Key point here I think: Throw away all the numbers and advantages of not punting and the such......I think more importantly when begin to play "unconventional football" you must mentally prepare your kids to be in stressful situations for the entire game. We have mentally tough kids but I went for it and failed on 4th and 2 from my 30 and our opponent scores, that has lasting effects moving forward in that game.
I would assume that you must have total buyin and begin to train a program Mentally from day 1 that plays this style of football and really change the mentality of your team, school and community. Not easy, you have to be very secure as a coach in many ways.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachwoodall on Nov 17, 2020 19:02:32 GMT -6
Catching back up with this thread and thinking...
If you can create the atmosphere that your team is going to be 'living on the edge', or that your team has the greatest chance of success on any given play; then you WILL. That is more psychological than schematic.
So far as 'never punt' or 'always go for 2' and schematics; then you need to spend as much time on that down (4th & xxx, or 2 point play) as you would on on punt team and PAT team.
.... then you have to calculate the value of not having the ability to kick a FG in overtime from the 10 yard line. And if you're up by 5 and kicking off with 45 seconds to play, do you want to onside kick or trust your kicker/cover team to execute a pooch/whatever kick?
I'm not knocking these programatic lines of thinking, but if you do want to move the line then you need to think beyond simply the idea of 'we never punt'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2020 19:49:27 GMT -6
Catching back up with this thread and thinking... If you can create the atmosphere that your team is going to be 'living on the edge', or that your team has the greatest chance of success on any given play; then you WILL. That is more psychological than schematic. So far as 'never punt' or 'always go for 2' and schematics; then you need to spend as much time on that down (4th & xxx, or 2 point play) as you would on on punt team and PAT team. .... then you have to calculate the value of not having the ability to kick a FG in overtime from the 10 yard line. And if you're up by 5 and kicking off with 45 seconds to play, do you want to onside kick or trust your kicker/cover team to execute a pooch/whatever kick? I'm not knocking these programatic lines of thinking, but if you do want to move the line then you need to think beyond simply the idea of 'we never punt'. These are good points. I would think that this can change your approach to offense, and even defense, entirely. Now you’re dealing with 4 downs a series instead of 3 and a “we’ll see and make a decision.” In theory, I see this approach paradoxically making more sense for super conservative offenses that seldom lose yards and just grind things out 3 yards a pop but also avoid 4th and long situations where the offense who never punts is usually f***ed. While this approach would seem to put strain on a defense to be able to defend an offense on a short field throughout the night, I could see that ball control approach also shortening the game and taking stress off the defense by eating clock more, too. It seems like most, or at least half, scores in HS football are on big plays that would scored just as easily from 20 yards or 90 yards out. Unfortunately, such an approach would probably be about as fun for the coaches in the stands as watching paint dry, so they’d call for your head even if it’s working. The first time you lose a game with a failed onside kick or failed 4th down conversion, you might come home to a moving van parked in your front yard. The program cited at the start of this thread is a true outlier because they were dominant in their state with elite talent long before coach Kelley began exploring unconventional-but-data-based strategy like never punting. A few years ago, I recall that Kelly wanted to emphasize running “razzle dazzle” type plays where at least 4 people touched the football because he saw some analytic that said such plays were more explosive. I’m not sure how that experiment worked out for him, but if there’s ever a team who could win state running a bunch of hook-and-laterals or double reverses, it would be his. |
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Dec 5, 2020 10:42:16 GMT -6
We also used to huddle and fake the on side kick every time on kickoff till NC changed the rules making that illegal this year. What was that 2014 change? |
|
|
|
Post by coachwoodall on Dec 5, 2020 10:48:11 GMT -6
We also used to huddle and fake the on side kick every time on kickoff till NC changed the rules making that illegal this year. What was that 2014 change? wasn't that the no more than 6 on each side of the kicker? |
|
