If only...

Donate To GopherHole
S

Sir Tipsy McStagger

Legend & Gopherhole Watchdog
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
551
Reaction score
0
Points
16
I have read numerous articles, supported by various statistics, researched by number crunchers too numerous to count; they all argue the "Never Punt" theory of football.

I am not taking sides in this debate, but imagine for a moment if in 1980 the Golden Gophers had adopted such an approach... We would have never needed a punter. :clap:

:cool02::cool02:
 

Sir Tipsy McStagger said:
I have read numerous articles, supported by various statistics, researched by number crunchers too numerous to count; they all argue the "Never Punt" theory of football.

I am not taking sides in this debate, but imagine for a moment if in 1980 the Golden Gophers had adopted such an approach... We would have never needed a punter. :clap:

:cool02::cool02:
Click to expand...

Based on our punting numbers this last year...couldn't argue with you.
 

Teams who score a lot punt less, but that doesn't mean they scored because they didn't punt.
 

Am I the only one so far to catch the Adam Kelly reference?

GopherinPhilly - holy crap our kicking game was awful last year. I think we had something like 6 or 7 kickoffs that went out of bounds. Punting was just as ugly.
 



Jeshurun said:
Am I the only one so far to catch the Adam Kelly reference?

GopherinPhilly - holy crap our kicking game was awful last year. I think we had something like 6 or 7 kickoffs that went out of bounds. Punting was just as ugly.
Click to expand...

I caught it.
 

Gophface Killah said:
It means they didn't punt because they scored. right? hmmmmm.:confused:
Click to expand...

Look at it this way. Let's say the coach takes the players out for ice cream if they win. You would see a correlation between wins and ice cream. But it would be a mistake to think of the ice cream as the cause of the win rather than the result of the win. More ice cream isn't going to result in more wins.

It would be interesting to see a team try this strategy. It would likely result in the opponent getting the ball in excellent field position quite a lot.
 

Based on my coaching experience in EA sports NCAA Football, since I know I'm not going to punt, it changes my mindset and thus the play calling. From the previously linked column:

Everybody knows that in football you have four downs to gain 10 yards or you lose control of the ball. But everybody approaches football as if you only have three downs to gain 10 yards or -- most of the time -- you punt. There may be exceptions to that when a team gets close to the end zone, but in general that is the primary approach. Think about that. Convention says that you are better off punting. And maybe that's true if you approach the game as if you only have three downs. The difference is mindset.

...and yes, the whole point of posting with the Adam Kelly reference. Well done, Jeshurun!

:cool02::cool02:
 




Statistical analyses have consistently shown that it's better to go for it on 4th down MOST of the time. Exceptions exist when you're deep in your own territory and/or have a long distance to go for a first down. If football were coached like baseball (with a heavy emphasis on use of statistics), we'd see a lot less punting.
 

Sir Tipsy McStagger said:
Based on my coaching experience in EA sports NCAA Football
Click to expand...

Based on my experience in EA Sports NCAA Football, the Gophers should have been able to get into the National Championship game this year (after a 48-3 thrashing of Wisconsin).
 

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.
Click to expand...

I don't think most teams can count on being 50-50 on 4th and 8. I'm kind of suspicious about the claim that teams that get the ball on the 38 score a TD 77% of them time. If a team can dominate on offense, but has weaknesses on the punt coverage, then perhaps going for it is better. But that isn't most teams.
 




GophersInIowa said:
A high school in Arkansas has used the "no punting" strategy for awhile. Seems to have worked for them. I think it could work for high schools where most teams don't have very good punters. Similar to some teams who always go for 2.

http://highschool.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=892888
Click to expand...

The no punt strategy would be even more effective at the high school level, since special teams are much more ineffective field-position-wise.
 

Obviously the argument must incude your punting and punt coverage ability. For example, we had the worst punter (tied for worst with 36.1 yards/punt) in the Big Ten this year without a great punt coverage team. Given our inability to successfully punt, inability to stop opposing offenses, and inability to win this year, one thing is certain: it would have been a lot more fun watching the Gophers this year knowing punting is not an option no matter what the game situation.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom