SI: Down 29-0 before touching the ball

Donate To GopherHole

The obvious flaw with his theory is that the percentages he uses are likely based on a summation of many games and situations between opponents of differing levels of ability.

Therefore, in order to truly understand the risks and rewards of each decision there should be a chart that outlines each decision given the perceived ability of the team you are competing against. I would doubt the statistics are static regardless of the opponent. Additionally, the risks/rewards would also change based on time and score of each game and should be recalculated accordingly along with the percentages.

Other than that, I'm all for the best percentage play.
 

josh087 said:
The obvious flaw with his theory is that the percentages he uses are likely based on a summation of many games and situations between opponents of differing levels of ability.

Therefore, in order to truly understand the risks and rewards of each decision there should be a chart that outlines each decision given the perceived ability of the team you are competing against. I would doubt the statistics are static regardless of the opponent. Additionally, the risks/rewards would also change based on time and score of each game and should be recalculated accordingly along with the percentages.

Other than that, I'm all for the best percentage play.
Click to expand...
True, but at this point he also likely has good quality statistics based just off his own team. Plus, if you look as a wide enough swath of games at your level of play the stats can prove to be at least decently predictive. Not perfect (no stat should be considered like that) but at least good enough to safely build a gameplan on until proven otherwise. In this case, it looks like its worked out ok.

I'm a sucker for this kind of coaching. I find it really interesting how coaches find themselves pursuing the unconventional gameplans. I considered playing basketball for Grinnell College in Grinnell, IA (D-III) and the coach there did the same sort of crazy gameplanning for his team using the math profs at Grinnell.
 

Seems to have little to do with not punting. His team was able to recover onside kick after onside kick, and was able to drive down for score after score. If you have a high probability to recovering the onside kick, sure, you get the ball in great field position. But most teams, especially in college, are not going to be able to recover onside kicks, which tend to be desperation plays or trick plays.
 

I've read about him before. I think for high school football, his methods make sense. Rarely do you have a kid that can punt the football or consistently hang a high kickoff that you can pin a team inside the 25 yard line. With an onside kick, you're only giving up 20-25 yards of field position if you fail at the most.

I'm sure he goes for 2 quite often, much to the delight of Lane Kiffin. And in HS, I think this is a good strategy. I'm guessing overall, you could net more points going for two than going for one. Lollipop snaps, not as talented players, etc. etc. etc. An extra point kick isn't as automatic at the HS level.
 


Interesting article,
One thing I found watching the video is how well coached the onside kick teams are, obviously something they drill on alot, similar to Va Tech's punt block/special teams, you drill on something long enough that other teams don't, you gain an edge.
 

I used to have a book about football strategy that was published in 1930. I really wish I still had that book. It advocated punting on first down if you had the ball inside of the 10 yard line. Not that I ascribe to an 80 year old strategy, it's just an interesting bit of history.
 

FireDaveLee said:
I've read about him before. I think for high school football, his methods make sense. Rarely do you have a kid that can punt the football or consistently hang a high kickoff that you can pin a team inside the 25 yard line. With an onside kick, you're only giving up 20-25 yards of field position if you fail at the most.

I'm sure he goes for 2 quite often, much to the delight of Lane Kiffin. And in HS, I think this is a good strategy. I'm guessing overall, you could net more points going for two than going for one. Lollipop snaps, not as talented players, etc. etc. etc. An extra point kick isn't as automatic at the HS level.
Click to expand...

I agree that this can work at the high school level where the range of talent on the field is quite wide and if you can teach your team to do a set of things extremely well, that can translate into huge advantages.
 

I think in an article about this guy a year or so ago he did say that it only works in high school, and that kickers in college give you better percentages to favor kicking and the opponent gives you worse percentages in going for it. Good thing he coaches high school.
 



I've often considered this and have had fun debating the merits of going for it on 4th down with friends. I'm quite sympathetic to Coach Kelly's argument, ....to a point.

As others have pointed out, aggregate statistics are suspect. You aren't playing an aggregate opponent, you are playing a SPECIFIC opponent. To perform this accurately you need to do the analysis for your opponent, and since they are different from year to year it would be tough to build up a statistically significant sample of data. I suppose you could do it by coach (and coaching style), but it's still tough. If you are playing a team with great d, it should influence your decision to punt or not.

That said, I've concluded the simple approach is to 'go for it on 4th down more'. And (at the college level at least) have less faith in your field goal kicker. What's the percentage of Gophers kickers making 40-45 yard field goals the last decade? Coaches seem to behave as if they expect to make those more often than not. I would almost NEVER try one unless it was more than, say, 4th and 5, or time was running out and you needed 3 points.

Interestingly, I have noticed a trend of more coaches going for it on 4th down, so I think this school of thought is catching on. I definitely think it makes it more fun to consider the possibilities...
 

tato2001 said:
I've often considered this and have had fun debating the merits of going for it on 4th down with friends. I'm quite sympathetic to Coach Kelly's argument, ....to a point.

As others have pointed out, aggregate statistics are suspect. You aren't playing an aggregate opponent, you are playing a SPECIFIC opponent. To perform this accurately you need to do the analysis for your opponent, and since they are different from year to year it would be tough to build up a statistically significant sample of data. I suppose you could do it by coach (and coaching style), but it's still tough. If you are playing a team with great d, it should influence your decision to punt or not.

That said, I've concluded the simple approach is to 'go for it on 4th down more'. And (at the college level at least) have less faith in your field goal kicker. What's the percentage of Gophers kickers making 40-45 yard field goals the last decade? Coaches seem to behave as if they expect to make those more often than not. I would almost NEVER try one unless it was more than, say, 4th and 5, or time was running out and you needed 3 points.

Interestingly, I have noticed a trend of more coaches going for it on 4th down, so I think this school of thought is catching on. I definitely think it makes it more fun to consider the possibilities...
Click to expand...

You've expanded on what I was trying to say, but you are a lot more clear and detailed than I was.
 

After watching the videos what stood out to me was how good his QB was and how well his offensive line blocks not how great his playing calling is or anything. His team was just lining up and beating the other team, you can kick as many onside kicks in a row as you want but if your team can't catch the ball, throw the ball or block then you are still going to lose.
 

RodentRampage said:
I used to have a book about football strategy that was published in 1930. I really wish I still had that book. It advocated punting on first down if you had the ball inside of the 10 yard line. Not that I ascribe to an 80 year old strategy, it's just an interesting bit of history.
Click to expand...

Didn't Bernie Bierman use this strategy at times back in the day? I thought I remember reading somewhere that he used the punt as an offensive weapon.
 




I really like the idea of going for it a lot more often on 4th down. Just from eyeballing pro and college games, it always seemed to me like the benefits of punting on something like 4th and 3-5 from midfield are pretty negligible unless you have a punter you know will pin the other guys at the 5 more often than not (and most punters can't do that).

The punting on first down thing is interesting, but obviously a relic of a time when offenses weren't nearly as effective as they are today.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom