The Coach Who Never Punts(and always onside kicks)

[Alphadawg7]

First off, this guy won state championship. That tells me he had talent on his team, and I think that is the variable not being discussed enough on this.

 

If I were say the Broncos, I would never punt and probably score even more points and be harder to beat. If I were Jax, it would probably be a horrible decision and I would lose by 40+ points every week.

 

It boils down to the ability to convert as well as the defenses ability to hold when giving up good field position on failed conversions. Bad teams are bad for a reason, they can't convert 3rd downs and sustain drives nor consistently stop opponents. Getting an extra down isn't going to help enough to off set the huge field position advantage they give up when it most often fails.

 

But I could see a team like the Broncos or the Saints implementing a rarely, or never, punt philosophy and see it work well for them because of their extremely talented Offense. I do agree with other posters too...the onside kick is too low of a percentage in the NFL to convert to see value in regularly doing it, especially if the other team is always prepared to field it.

Edited November 15, 2013 by Alphadawg7

[MikeSpeed]

That's high school. What are the analytics in the NFL?

Yeah how many high school kids can punt the ball 40+ yards on average?

[hondo in seattle]

First off, this guy won state championship. That tells me he had talent on his team, and I think that is the variable not being discussed enough on this.

 

If I were say the Broncos, I would never punt and probably score even more points and be harder to beat. If I were Jax, it would probably be a horrible decision and I would lose by 40+ points every week.

 

It boils down to the ability to convert as well as the defenses ability to hold when giving up good field position on failed conversions. Bad teams are bad for a reason, they can't convert 3rd downs and sustain drives nor consistently stop opponents. Getting an extra down isn't going to help enough to off set the huge field position advantage they give up when it most often fails.

 

But I could see a team like the Broncos or the Saints implementing a rarely, or never, punt philosophy and see it work well for them because of their extremely talented Offense. I do agree with other posters too...the onside kick is too low of a percentage in the NFL to convert to see value in regularly doing it, especially if the other team is always prepared to field it.

 

Yep. If a team has a low 3rd down conversion rate, it would probably have a low 4th down conversion rate. A team like that should punt in most 4th down situations, whereas a high-powered offense might be better off going for it.

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

First off, this guy won state championship. That tells me he had talent on his team, and I think that is the variable not being discussed enough on this.

 

If I were say the Broncos, I would never punt and probably score even more points and be harder to beat. If I were Jax, it would probably be a horrible decision and I would lose by 40+ points every week.

 

It boils down to the ability to convert as well as the defenses ability to hold when giving up good field position on failed conversions. Bad teams are bad for a reason, they can't convert 3rd downs and sustain drives nor consistently stop opponents. Getting an extra down isn't going to help enough to off set the huge field position advantage they give up when it most often fails.

 

But I could see a team like the Broncos or the Saints implementing a rarely, or never, punt philosophy and see it work well for them because of their extremely talented Offense. I do agree with other posters too...the onside kick is too low of a percentage in the NFL to convert to see value in regularly doing it, especially if the other team is always prepared to field it.

 

Might also mean that it makes sense to spend all or most of your money on the offensive side of the ball.

[bbb]

First off, this guy won state championship. That tells me he had talent on his team, and I think that is the variable not being discussed enough on this.

 

If I were say the Broncos, I would never punt and probably score even more points and be harder to beat. If I were Jax, it would probably be a horrible decision and I would lose by 40+ points every week.

 

It boils down to the ability to convert as well as the defenses ability to hold when giving up good field position on failed conversions. Bad teams are bad for a reason, they can't convert 3rd downs and sustain drives nor consistently stop opponents. Getting an extra down isn't going to help enough to off set the huge field position advantage they give up when it most often fails.

 

But I could see a team like the Broncos or the Saints implementing a rarely, or never, punt philosophy and see it work well for them because of their extremely talented Offense. I do agree with other posters too...the onside kick is too low of a percentage in the NFL to convert to see value in regularly doing it, especially if the other team is always prepared to field it.

 

Great post.

 

I'd like to see this coach take an inferior team in terms of talent and win with this philosophy.

 

There is so much truth to Mark Twain's "Lies, damned lies and statistics" quote.........Here, they don't take into account the teams that suck and therefore opt not to go for it on 4th..........And, somebody else made the point about surprise onside kicks vs. "known" ones.

 

I don't have any stats on this, but it seems to me that teams get stopped more on 4th and short than they used to. To my thinking, it was almost automatic - quarterback sneak or the fullback could almost always pick it up.............Now you have throws like that horrible decision to have Tuel throw against the Chiefs.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Somewhere Chuck Knox is sitting in a corner mumbling to himself!

[mannc]

Great post.

 

I'd like to see this coach take an inferior team in terms of talent and win with this philosophy.

 

There is so much truth to Mark Twain's "Lies, damned lies and statistics" quote.........Here, they don't take into account the teams that suck and therefore opt not to go for it on 4th..........And, somebody else made the point about surprise onside kicks vs. "known" ones.

 

So, if a team sucks, they should play it safe, seldom go for it on fourth down, punt when they are on the other team's 40 yard line? And that's going to help them win games? If anything, teams that have inferior talent need to take more chances, not less, to try to swing the odds in their favor. Edited November 15, 2013 by mannc

[MRW]

So, if a team sucks, they should play it safe, seldom go for it on fourth down, punt when they are on the other team's 40 yard line? And that's going to help them win games? If anything, teams that have inferior talent need to take more chances, not less, to try to swing the odds in their favor.

I think teams like the Jags are pretty much irrelevant to this conversation. It doesn't really matter what they do, they're not going to win a lot of games either way. It gets more interesting when you're talking about more talented teams, or maybe teams that are much better on one side of the ball. For instance, the Jets - should they go for it on 4th down more because their defense can bail them out when it doesn't work? Or should they play more conservative because they can rely on their defense to make more stops and play a field position game. I think those are the interesting cases to discuss.

[bbb]

So, if a team sucks, they should play it safe, seldom go for it on fourth down, punt when they are on the other team's 40 yard line? And that's going to help them win games? If anything, teams that have inferior talent need to take more chances, not less, to try to swing the odds in their favor.

 

Do you have the stats for going for it on fourth for teams that suck?

 

You're not playing cards.

[major]

Watched a news report on this guy a few months back. His rationale makes sense. I guess you could always try it on someone the next time you play Madden to see if it's feasible.

[Mark Vader]

I love the idea of never punting. Not sure about on side kicks every time...not sure if the math backs up on side kick %s of success and going on to score points vs giving good field position if you don't recover and points scored against.

 

I think too much "traditional football" logic can be dis proven with numbers but coaches are too afraid of change and taking risks

There's risks, and then there's stupidity.

 

No punting and onside kicks all the time just wouldn't make it in the NFL.

 

On the other hand, not having a Punter on the roster means more depth at another position.

[bbb]

So would not having a quarterback on the roster.

[Dr. Fong]

The current coach at my old high school 99% follows this philosophy. He also almost always goes for two points. They average 50 pts a game and are in the state finals with an undefeated record.

[Dibs]

There is a huge difference in recovery rates for surprise onside kicks and desperation onside kicks, when everyone knows it's coming. I think surprise onside kicks are recovered more than 50 percent if the time, while expected ones are around 25 percent or less. I love the no punt philosophy. I think the numbers are different for the NFL than in high school, though. Seldom punting is probably a better idea on Sundays.

 

In the video linked by the OP they claimed the average percent was 18% and that they were running at 20%.......lower than your estimate. It's pretty clear that the 'always onside kick concept' wouldn't be statistically beneficial in the NFL.

Edited November 15, 2013 by Dibs

[Dibs]

Upon further reflection, it seems to me that the analytics are likely very flawed and seem to only look at one statistic line when multiple different ones would be needed to assess the situation.

 

Ignoring the concept that some teams will have a vastly different percent chance to move the ball and score(Broncos compared to Jaguars).....

 

Using the statistics from the video....and he was a little ambiguous....

 

Teams will score a TD 92% of the time from the 5 yard line.

Teams will score "anyway" 77% of the time from the 45 yard line(he says around the 40 but the diagram shown puts things at the 45 & the NFL rough average is 40 yards net punt).

 

Assuming he is talking about TDs in both situations......and even ignoring the concept of FGs........and using a 50% 4th down conversion rate.......and also ignoring the concept that the percentages would be largely changed if punting from a better position the your own 5 yard line....

 

This means that to even out your average, when you do convert your 4th down you will need to be able to, on average, drive the ball down field to a point on the field that gives only a 62% chance for the other team to score. [50% chance of 92% and a 50% chance of 62% = 77%]

 

Even considering the concept that the average drive will be longer due to going for every 4th down conversion....and ignoring any future failed 4th down attempt in the drive......the average drive length needed to be obtained after succeeding on your 4th down conversion would be 40 yards(the length of the punt) plus the extra distance needed(to get to the 62% mark). I have no idea what that extra distance would be so I'm putting a very small(and generous) 10 yards on it.

 

This would bring the average drive needed to 'even up the averages' to be 50 yards.

According to this link: http://www.footballo...tats/drivestats

....the NFL average drive appears to be in the low 30s Yards(I'm not going to do the actual math on it.....highest was 40.2 with half the teams being under 30 yards).

 

 

 

Clearly punting on every down would not give a statistical advantage as your offense would need to be good enough to average 50+ yards on every drive after you have stalled and attempt to convert your 4th down.

 

Edit: For easy summary....

If you fail on your 4th down conversion you hinder yourself.

If you succeed on your 4th down conversion you won't gain any benefit unless you can (on average) move the ball to well past the point of where you would have punted to.

Edited November 16, 2013 by Dibs

[Brand J]

Or, maybe a kickoff going through the back of the end zone should be a touchback to the 30, not the 20. This would not allow kickers to just kick it as far as they can.

 

Oooh, I love this idea and think it needs to be voted on by the player committee. If Goodell is going to render kickoffs ineffective, then the drive start should absolutely be moved up. Even starting on the 25 is better than the 20. But starting on the 30...? I think that's perfect and would allow for more kickoff strategy going forward.

[AdamK]

Earlier today, I posted this is another thread.

 

 

 

http://www.advancedn...udy-part-4.html

 

It's OK to punt, but Marrone needs to be MUCH more aggresive on 4th down.

Edited November 16, 2013 by AdamK

[ExiledInIllinois]

Why D "wins championship." The D can score too. Having an awesome D is like getting another crack on O. Which, if having an awesome D, why punt... Take more chances on O.

 

Earlier today, I posted this is another thread.

 

 

 

http://www.advancedn...udy-part-4.html

 

It's OK to punt, but Marrone needs to be MUCH more aggresive on 4th down.

 

Fine and dandy if the other team is also sticking to a similar model. What happens when they aren't and the wheels come off. Probably why teams "lay up short" and don't get too agressive. They go for their middle outcome and don't risk the worst or best.

[Nick the Greek]

So your pinned down inside your own 20 and not going to punt? Repeat that scenario a few times and it gets ugly real quick in the NFL

[Prickly Pete]

There is a huge difference in recovery rates for surprise onside kicks and desperation onside kicks, when everyone knows it's coming. I think surprise onside kicks are recovered more than 50 percent if the time, while expected ones are around 25 percent or less. I love the no punt philosophy. I think the numbers are different for the NFL than in high school, though. Seldom punting is probably a better idea on Sundays.

 

I really like the idea of surprise onside kicks. Or even short kicks to an open spot 20-30yards deep. Lots of those guys aren't really "hands" guys. Even if you don't get the ball, if you do it once in a while, teams will to start to compromise their kick receiving formation to account for it.

Edited November 16, 2013 by Marauder'sMicro