HS football coach whose teams never kick

[DrJay]

From SI:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm

They always go for it on fourth down, and always onside-kick on kickoffs. They don't even have a punter or place-kicker.

[Rye Catcher]

I like it. Makes it a much better game. Let's do it all levels.

[gh]

going off on a bit of a tangent, but relevant to the kicking game, I'm sure I'm not the first who has ever suggested this, but strikes me that the advent of the soccer-style kicker changed the game too much, and put too much foot in it (as oxymoronic as that may sound, given the game's name!).

The basic object of the game, as I see it, should be to the damned ball into the end zone. And doing that should be rewarded at a far greater rate than kicking it through from half the field away.

So, reversing the 3-point line school of thought (and those who think longer field goals should count for more, I would actually propose that longer field goals count for LESS!!!

The reward for a field goal should be commensurate with how well your team has done in achieving the main goal of getting it into the end zone by non-foot means.

So to get the 3 points, you need to get inside the red zone (20 yards). A FG from 20 or more is only worth 2 points. Indeed, 40 or more is only a single point.

How's that for changing the nature of the game?!

[lonewolf]

It would change it alright but don't expect a long line to sign your petition.

[bman]

I personally enjoy the kicking game from an entertainment point of view as I think it adds depth and complexity to the game. On the subject of this particular article, I find it odd that they don't even attempt a return on punts. I would like to see data on that. Also, maybe you would get more than 30 yards on a punt if you did any coaching in that area (this is actually not far off for many teams, most we play get about thirty yards a punt). Basically, I can understand this guy's ideas because many high schools have to try things like this as they have a lot of factors going against them, like lack of talent, asst. coaching, number of guys, even equipment, etc. Of course I guess another idea is to attempt to have some proficiency in the area of special teams...

[Davidokun]

From today's Tuesday Morning Quarterback:

Back in 2006, I detailed why probabilities favor going for it on many fourth-down situations. Back in 2007, I asked AccuScore to run thousands of computer simulations of NFL games using a go-for-it metric; going for it much of the time added one win per season to a team's record, and one win is often the difference between the playoffs and the couch in January in the NFL. Here in 2007 I wrote about Pulaski Academy in Arkansas, a perennial playoff-caliber high school team that almost never punts. And note two years ago I credited the source who first told me about Pulaski, unlike Sports Illustrated, which last week wrote about the same school's non-punting as if the magazine had just uncovered an original story. This analysis by Brian Burke (see, Sports Illustrated, it's not painful to credit others) of the benefits of going on fourth-and-short has also been making the rounds lately in football circles. All four parts are well worth reading, especially if you're interested in the intersection of economic theory and athletics.

As the first 2007 article linked to above argued in detail, football teams usually should go for it on fourth-and-4 or less in opposition territory, and on fourth-and-short in their own territory. Yes, occasionally this will backfire - but over the course of the season, your team will score more points (owing to sustained possessions) while the opposition scores fewer points (owing to fewer possessions). But forget fourth-and-4 - just think about fourth-and-1. Since roughly 75 percent of fourth-and-1 attempts are successful - on Sunday, 82 percent of fourth-and-1 tries succeeded - TMQ continues to marvel that NFL and big-college coaches so often launch kicks when only a yard is needed. I continue to think that avoiding criticism is the explanation. The sports-talk world - and hence, owners and boosters - insist on believing that going for it on fourth down is a "huge gamble." Actually, most of the time it's playing the percentages correctly.

In short, Pulaski isn't forced to go for it because of any "factors", they choose to go for it because they know it is a winning strategy.

[DrJay]

No way an NFL team is going to adopt that strategy from the get-go, but it would neat to see one try it once they've been eliminated from the playoff picture, with nothing to lose (except their kickers). Or maybe those wacky guys from Stanford could try it.

[Dutra]

I personally enjoy the kicking game from an entertainment point of view as I think it adds depth and complexity to the game. On the subject of this particular article, I find it odd that they don't even attempt a return on punts. I would like to see data on that. Also, maybe you would get more than 30 yards on a punt if you did any coaching in that area (this is actually not far off for many teams, most we play get about thirty yards a punt). Basically, I can understand this guy's ideas because many high schools have to try things like this as they have a lot of factors going against them, like lack of talent, asst. coaching, number of guys, even equipment, etc. Of course I guess another idea is to attempt to have some proficiency in the area of special teams...

This guy probably has done more coaching than the vast majority of high school coaches. Not sure why he'd get criticism in that area because he has a statistically based viable alternative to the norm.

[scottmitchell74]

Love the idea and have been following TMQ's push for this for years. He's right, from a statistical standpoint, and he's right that NFL coaches are too entrenched and afraid to try it for an extended period of time.

I'd love to watch a game with no punts. The one point that hit me the most was the thought that knowing you have 4 downs changes your approach/mindest/confidence completely.

[Dutra]

Love the idea and have been following TMQ's push for this for years. He's right, from a statistical standpoint, and he's right that NFL coaches are too entrenched and afraid to try it for an extended period of time.

I'd love to watch a game with no punts. The one point that hit me the most was the thought that knowing you have 4 downs changes your approach/mindest/confidence completely.

Many many youth football and middle school programs don't ever punt but those levels are extroadinarily dependent on one big play in which it really doesn't matter much where the line of scrimmage is.

One problem with football as the level of play moves up is that too many equate the game to what they see in the NFL and what is played at the highest level of NCAA Div I football. In a lot of cases, the game isn't the same and shouldn't be approached in that fashion by coaches.

[Marlow]

So to get the 3 points, you need to get inside the red zone (20 yards). A FG from 20 or more is only worth 2 points. Indeed, 40 or more is only a single point. !

That actually makes sense!

[Daisy]

So to get the 3 points, you need to get inside the red zone (20 yards). A FG from 20 or more is only worth 2 points. Indeed, 40 or more is only a single point. !

That actually makes sense!

They changed the scoring for rugby, so I don't see why they couldn't for american football.

[Dutra]

So to get the 3 points, you need to get inside the red zone (20 yards). A FG from 20 or more is only worth 2 points. Indeed, 40 or more is only a single point. !

That actually makes sense!

They changed the scoring for rugby, so I don't see why they couldn't for american football.

I doubt there'd be much support for a change in scoring. That's why they wouldn't.

[bman]

I personally enjoy the kicking game from an entertainment point of view as I think it adds depth and complexity to the game. On the subject of this particular article, I find it odd that they don't even attempt a return on punts. I would like to see data on that. Also, maybe you would get more than 30 yards on a punt if you did any coaching in that area (this is actually not far off for many teams, most we play get about thirty yards a punt). Basically, I can understand this guy's ideas because many high schools have to try things like this as they have a lot of factors going against them, like lack of talent, asst. coaching, number of guys, even equipment, etc. Of course I guess another idea is to attempt to have some proficiency in the area of special teams...

This guy probably has done more coaching than the vast majority of high school coaches. Not sure why he'd get criticism in that area because he has a statistically based viable alternative to the norm.

I would be surprised if he coaches punting more than the vast majority of high school coaches.

All I am saying is that variables that change based on the level of play effect the data used to base theory on when to punt. It also varies from team to team I would think.

[Brian]

So to get the 3 points, you need to get inside the red zone (20 yards). A FG from 20 or more is only worth 2 points. Indeed, 40 or more is only a single point. !

That actually makes sense!

I like this a lot. Would really change the strategy for a team marginally behind in the last two minutes. Plus make for a bunch of exciting new play calls based on a given situation.


The NFL sort of felt the same way (too many field goals) a few years back when they wanted to move the goalpost to the back of the field.

Did they narrow the uprights, too...? Can't remember (didn't really care enough). I remember the idea being thrown out there at the time.