Random football tactics question

[BoulderSooner79]

I've noticed that when a team has a dangerous return man like Ross, the other team will often squib kick the ball or pop it up short to one of the blockers. This is especially true late in a game when a runback would be a big negative.

So, why don't teams just kick it out of bounds in that situation? The ball is placed at the 35 and that is often where it ends up after a squib or a short kick to a non-skilled player anyway. And I have seen up backs be fullbacks or tight ends that do advance the ball past the 35. So why not take the sure thing? I understand it in the pros where a touchback is at the 20 and an out of bounds kick is at the 40. But in college, a touchback is at the 25 and the out of bounds is at the 35, so that's not a big difference to keep it away from a dangerous guy. But I don't think I've ever seen a team do this on purpose.

[BoulderSooner79]

Nevermind, I overlooked the fact the receiving team has the option of forcing a re-kick from 5 yards back which of course they would do.

[birddog]

*****

[Eielson]

Nevermind, I overlooked the fact the receiving team has the option of forcing a re-kick from 5 yards back which of course they would do.

I hear that if you edit your posts to say "delete me" that it will go away, and it will be like this thread never happened.

I hate squibs, though. They're kind of like the prevent defense.

[BoulderSooner79]

I hear that if you edit your posts to say "delete me" that it will go away, and it will be like this thread never happened.

Kind of like those ill advised sexting PICs? I'll try that next time I have a brain fart.

[lexsooner]

Speaking of tactics, why don't teams which are large underdogs gamble more? If your opponent is much superior and you cannot stop them on defense, why not go for it on 4th downs which are not deep in your territory and onside kick each time after you score? It seems if you play conventionally, you are just asking for a slow death. At least give your team a chance to win.

If this is a silly question, then I will vacate it like USC's win over us, as if it never happened.

[Eielson]

Kind of like those ill advised sexting PICs? I'll try that next time I have a brain fart.

Exactly. Snapchat, though.

[Eielson]

Speaking of tactics, why don't teams which are large underdogs gamble more? If your opponent is much superior and you cannot stop them on defense, why not go for it on 4th downs which are not deep in your territory and onside kick each time after you score? It seems if you play conventionally, you are just asking for a slow death. At least give your team a chance to win.

If this is a silly question, then I will vacate it like USC's win over us, as if it never happened.

It's fear, and nothing else (except maybe job security). If you play it safe and lose, you're not publicly ridiculed, and it usually keeps you off the hot seat (unless you're already on it). I think most people just don't have thick enough skin to put their neck out there, even if it's statistically to their advantage.

[8timechamps]

There's also a component of time. If there's just a few seconds remaining on the clock, the squib kick is typically the better bet (except on the rare occasion the person that end up with the ball downs it immediately).

[8timechamps]

Speaking of tactics, why don't teams which are large underdogs gamble more? If your opponent is much superior and you cannot stop them on defense, why not go for it on 4th downs which are not deep in your territory and onside kick each time after you score? It seems if you play conventionally, you are just asking for a slow death. At least give your team a chance to win.

If this is a silly question, then I will vacate it like USC's win over us, as if it never happened.

You see that every now and then, but most of the time that kind of gameplan results in the underdog being blown out in the first half. It only takes two or three failed 4th down attempts to be out of the game (if the underdog's defense can't stop the opposing offense).

Historically, underdogs stand a better chance of beating the favorite by controlling the clock on the ground. The high risk/high reward stuff does work, just not very often. I think coaches ego's play a role in that (think: "Oh, you're going to go for it on every 4th down huh? Well, now I'm definitely running up the score!).

[Jacie]

Hmmm, didn't Alabama do that when they came to Norman to start the second half and recovered it? And it seems that was not the only time has happened to OU at home, lost the ball on an unexpected onside.

[Eielson]

Hmmm, didn't Alabama do that when they came to Norman to start the second half and recovered it? And it seems that was not the only time has happened to OU at home, lost the ball on an unexpected onside.

We did it to Bama in the 4th quarter just for funziez.

(Sorry to all for bringing up a BCS bowl victory. I forgot we were only allowed to talk about the losses.)

[BoulderSooner79]

Speaking of tactics, why don't teams which are large underdogs gamble more? If your opponent is much superior and you cannot stop them on defense, why not go for it on 4th downs which are not deep in your territory and onside kick each time after you score? It seems if you play conventionally, you are just asking for a slow death. At least give your team a chance to win.

If this is a silly question, then I will vacate it like USC's win over us, as if it never happened.

I recall seeing a piece on ESPN about a school that did just go for it on 4th down. There may have been some boiler plate on distance or field position. But the coach claimed that he looked at the stats and the number of extra scoring drives more than countered the lost field position from giving it up on downs vs. punting. I don't remember which school did this of if they still do - may have gotten the coach fired I'm sure it wasn't a D1 school.

[Eielson]

I recall seeing a piece on ESPN about a school that did just go for it on 4th down. There may have been some boiler plate on distance or field position. But the coach claimed that he looked at the stats and the number of extra scoring drives more than countered the lost field position from giving it up on downs vs. punting. I don't remember which school did this of if they still do - may have gotten the coach fired I'm sure it wasn't a D1 school.

I think I know who you're referring to, and it was a HS coach. I believe it's the same guy who almost always kicked onsiders as well.

[8timechamps]

I think I know who you're referring to, and it was a HS coach. I believe it's the same guy who almost always kicked onsiders as well.

Yeah, it was a high school coach, and he only had one kicker on the team, and that was for on-side kicks and the once-in-a-blue-moon punt.

[BoulderSooner79]

Yeah, it was a high school coach, and he only had one kicker on the team, and that was for on-side kicks and the once-in-a-blue-moon punt.

So it was Art Briles.

[Eielson]

Yeah, it was a high school coach, and he only had one kicker on the team, and that was for on-side kicks and the once-in-a-blue-moon punt.

Really? The one I'd heard came up with some statistics to justify it. In HS you kick off from the 40, so if you onside it, it should cross midfield. HS kickers aren't often that good, so they don't kick it as far or high, so the returning team often gets good field position anyway. I'm just making up numbers here, but he said that they only recover 1 out of every 5 onside kicks, but since the average starting field position in HS football is the 35 yard line, and it's the 47 with his onside kicks, the occasional recovery offsets that yardage based on probability.

As for punting, he talked about the numbers for going for it on 4th and 5 from your own 8 yard line (again...still making up numbers). If you go for it, and don't convert, there is a 88% chance the opposing team scores. However, if you punt it, the net yardage gained on average is about 25 yards when factoring in returns and everything else. The odds of scoring from the 33 only drop to 74%. Meanwhile, the odds of converting that 4th down and avoiding this situation all together are 45%. He was essentially saying that, yes, you're handing the other team points if you don't convert, but they're probably going to score either way, so you might as well go for it.

Maybe he came up with all this after the fact, though, as a way of justifying. Or maybe we're all talking about completely different people. There are a lot of HS coaches across the country, so I suppose a lot of wacky stuff happens.

[Jacie]

I wonder if just the pressure from having to defend that extra down contributed or helped the offense convert 4th downs? It must be like the first half of an Oregon game, knowing it doesn't matter what you do on 3rd down, they are still going to come at you again and with that hurry-up they run you have to line up without talking it over first. At the highschool level, that alone is probably enough to rattle the kids on defense if not their coaches.

[8timechamps]

Really? The one I'd heard came up with some statistics to justify it. In HS you kick off from the 40, so if you onside it, it should cross midfield. HS kickers aren't often that good, so they don't kick it as far or high, so the returning team often gets good field position anyway. I'm just making up numbers here, but he said that they only recover 1 out of every 5 onside kicks, but since the average starting field position in HS football is the 35 yard line, and it's the 47 with his onside kicks, the occasional recovery offsets that yardage based on probability.

As for punting, he talked about the numbers for going for it on 4th and 5 from your own 8 yard line (again...still making up numbers). If you go for it, and don't convert, there is a 88% chance the opposing team scores. However, if you punt it, the net yardage gained on average is about 25 yards when factoring in returns and everything else. The odds of scoring from the 33 only drop to 74%. Meanwhile, the odds of converting that 4th down and avoiding this situation all together are 45%. He was essentially saying that, yes, you're handing the other team points if you don't convert, but they're probably going to score either way, so you might as well go for it.

Maybe he came up with all this after the fact, though, as a way of justifying. Or maybe we're all talking about completely different people. There are a lot of HS coaches across the country, so I suppose a lot of wacky stuff happens.

I think the story was on E:60 or maybe HBO Real Sports. Everything you said seems like what I heard on the report. He only punted the ball if the offense stalled inside their own 5 yard line (or something like that), otherwise, he went for it on almost every 4th down.

Seems like the team he coached had won a state title or two using his method. I can't remember for sure though. I also don't think it was in a football heavy state, like Texas.

[Eielson]

I think the story was on E:60 or maybe HBO Real Sports. Everything you said seems like what I heard on the report. He only punted the ball if the offense stalled inside their own 5 yard line (or something like that), otherwise, he went for it on almost every 4th down.

Seems like the team he coached had won a state title or two using his method. I can't remember for sure though. I also don't think it was in a football heavy state, like Texas.

At first, I thought you were saying he didn't have a kicker that was capable of kicking it deep, and so he switched to this method out of necessity. After rereading, I think I understand your point now.

I think this going for it on fourth down thing could work for a while against some teams. Most defenses are programmed for 3 downs, and it's assumed you'll punt it on 4th if it's not the 4th quarter. On 3rd and 17, there is only a tiny chance of achieving a first down, but if the defense forces a 4th and 3, they call it a success, as they're set up for 3 downs. It's relatively easy to gain 10 yards when you need 17. Once opposing teams figure out your plan to do this all the time, they'll adjust, though.

In the end, it's creative and thought-provoking. Take what you like to improve your team, and throw out the rest. I don't like the idea of going for it inside your own 20 (every time), and I think better punters negate a lot of that advantage, but I like going for it on 4th and 4 on their 43 yard line. Tech does that, and it's one thing I really like about Kingsbury.