PDA

View Full Version : Chad Stanely may be out of a job TMQ asserts!


gtexan02
09-26-2006, 02:39 PM
Would football teams be better off it they never punted? Madden gaming might be the better way to go after all, suggests TMQ writer:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/060926

Interesting article. Page2 stuff is rarely serious, but all the 4th and inches plays that people punt at always surprised me (that made no sense). Anyways, give it a read.

In a day when the Bears line up five-wide and Texas Tech passes 60 times a game, are there any fundamental innovations that have not been tried? Walsh supposed someone might try using trick formations for an entire game. Shula twinkled his eyes and said: "Someday there will be a coach who doesn't punt."


Think about all those punts on fourth-and-1, fourth-and-2, fourth-and-3. The average NFL offensive play gains about five yards. Yet game in, game out, coaches boom the punt away on short yardage, handing the most precious article in football -- possession of the ball -- to the other side. Nearly three-quarters of fourth-and-1 attempts succeed, while around one-third of possessions result in scores. Think about those fractions. Go for it four times on fourth-and-1 -- odds are you will keep the ball three times, and three kept possessions each with a one-third chance of a score results in your team scoring once more than it otherwise would have. Punt the ball on all four fourth-and-1s, and you've given the opponents three additional possessions. (It would have gotten one possession anyway when you missed one of your fourth-and-1s.) Those three extra possessions, divided by the one-third chance to score, give the opponent an extra score.

Bottom line? If you face fourth-and-1 four times and punt all four times, your opponent will score once more than it otherwise would have. If you go for it all four times, you will score once more than you otherwise would have. (These are simplified probabilities that do not take into account that the one-score-in-three figure assumes most teams voluntarily end drives by punting on short yardage; subtract those punts, and a possession becomes more valuable because a score is more likely to result.) Few teams face fourth-and-1 four times in a game, but the numbers for fourth-and-2 and fourth-and-3 work out about the same, and most teams do face fourth-and-short several times per game. Probabilities suggest a team that rarely punts will increase its scoring while decreasing its opponents' point totals.

dtran04
09-26-2006, 05:13 PM
In our case, keeping the defense off the field wouldn't be a bad idea.

UberDork
09-26-2006, 08:13 PM
Sorry but that reasoning is stupid. Provided this is not pure satire, the reason a third of all drives score is because of the field position they have due to the punt...

gg no re
09-27-2006, 02:50 PM
Sorry but that reasoning is stupid. Provided this is not pure satire, the reason a third of all drives score is because of the field position they have due to the punt...On top of that, the article doesn't address the number of 4th and shorts that are near the goal line, where punting is absolutely stupid.

Most likely this article is just a fun headscratcher, but to take it seriously... *looks over at the Texans defense* ...I suppose we could......

powerfuldragon
09-27-2006, 03:12 PM
The day the Texans fire Chad Stanley is the day i'll stop being a fan.

AustinJB
09-27-2006, 11:19 PM
The day the Texans fire Chad Stanley is the day i'll stop being a fan.

Yeah, he's definitely been our franchise's most consitent player so far.

powerfuldragon
09-27-2006, 11:25 PM
Yeah, he's definitely been our franchise's most consitent player so far.

Why do you think he's my favorite guy on the team?