Coach Beatty seems to have signed on with this in the Ensworth game. If my memory serves correctly, he went for it on the fourth down three times, and whenever he did punt they were squibs kicks, one of which the Rocks recovered.

Let me rephrase... Assuming you can execute BOTH properly, a placekick provides some significant advantages over a punt.

 

I guess I just don't see it.....

 

Coverage--advantage punt

Hang time--advantage punt

ease of execution--advantage punt

ability to direct the kick--maybe a wash here, but I think punting has the advantage here too

 

I've actually thought quite a bit about this, and have heard the placekicking option mentioned a few times before. I actually toyed around with this idea in practice one year when we had a stud placekicker. Just comparing distance and hang time, the punter came out ahead most of the time. Now if you didn't have a decent punter, but a very good place kicker, I could see this plan maybe making more sense.

I have trouble getting passed the numbers he uses in his example. His team has been so successful on 1st, 2nd, and 3rd down that he is left with 4th and 8. Now he has a 50% chance of making a first down with his 4th down play???

Could be several reasons for being at 4th and 8 that aren't indicative of a bad offense, first that I can think of is could have been behind the sticks to begins with due to penalties or a great defensive play.

It would work for some teams...but as some have said above, it's not going to work for everyone, especially for bad teams...just might help lead them to getting beat even worse.

 

But it's just like everything else...if you have good players you can add more options and do more.

 

It's very easy for a coach to say "run the power I, it's the best offense and no one stops us" when that coach has 3-4 huge DI lineman and a stud fb and power running back. Same applies here.

It would work for some teams...but as some have said above, it's not going to work for everyone, especially for bad teams...just might help lead them to getting beat even worse.

 

But it's just like everything else...if you have good players you can add more options and do more.

 

It's very easy for a coach to say "run the power I, it's the best offense and no one stops us" when that coach has 3-4 huge DI lineman and a stud fb and power running back. Same applies here.

 

I agree, you have to have some level of talent to pull this off. I watched the Real Sports HBO Segment on it and it was very interesting. The Onside Kick is the big game changer more than the not punting after watching this. They have a dozen or so ways to kickoff and seem to recover more than they do not.

I guess I just don't see it.....

 

Coverage--advantage punt

Hang time--advantage punt

ease of execution--advantage punt

ability to direct the kick--maybe a wash here, but I think punting has the advantage here too

 

I've actually thought quite a bit about this, and have heard the placekicking option mentioned a few times before. I actually toyed around with this idea in practice one year when we had a stud placekicker. Just comparing distance and hang time, the punter came out ahead most of the time. Now if you didn't have a decent punter, but a very good place kicker, I could see this plan maybe making more sense.

 

I would only concede the coverage and the hang time arguments... Definitely not true that punts can be more easily controlled - the whole point behind placekicking is accuracy. I also would argue whether PKs are inherently shorter than Punts. Either way, with the concessions on coverage & hang time, the increased accuracy and blocking time are good trade offs.

Corbin went for it on 4th down every time(maybe 5 times) last Friday night and converted each time. They were in Whitley Co. territory every time, but a couple of them were longer than 4th and 10. I doubt that Coach Haddix has adopted this as a full time strategy, but who knows.

Same coach was on Sirius-XM, he is starting to put rugby principles into his passing game to create more 20+ yard plays. He found that 81% of winning teams at the college level had had more 20+ yard plays than their opponents that game. Explosive plays equated to wins more than turnover margin. He figured using the receiver as an option qb would create more missed assignments and more explosiveness. Pretty interesting. I played a flag football team in Mexico that would do a quick hitch into w/ 3 guys running underneath to pitch, pitch, and take off. It was pretty cool. I don't know how you practice that in actual football, but the guy seemed very sharp.

Same coach was on Sirius-XM' date=' he is starting to put rugby principles into his passing game to create more 20+ yard plays. He found that 81% of winning teams at the college level had had more 20+ yard plays than their opponents that game. Explosive plays equated to wins more than turnover margin. He figured using the receiver as an option qb would create more missed assignments and more explosiveness. Pretty interesting. I played a flag football team in Mexico that would do a quick hitch into w/ 3 guys running underneath to pitch, pitch, and take off. It was pretty cool. I don't know how you practice that in actual football, but the guy seemed very sharp.[/quote']

 

HBO showed them running these plays in practice.

HBO showed them running these plays in practice.

 

Guess that was why he was on Sirius' College channel to promote the show.

I believe Dixie Heights might do some of this, especially if they are trailing in a game. In the Beechwood scrimmage, Dixie went for it on 4th down 3 or 4 different times. One time they were on their own 20 and they went for it and got the first down. Dixie also did short kickoffs and they did recover one of the kickoffs. They did this after they had fallen behind. Their first couple possessions they did punt the ball. Once they got behind they started going for it on 4th down if there was a reasonable chance of picking up the first down.

But isn't there a big difference in going for it when confident and onside kicking the ball in some situations (albeit with greater frequency)...and saying "we don't punt" and "we only onside kick?"

Just started a book called "Scorecasting" and one of the chapters is about this coach's philosophy.

 

I didn't know that he also never has a punt returner. Says that in high school the average net is about 30 yards or so. He says the odds of a penalty occurring which would increase that net or a fumble which would obviously give the ball back are not worth it to him.

Just started a book called "Scorecasting" and one of the chapters is about this coach's philosophy.

 

I didn't know that he also never has a punt returner. Says that in high school the average net is about 30 yards or so. He says the odds of a penalty occurring which would increase that net or a fumble which would obviously give the ball back are not worth it to him.

 

This is where I get off the train... The net yardage reflects the fact that a returner catches and returns the ball. If the returner is not there to at least fair catch, that thing can roll forever. Field position is valuable.

This is where I get off the train... The net yardage reflects the fact that a returner catches and returns the ball. If the returner is not there to at least fair catch, that thing can roll forever. Field position is valuable.

 

Again, depends on your team. Catching a punt for many is not an easy task, and one that's very difficult to practice under game conditions. With very few quality punters, I can see where this strategy can make sense. Trying to catch or pick up a bouncing 20-30 yard punt is not an easy thing to do, and to pick up an extra 5-10 yards isn't worth the risk of a fumble or penalty. Now if I've got a sure handed game breaker, you better believe I'm putting him back to return a punt.