But we shouldn't consider it "base level thinking." Football is a complex game where every dynamic can impact its result. I've not watched the videos, but I'm wondering the strength of opponents that this team faces. Are you going to see them do that against a Louisville Trinity? Hoover Alabama? De La Salle California?

 

Yes you would. What difference does it make when you play a team and get beat by 21 or 121? It's a Lose. It also, puts a team like Hoover or De La Salle in a situation where if they don't punt and connect on their 4th downs it Pulaski might win.

But we shouldn't consider it "base level thinking." Football is a complex game where every dynamic can impact its result. I've not watched the videos, but I'm wondering the strength of opponents that this team faces. Are you going to see them do that against a Louisville Trinity? Hoover Alabama? De La Salle California?

 

Did it against a traditional power Highland Park who had won 84 in a row at home.

Anyone who challenges convention by asking "why do we do it this way" immediately has my interest.

 

Right on. :thumb:

 

I peeled a banana upside down my entire life until about 5 years ago when someone demonstrated to me that it was much easier to start at the bottom.

 

Duh.

 

I just recently was made aware that I could dramatically cut the time it takes to cook pasta by not waiting until the water boils to start cooking the pasta, but to place it in the water right away, and by the time the water starts boiling the pasta is ready.

 

Those are just a couple of examples, but so often we can just do things a certain way because "That's just the way it's always been", but I get a kick out of it when someone comes along with a new and more sensible way of doing something that the rest of us were too close to the forest to see the trees to consider a different way than we ever knew.

Right on. :thumb:

 

I peeled a banana upside down my entire life until about 5 years ago when someone demonstrated to me that it was much easier to start at the bottom.

 

Duh.

 

I just recently was made aware that I could dramatically cut the time it takes to cook pasta by not waiting until the water boils to start cooking the pasta, but to place it in the water right away, and by the time the water starts boiling the pasta is ready.

 

Those are just a couple of examples, but so often we can just do things a certain way because "That's just the way it's always been", but I get a kick out of it when someone comes along with a new and more sensible way of doing something that the rest of us were too close to the forest to see the trees to consider a different way than we ever knew.

 

I did not know that about the pasta.

Situation: 4th and 14 from your own 35 yard line, 10:00 minutes left in the 3rd quarter...do you punt?

 

Answer: Well, the first 3 plays you lost 4 yards...why would you think on the 4th play you would gain 14? How in the world in that situation would you think otherwise? Punt. Now are there situations where you might think about going for it or should go for it? Sure there are...but on average in this situation and many similar, you need to punt.

 

The ONLY time this guys philosophy works, in my opinion, is when you have the better team or at least a very good offensive team compared to the competition you are playing. Heck, KY had the best high school football team in the country 3-4 years ago as voted by at least one national organization (Trinity), and I don't think this philosophy would have worked for them against several of the nationally ranked, very good teams they played that year.

 

The answer to your question is he punts.

 

This is from the article...

"Highland Park even made a little history of its own during its comeback attempt, forcing Pulaski to punt for the first time in two years when it was facing fourth-down-and-30 deep in its own territory."

 

I believe his success has had far more to do with having talented players than it has had to do with not punting.

The answer to your question is he punts.

 

This is from the article...

"Highland Park even made a little history of its own during its comeback attempt, forcing Pulaski to punt for the first time in two years when it was facing fourth-down-and-30 deep in its own territory."

 

I believe his success has had far more to do with having talented players than it has had to do with not punting.

 

Exactly. Things are much easier to do when you are just better than the guy across from you.

Scorecasting: The Hidden Influences Behind How Sports Are Played and Games Are Won Paperback – January 17, 2012 by Tobias Moskowitz (Author), [TABLE=class: a-normal]

[TR]

[TD][/TD]

[TD=class: a-size-base]L. Jon Wertheim (Author)

 

When I read this book I first learned about this. This book touches on lots of things, such as -Should you pull a basketball player after his 2nd foul in the 1st half and 4th foul in the game. They say no. Are referees influenced by home crowds? Lots of other stuff.

 

Fun read, if you haven't read it I'd recommend it.

[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

 

Situation: 4th and 14 from your own 35 yard line, 10:00 minutes left in the 3rd quarter...do you punt?

 

Answer: Well, the first 3 plays you lost 4 yards...why would you think on the 4th play you would gain 14? How in the world in that situation would you think otherwise? Punt. Now are there situations where you might think about going for it or should go for it? Sure there are...but on average in this situation and many similar, you need to punt.

 

The ONLY time this guys philosophy works, in my opinion, is when you have the better team or at least a very good offensive team compared to the competition you are playing. Heck, KY had the best high school football team in the country 3-4 years ago as voted by at least one national organization (Trinity), and I don't think this philosophy would have worked for them against several of the nationally ranked, very good teams they played that year.

 

 

Let me go the other way.

 

If your team is not good or the underdog why NOT go for it? Do you feel better losing by 21 than 28?

 

If you are bad your D is probably bad, right? So you're going to either give them ball, using your example, from the your 35 or if you punt you might give it to them at their 35. Your D is bad. They're probably scoring any way. Why not take the chance?

A few years ago, when Highlands lost to Collins in the state championship (2013?).

 

Highlands had the ball late in the game around mid-field and it was 4th and 5 or less. I was watching the game at the stadium, and I said they should go for it. Everybody around me said they should punt. Smart football says punt and play defense and win the game. If Highlands had of gone for it, and gotten it, they would have won the game. They punted, and Collins has a ring because of that. If they hadn't of gained the yards needed, what would have happened? Collins could have scored and won. Instead, they punted and they scored and won.

 

I think if you're within 60 yards of scoring, I don't punt. If it's anything 3 or shorter, I don't punt. If it's late in the game, and I can ice it by getting that 1st? I won't punt. If my offense has really explosive ability? Won't punt. If my punter is really not that great? Won't punt.

 

I think there is a trend of more 4th down attempts, and that is going to grow over the next several years. I have 100% confidence in that.

 

I know, I know. "What if you're at you're own 2 and it's 4th and 50?" That's fine, I don't really know of a lot of times that really happens, but it can happen and has happened. But for me, the situations in which I would opt to go for it instead of punting are far more numerous. And if anything, I'd go with a quick kick that probably won't have much of a return opportunity, from the QB out of a regular offensive set.

 

 

And, I'm not trying to criticize anyone from Highlands or anything like that. I have the highest level of respect for what they do as a team and as a program as a whole. I was just using this because it was one of the biggest moments I could think of.

 

I'm probably not the guy to post this since I'm retired, not sure what day it is and don't remember what I had for dinner two days ago but I can't recall a punt by either team in the 4th quarter.

I'm probably not the guy to post this since I'm retired, not sure what day it is and don't remember what I had for dinner two days ago but I can't recall a punt by either team in the 4th quarter.

 

Heck, I could be completely wrong on this. But I seem to remember a late 4th down call to punt. But, barrel aged products since then might be changing things.

 

Maybe it was a completely different game that I've gotten the teams mixed up on.

 

 

Maybe I'm just a crazy person........

I did not know that about the pasta.

 

I failed to mention to also avoid the tendency to start with too much water in the pot as the more water you have the longer it takes to boil, so all that is necessary is about 1/3 full, or at least enough to cover the pasta.

 

I used to start with a pot about 2/3 or 3/4 full of water, wait about 15 minutes for it to boil and then another 7 or so to cook the pasta, but now I've got the whole process down to under 15 minutes.

I think something that the arguments are missing is this: This coach applied the analytics to his own program before committing to the "no punt" rule. The numbers may be different for other teams/programs. For instance, if you regularly have punters who can boom the ball, or if you do not typically have a high-octane offense, the numbers might be different.

 

Another aspect of this - how much practice time do you invest in punt team? Would it be better for your team to use that to rep offensive plays?

 

So it is possible that everyone on this thread is right. lol

Did anybody find it ironic that they don't go for two every time? Here they onside kick always and never punt, but just go for 1? Which, I don't get why more people don't go for two all the time......

Did anybody find it ironic that they don't go for two every time? Here they onside kick always and never punt, but just go for 1? Which, I don't get why more people don't go for two all the time......

 

I didn't realize that he didn't go for 2. That seems to be the least controversial decision in all of high school athletics, now. I know plenty of teams who always go for 2. Plenty of good coaches who believe in that, as well.

 

I get not punting. I get always onside kicking it. But, if you're doing those things, I would have assumed you would have a wealth of cute trick plays you run for every 2 point conversion.

I didn't realize that he didn't go for 2. That seems to be the least controversial decision in all of high school athletics, now. I know plenty of teams who always go for 2. Plenty of good coaches who believe in that, as well.

 

I get not punting. I get always onside kicking it. But, if you're doing those things, I would have assumed you would have a wealth of cute trick plays you run for every 2 point conversion.

 

One would think, huh?