As Jim Henley says, just because Gregg Easterbrook believes something doesn't make it false. Football teams are way more eager to punt than reputable statistical analyses of the situation suggest they should and Arkansas' Pulaski High School, where the coach was so impressed by the statistical case against punting that he abandoned punting altogether, is having success with their new strategy.
« The Density Dodge | Main | Before the Fall »
The Case Against Punting
02 Dec 2007 03:27 am
Comments (31)
"just because Gregg Easterbrook believes something doesn't make it false"
But Gregg Easterbrook believes that just because Gregg Easterbrook believes something doesn't make it false, which ipso facto proves that just because Gregg Easterbrook believes something does indeed make it false.
I can mathematically prove this.
Also, I've never understood why anyone would punt. Given that the rules of basketball state that you lose possession anytime you kick the ball, what's the point?
I agree. Gregg is wrong about almost everything, except about how coaches make really, really stupid decisions. It's frustrating; I'd rather he'd be wrong about everything.
Wouldn't the relative strengths and weaknesses of the two teams play into this somewhat?
If, relative to your team's opposing units, the opponent has a good offense and a so-so defense, then you'd want to keep the ball out of their hands, so going for it on fourth downs where most coaches would punt would be the thing to do. Fourth and two at your own 36? Fourth and six at midfield? Fourth and 12 at their 36? Damned straight - go for it.
But if they've got a so-so offense and a great defense, then punt, stop them, get the ball back.
Speaking of weenie defaults to punting, look no further than last night's Okla-Mizzou contest. Down 38-17 Mizzou has a 4th and 1-1/2 at their own 32 with roughly a minute and a half remaining. Yes, they're going to lose, no miracle is pulling this out of the fire. Still, it's 1-1/2 goddamned yards and an opportunity to continue on offense and maybe gain a little respect for going down swinging. They punt. I can only speculate Pinkel didn't want another Sooner score placing Mizzou's eventual bowl invite in a worse position. Still, bullshit football. Go for the damned first down. I hope they play in the Preparation-H Suppository Bowl for their cowardice.
While your at it, change the rules and get rid of the extra point kick. It has become so automatic it is without consequence. They should move it way back so it is a 50- 60% chance with 2 points, so the option for the 2 point run/pass conversion is more utilized.
The other point, which I think Easterbrook also mentions, is that having the mindset of going for it on fourth down gives you more options. If it's 3rd and 4 and you plan to punt if you don't make it, you'll probably go for a pass. If it's incomplete, that's it.
But 3rd and 4 and you think you're not going to punt, you have more room to try something else. Run for it on third; if you only make three yards, you can still try a quarterback sneak on fourth. Or pass on third down anyway.
But taking advantage of the extra down gives you a lot more options, and makes it more difficult for the defense. Since reading Easterbrook on this, it's made me think much differently about play calling in these third down scenarios. Why not treat all of these opportunities as two-play situations? Think about it the next time you watch a game.
My slogan is
Let's take the foot out of football.
No kickoffs,no punts, no field goals. No kickers!!! Fewer injuries on those high speed whole field plays. No more special teams specialists. More pure football. More drama, by several orders of magnitude.
Flip a coin to start the game, play starts at the winners own 40 yard line. After a touchdown start on the 40 again.
Simple, elegant, revolutionary.
Much more scoring. Much more fun.
I will grant that my no kicking football would lead to many, probably too many terribly lopsided games. Essentially over almost from the start.
I'm willing to compromise in some ways to prevent this. Looking for ideas.
When I am president it will be decreed. Along with banning golf. An evil game.
The problem with "don't punt ever" is the same as the problem with "punt on fourth down"-- it becomes an orthodoxy and strangles critical thinking. I'm a big proponent of punting less. But when it's fourth and 6 and your on your own twenty, punt the ball.
No kickoffs,no punts, no field goals. No kickers!!!
The NFL record for most kicks returned for touchdowns is 13, held by a guy who returned for 14 years. Devin Hester is sitting at 10, a season and a half into his career. You really want to get rid of him?
I so hope the Ravens try this against the Patriots on Monday night.
Don't punt, Billick!
You're too good for punts, offensive genius that you are!
Please play by the Pulaski rules. If only the Ravens could lose 84-0.
More 3rd down punting! Field position, field position, field position.
Punting has its place, especially early in games when your face long 4th down yardage on your own side of the field. In those instances, the momentum shift and psychological boost given to the opposing team when they stop your 4th down play has to be considered. For example, I'd never go for it early in the game on an 4th and 10 from your own 20 after failing to move the ball on the first 3 plays.
However what ALWAYS makes me scream at the TV is when teams who are trailing late in the game punt the ball away instead of going for it. I can't count how many times I see an NFL team down by 3 points punt the ball away from midfield with 3-4 minutes left in the game.
Think about how stupid that strategy is. BEST CASE scenario for punting is that your defense holds the other offense to 3 and out and you get the ball back on a deep punt with seconds left in the game and no time outs. WORST CASE you never see the ball again and the game is over.
On the other hand, best case scenario for going for it is that you keep the ball, run the clock down and win the game with seconds left. And worst case scenario for going for it is that you turn the ball over on downs and your defense still has to make the same 3 down and out stop that it would have had to make anyway if you punted. The only difference is the field position. Yes the other team is only one or two first downs away from scoring position, but they are only one or two first downs away from winning the game anyway no matter what the field position just by running out the clock.
BTW, I watched a Texas HS football playoff game yesterday in which one team just didn't punt. Worked fine for them. They made one 60 yard score by going long with the tight end on a 4th and 1 when the defense crashed the line.
Oh my God, this is so right! Punting is so overdone. Any attentive person always notices this.
The whole "punting is stupid" thing has been known for a long time by anyone who plays video games. Rarely does anyone punt in a head-to-head game of video football. Admittedly some element of machismo factors into this decision, but if punting helped you win people would do it.
Rarely does anyone punt in a head-to-head game of video football
And every fucking time Madden and Al Michaels get all "I don't understand this call" and "Now here's a play I don't understand..."
assholes.
I think this is more complicated than some of the studies make it look (if teams started going for it on forth down defenses would compensate to some degree). However It's so obvious you should punt far less than the current norm it really is odd at least a few coaches haven't adapted. NFL head coaching is an incredibly competitive job.
On the other hand it took them decades to get marginally competent at clock management. Maybe in another 20 years they'll figure this one out.
Coaches are risk averse. Punting never gets second-guessed, for some reason.
Ummm, DJ: the most successful coach in recent NFL history punts far less than any of the opposing teams. Easterbrook used to appreciate that until he decided that said coach was Nixon.
While your at it, change the rules and get rid of the extra point kick. It has become so automatic it is without consequence. They should move it way back so it is a 50- 60% chance with 2 points, so the option for the 2 point run/pass conversion is more utilized.
You do realize that football is played outside of the NFL, right? Frank Beamer (the VA Tech coach) has become ridiculously good at blocking punts and extra points -- his team returned one of the latter for a safety yesterday, and at least two extra points were blocked just yesterday only in broadcast games...extrapolated across the NCAA, that's a lot of blocked PAT's.
I'm interested in the few college teams that employ what generally get called 'rugby punters' -- ones that are mobile enough to give the coverage team an extra few seconds, and also kick for touch (i.e. field position) in rugby union fashion, or even execute the kinds of grubber kicks that potentially allow a recovery downfield.
With the advent of the Fearsome Returner (Dante Hall, Devin Hester) the punting skillset needs to change, or the coaching approach to its use.
Easterbrook's thoughts on football are at least as dumb as to everything else. He ignores counterevidence, he speculates, and he generally makes shit up.
If you find yourself agreeing with Easterbrook, you should take a deep breath, step back, and figure out what you're doing wrong.
His entire "philosophy" is based on the average gain per down, NOT the average gain on fourth down, NOT the average gain on short yardage, NOT the average gain by THAT TEAM, NOT the average gain surrendered by the opposing team, and NOT having anything to do with actual context of the situation, e.g., are you vs a good run defense, are you a good run team, is the defense playing well, is your punter playing well, are their special teams crap, did you just get stuffed on consecutive short yardage downs...
Non-dilettantes know that football games are won with field position. Giving the opponent the ball in your own territory is asking to lose, and to be (deservedly) fired.
The reason you don't punt in video game football is because every iteration of Madden or NCAA has a few "ace" plays that are nearly unstoppable. If you try them 4 straight times, you are nearly guaranteed to connect at least once for the first down.
In real life, there are no "ace" plays, no glitches to exploit for guaranteed first downs...
"Non-dilettantes know that football games are won with field position. Giving the opponent the ball in your own territory is asking to lose, and to be (deservedly) fired."
There are a lot of situations where coaches now punt, when they shouldn't because of this attitude. A punt losing the game doesn't get coaches fired, but if the coach goes for it then everyone calls for his head.
Between the 30-50 yard line it's a long field goal or a likely touchback on the punt. On 4th and short type situations it makes sense to go for it, or at least call your plays with the intention to go for it on third down. This means that third down doesn't necessarily have to be beyond the sticks, making it harder to defend.
Lastly, I was at a USC game where the opposing team was down by 3 and punted away at the end of the game. USC only had to down the ball 3 times to win it. Surprisingly, nobody complained that the coach made a horrible decision.
P: I remember a college coach (U. Minnesota, Fifties) who would punt on 3rd down from time to time. His plan was to catch the other team off guard and pin them back inside their own 10.
This could work when you could play ball control with a lot of reliable 3-to-5 yard gains, with a lot of 14-7 games coming out of that. Not so much with the open offenses.
even execute the kinds of grubber kicks that potentially allow a recovery downfield.
Contrary to the rules on punts, although not on kickoffs . . . a punted ball is dead once a member of the punting team touches it, unless a member of the receiving team touches it first.
rea: it's a knuckling bouncing kick, harder to catch and return, easier to muff.
"rea: it's a knuckling bouncing kick, harder to catch and return, easier to muff."
Depends on how far you can kick it, if it's going for 30 yards each time it's worse than booming the punt 50 yards and having a run back. Football Outsiders is a very good football stats site. They analyzed if it's better to kick to Devin Hester or not, and the stats showed it's better on average to just kick to him.
Not that there aren't situations where you'd never kick to him (not much time left, and a big return will hurt bad) or that you'd kick to him right down the middle. Kicking off to him is better field position wise than kicking out-of bounds or a squib kick, and punting to him is better than punting short and out of bounds. Many people remember his returns, but he's fumbled more often than he's had a touchdown return.
Point being that you base decisions based off what will statistically give you the best chance of win, not what is the "conventional wisdom"
>I remember a college coach who would punt on 3rd down from time to time. His plan was to catch the other team off guard and pin them back inside their own 10.
Randall Cunningham, 91 yards on third down vs the Giants.
The most annoying thing about the Easterbrook column these days is his whole, "Yes global warming is a big problem, but Al Gore is a huge hypocrit for flying around in a jet and producing extra fossil fuels while he publicizes the issue".
I sent him an email asking whether he (Easterbrook) was talking about the issue five years ago just to point out that maybe Al Gore's efforts were valuable. I'm not holding my breath for a response.
On the other hand, he is right about punting, he acknowledges Bill's wisdom in the matter, and he has also pinned down the reasoning: if a coach punts, he can blame the defense for losing. If he goes for it and misses, he gets blamed. The problem is that there is a default assumption that you should punt. I think this was true fifty years ago when there was much less offense, but as the average yards per play in the NFL has gone up, the balance has shifted dramatically. At the same time, you should punt even less in college and high school because the average yards per play might be the same, but the punters aren't as good. In the NFL a punt from your own 20 can be 50 yards of field position. In high school its rarely more than 20 yards.
Here's an idea for another Easterbrook column:
How about throwing 40 yard jump-ball passes on 4th down instead of punting? If your wide-out catches it, first down. If it gets intercepted (and your wide-out tackles the DB immediately), it's just as good as a punt.
That idea can sit right next to "don't ever punt" on the fence between brilliant and stupid.
Comments closed December 16, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Gregg Easterbrook's column is, as you imply and Henley makes clear, usually an embarrassment. His obsession with cheerleaders is creepy, his idiotic nicknames for teams is . . . well . . . idiotic, and his holier than thou attitude about New England this year just annoyed the hell out of me (and I'm not even really a New England fan; I mean c'mon, its professional football, these men are getting paid, who cares if their feelings are hurt).
But his analysis of football is spot on and remains the only reason I read his column. A perfect example happened tonight in the OU-Missouri game. Facing a 4th and 5 around their own 35 and down by 17 early in the 4th quarter, Missouri punted the ball away. Huh?! OU was running all over them and, predictably, chewed up clock. Shocking.
Posted by sean | December 2, 2007 3:47 AM