Never Punt - The Orange Mane

Lidderer · 08-12-2006, 02:41 PM

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/200...analysis/4059/

Quote:

When a football team fails to convert on third down, it usually punts. And when it punts, it is turning the ball over to the other team. So why isn’t a punt considered a turnover, just like an interception or fumble?

I started with this simple idea and began exploring it as far and in as many different directions as it would take me. Over time, it has grown into a theory that redefines a turnover and uses this new definition to see what a team can do to improve their net turnovers and win more games. This theory presents two significant implications:

* A team would win more games if they never punted, and
* A team that never punts would not just be employing a different strategy but would approach the game in a fundamentally different way, which would further add to their success.

warning: quite lengthy

ludo21 · 08-12-2006, 02:46 PM

everything from th em is.

I highly doubt that this, " A team would win more games if they never punted" is true.

Id like to it be tested..... maybe if every 4th down is 4th and 3 or less its possible....

MechanicalBull · 08-12-2006, 03:19 PM

Didn't Herm have a quote saying if you Punt that it is a good thing for your team?

A punt is turning the ball over to the other team but most of the time they are getting the ball deep in their own territory so it's not just like an int or fumble. So if a team is 4th and 9 on their own 10 and don't get the first down, then the other team gets a TD in a play or two it's a good thing?

Crushaholic · 08-12-2006, 03:24 PM

Didn't the game a couple of years ago between KC and Indianapolis feature no punts? Of course, that's because neither team could stop the other from going down the field...

Inkana7 · 08-12-2006, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crushaholic

Didn't the game a couple of years ago between KC and Indianapolis feature no punts? Of course, that's because neither team could stop the other from going down the field...

Yeah, that was a 2003 Divisional Playoff game. The Chiefs D Coordinator quit the next day.

enjolras · 08-12-2006, 04:18 PM

Sounds like the academic paper a couple years ago suggesting teams should attempt MANY more 4th down conversions than they do now. I remember the uproar that caused... and its funny, because the academic was quite likely right.

RhymesayersDU · 08-12-2006, 04:37 PM

I'm gunna go ahead and call b.s. on this... I'll admit I didn't click the link, but if it's 4th and 10 at your own 20 yard line, you're supposed to go for it? This isn't Madden.

Lidderer · 08-12-2006, 05:29 PM

what's counter-intuitive gets immediately dismissed, like right out-of-hand, a lot of the time.

This is why it took our ancestors so long to invent electricity and ghost ridin' the whip.

Rock Chalk · 08-12-2006, 06:34 PM

I think the academic that did the study that teams should punt less is closer to the truth.

The fault in his logic is that a punt turns the ball over. True. But so does a turnover on downs if you fail to convert. The difference being, where the ball is turned over.

Like many said, going for it on 4th down deep in your own territory is not a smart thing unless its desperation time in which case you haven't much choice. However, I am a firm believer that once you pass midfield, punting should be taken out of the playbook just to show that you have confidence in both your offense AND your defense IF the offense fails. Small things like that could make all the difference in how the players react to the situation.

Hypothetical: You are up by 6 points, you have the ball on your own twenty yard line and its 4th and 7 with about 2 minutes left to play. This guy says you go for it.

How this would work out:
1) You convert and manage to run the clock out.
2) You turn the ball over by fumble behind the line of scrimmage.
3) You throw an interception OR fumble beyond the line of scrimmage.
4) You gain no yards (incompletion or stuffed run) and turn the ball over on downs.
5) You gain not enough yards (shallow pass or short run) and turn the ball over on downs.
6) You throw a pick six.
7) You get called on a pre-snap penalty and now its fourth and longer.
8) The opposition gets called for offsides or encroachment plus 5 yards. Still short but now its 4th and 2.

Of the 8 options (and there are probably more) only 1 option involves not hurting yourself. The last option (8) doesnt hurt, but it doesnt convert either.

So 75% of outcomes are the other team getting the ball. 12.5% of the outcomes are you converting. 12.5% of the outcomes is neither a conversion nor the other team getting the ball.

NOw thats not the actual percentages, just the percentage of given outcomes to the situation. Converting on 4th and 7 is probably a low number in the 12.5% range anyway.

Refusing to punt ever in a game is more often than not going to hurt you, rather than help you. The only way you win more games by never punting (and this is of course, if things go your way) is if your defense can prevent TDs in the red zone with a very high efficiency and your offense can score TDs to cover Field Goals your idiotic coach let the other team get for free because he didnt punt.

DarkHorse30 · 08-12-2006, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RhymesayersDU

I'm gunna go ahead and call b.s. on this... I'll admit I didn't click the link, but if it's 4th and 10 at your own 20 yard line, you're supposed to go for it? This isn't Madden.

ditto.

Lidderer · 08-12-2006, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkHorse30

ditto.

weird how when something so immediately against the grain gets mentioned, and even addresses this fact, people still say dumb ish like "lol no way, dumb4life, omg get out!"

I mean c'mon.

rubaiyat · 08-12-2006, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MechanicalBull

Didn't Herm have a quote saying if you Punt that it is a good thing for your team?

A punt is turning the ball over to the other team but most of the time they are getting the ball deep in their own territory so it's not just like an int or fumble. So if a team is 4th and 9 on their own 10 and don't get the first down, then the other team gets a TD in a play or two it's a good thing?

What I'm guessing from the second question is that they are also saying you'd enter the game with a significantly different mindset. You will now be planning sets of downs with 4 not three. So 2nd or even 3rd and long are not necessarily pass plays but could set up draws or something as mundane as run plays.

EDIT - IE you won't BE in those situations very much as the opposing defense will have to expect just about any play for 3 maybe 4 straight plays depending on how the yardage worked out on the first 3.

watermock · 08-12-2006, 10:12 PM

A punt with less than yards to go inside the 34 is idiotic. Watching 13 yard change of possesions is pathetic. Even If we only get to the 25 it's not big deal IMO.

Arkie · 08-12-2006, 10:13 PM

I think teams punt too much, and should usually go for it on 4th and 3. It's all about conversion probabilities. However, "Never punting" sounds like a horrible strategy in a game set up on a grid where the object is to put your team in a position to score while keeping your opponent out of position to score.

watermock · 08-12-2006, 10:19 PM

Yes, but punting to get yards is worthless IMO.

If it's 4th and 5 from the 35, i go for it.

-Slap- · 08-12-2006, 10:27 PM

"Never Punting" was the title they finally chose for this article, but they nearly called it "Field position, Schmield Position".

rubaiyat · 08-12-2006, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by -Slap-

"Never Punting" was the title they finally chose for this article, but they nearly called it "Field position, Schmield Position".

In briefly reading the article, it seems they do take into account field position...just that the act of committing a turnover appears to be the overriding condition.

IE sure starting at your 20 and giving your opponent a chance at midfield would likely lead to a loss, but not automatically giving your opponent the ball when failing on 3rd down would appear to counteract it (because you've given yourself another set of downs to drive the ball even more).

EDIT - The bigger issue appears to be ignoring momentum and how one play often changes the pace of a game. The author is approaching football as a statistical event with high number of interchangeable events that follow a gaussian distribution of probability. But as fans, we know some plays or not plays are far more critical than others and that the players are not some atoms colliding with each other but can be taken out of the game or enter the zone.

Arkie · 08-12-2006, 11:16 PM

What are the chances of picking up 5 more yards when you've only picked up 5 yards on the first 3 downs? Would 4th and 5 be worth going for in your opponents FG territory? You would be giving them a high probability of 3 points or maybe a touchdown. Odds are that the 4th and 5 would fail, and it would be like giving away free points.

rubaiyat · 08-13-2006, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arkie

What are the chances of picking up 5 more yards when you've only picked up 5 yards on the first 3 downs? Would 4th and 5 be worth going for in your opponents FG territory? You would be giving them a high probability of 3 points or maybe a touchdown. Odds are that the 4th and 5 would fail, and it would be like giving away free points.

Where is your situation taking place? In range for your FG or your opponents?

If your opponent is in range for a FG, then the point (not that I agree with it) is that you won't find yourself in that situation as much as you are much more free in playcalling given another down.

The defense can't cheat on any of the first three downs.

And again, a RB that averages a mere 2.5 yards per carry could still be effective in this offense. THAT is the big thing.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

08-12-2006, 02:46 PM	#2
ludo21 RIP Darrent Williams Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Glendale, AZ Posts: 17,898 Adopt-a-Bronco: Paul Ernster	everything from th em is. I highly doubt that this, " A team would win more games if they never punted" is true. Id like to it be tested..... maybe if every 4th down is 4th and 3 or less its possible....

08-12-2006, 03:19 PM	#3
MechanicalBull Interesting Times Ahead Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 2,825	Didn't Herm have a quote saying if you Punt that it is a good thing for your team? A punt is turning the ball over to the other team but most of the time they are getting the ball deep in their own territory so it's not just like an int or fumble. So if a team is 4th and 9 on their own 10 and don't get the first down, then the other team gets a TD in a play or two it's a good thing?

08-12-2006, 03:24 PM	#4
Crushaholic Armchair Poster Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Topeka, KS Posts: 22,039	Didn't the game a couple of years ago between KC and Indianapolis feature no punts? Of course, that's because neither team could stop the other from going down the field...

08-12-2006, 04:18 PM	#6
enjolras Ring of Famer Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 6,939	Sounds like the academic paper a couple years ago suggesting teams should attempt MANY more 4th down conversions than they do now. I remember the uproar that caused... and its funny, because the academic was quite likely right.

08-12-2006, 04:37 PM	#7
RhymesayersDU Go Broncos, Nuggets, Rox GANGNAM STYLE Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Back In The 303! Posts: 14,812 Adopt-a-Bronco: Ty Lawson	I'm gunna go ahead and call b.s. on this... I'll admit I didn't click the link, but if it's 4th and 10 at your own 20 yard line, you're supposed to go for it? This isn't Madden.

08-12-2006, 05:29 PM	#8
Lidderer & Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 1,780	what's counter-intuitive gets immediately dismissed, like right out-of-hand, a lot of the time. This is why it took our ancestors so long to invent electricity and ghost ridin' the whip.

08-12-2006, 06:34 PM	#9
Rock Chalk Cheeky Bastards Laus Deo Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: The Backside of the Internet Posts: 29,940 Adopt-a-Bronco: Chris Harris	I think the academic that did the study that teams should punt less is closer to the truth. The fault in his logic is that a punt turns the ball over. True. But so does a turnover on downs if you fail to convert. The difference being, where the ball is turned over. Like many said, going for it on 4th down deep in your own territory is not a smart thing unless its desperation time in which case you haven't much choice. However, I am a firm believer that once you pass midfield, punting should be taken out of the playbook just to show that you have confidence in both your offense AND your defense IF the offense fails. Small things like that could make all the difference in how the players react to the situation. Hypothetical: You are up by 6 points, you have the ball on your own twenty yard line and its 4th and 7 with about 2 minutes left to play. This guy says you go for it. How this would work out: 1) You convert and manage to run the clock out. 2) You turn the ball over by fumble behind the line of scrimmage. 3) You throw an interception OR fumble beyond the line of scrimmage. 4) You gain no yards (incompletion or stuffed run) and turn the ball over on downs. 5) You gain not enough yards (shallow pass or short run) and turn the ball over on downs. 6) You throw a pick six. 7) You get called on a pre-snap penalty and now its fourth and longer. 8) The opposition gets called for offsides or encroachment plus 5 yards. Still short but now its 4th and 2. Of the 8 options (and there are probably more) only 1 option involves not hurting yourself. The last option (8) doesnt hurt, but it doesnt convert either. So 75% of outcomes are the other team getting the ball. 12.5% of the outcomes are you converting. 12.5% of the outcomes is neither a conversion nor the other team getting the ball. NOw thats not the actual percentages, just the percentage of given outcomes to the situation. Converting on 4th and 7 is probably a low number in the 12.5% range anyway. Refusing to punt ever in a game is more often than not going to hurt you, rather than help you. The only way you win more games by never punting (and this is of course, if things go your way) is if your defense can prevent TDs in the red zone with a very high efficiency and your offense can score TDs to cover Field Goals your idiotic coach let the other team get for free because he didnt punt.

08-12-2006, 10:12 PM	#13
watermock "Hoodie Jr" "Hug me!" Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Hot Springs, Ouachitah Posts: 77,090	A punt with less than yards to go inside the 34 is idiotic. Watching 13 yard change of possesions is pathetic. Even If we only get to the 25 it's not big deal IMO.

08-12-2006, 10:13 PM	#14
Arkie Ring of Famer Gggggrrrrrr rrrraaaahhh Arrrrhhhn. Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 9,080 Adopt-a-Bronco: Quinton Carter	I think teams punt too much, and should usually go for it on 4th and 3. It's all about conversion probabilities. However, "Never punting" sounds like a horrible strategy in a game set up on a grid where the object is to put your team in a position to score while keeping your opponent out of position to score.

08-12-2006, 10:19 PM	#15
watermock "Hoodie Jr" "Hug me!" Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Hot Springs, Ouachitah Posts: 77,090	Yes, but punting to get yards is worthless IMO. If it's 4th and 5 from the 35, i go for it.

08-12-2006, 10:27 PM	#16
-Slap- Ring of Famer Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 31,895	"Never Punting" was the title they finally chose for this article, but they nearly called it "Field position, Schmield Position".

08-12-2006, 11:16 PM	#18
Arkie Ring of Famer Gggggrrrrrr rrrraaaahhh Arrrrhhhn. Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 9,080 Adopt-a-Bronco: Quinton Carter	What are the chances of picking up 5 more yards when you've only picked up 5 yards on the first 3 downs? Would 4th and 5 be worth going for in your opponents FG territory? You would be giving them a high probability of 3 points or maybe a touchdown. Odds are that the 4th and 5 would fail, and it would be like giving away free points.