Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="javadoc, post: 1296720, member: 338"]
Therein lies the problem - it's not.  A lot of coaches think that punting in certain situations is straightforward.  We see data cited here to analyze punting decisions, where it cuts against the "gut feeling" that most coaches seem to have.  Absent that data, what do you really know about the total analysis?

You said, "All of the things that benefit the defense ... also benefit the offense so that's a wash."  That is not straightforward.  It may very well benefit one more than the other.  It may benefit one style of offense, or defense, more than others.

Imagine a DB covering a receiver.  The receiver knows which way he is going to run and when he will cut or fake.  The DB needs to be ready to react, regardless of which way his body is moving, so footing seems more important to him than to the WR, IMO.  The WR might slip, but it's easier for him to prepare his body for the cut he wants to make, because he knows when he will do it.  Thus, it seems to me that DB's benefit more from controlled conditions than WR's do.  I don't have numbers to back that up, but it seems plausible.

How much would an option-based run offense benefit from controlled conditions, versus running on a rainy or icy field?

I would agree with the generic statement that "everyone plays better" in a controlled environment.  Who gets the most marginal increase in performance?  That is not a question with a simple and obvious answer, IMO.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?