The Scott Shafer Show (before Duke)

[upperdeck]

Less than 33% (conservatively pessimistic odds of conversion), we know that

There are sites and charts that assign the expected points for having the ball at every point of the field allowing you to back into a break even first down conversion percentage

do these sites with all the numbers break it down by good teams and bad teams? do good teams with good olines go for it more on 4th and one and make it than bad teams with bad olines? does it factor momentum, socre of game, weather? how do teams with their 8th best line and 3rd best QB do?

too many numbers by stats guys that have no basis of reality. these numbers assume all teams are equal.

 

[Millhouse]

im lost what mistake did he make again?

punting from the 37 on 4th and 5

 

[Millhouse]

do these sites with all the numbers break it down by good teams and bad teams? do good teams with good olines go for it more on 4th and one and make it than bad teams with bad olines? does it factor momentum, socre of game, weather? how do teams with their 8th best line and 3rd best QB do?

too many numbers by stats guys that have no basis of reality. these numbers assume all teams are equal.

this is a steaming pile of bullsh!t only used to justify kicking. this silliness makes the perfect be the enemy of the good. do the numbers have enough data with josh parris has a blister? do they? DO THEY?

if momentum is a thing, it's never even considered what conversion would mean for momentum

the bullsh!t is always so one sided, it's never even considered that sh!tty offenses have an easier time scoring when they have the ball closer to the other team's endzone

why is the default always to kick with a million different factors? where are the numbers supporting that? there aren't any. you demand perfect data in a one sided way when you should try to be more objective on both sides

plenty of sites do factor in score of the game. and shafer fails miserably in that respect. like the stupidest punt in history against maryland

 

[upperdeck]

so we punted held them, forced them to punt from the 14 and normally would have gotten the ball at the 50 so a 10 yard net change in FP is bad? their kid had a monster punt and we got it at the 35 and lost yards.. he we punts it 35 its a net zero. his prev punt from the same place should be ignored because thats what he did 35 yard punt.

if we go for it fail and he punts it 60 we get the ball at our 10..

and did it really matter we got the ball back and had FD at the 22.. then the INT.. so why does the punt have any right or wrong associated with it? the better the D is playing the more teams would punt there.

 

[Millhouse]

so we punted held them, forced them to punt from the 14 and normally would have gotten the ball at the 50 so a 10 yard net change in FP is bad? their kid had a monster punt and we got it at the 35 and lost yards.. he we punts it 35 its a net zero. his prev punt from the same place should be ignored because thats what he did 35 yard punt.

if we go for it fail and he punts it 60 we get the ball at our 10..

and did it really matter we got the ball back and had FD at the 22.. then the INT.. so why does the punt have any right or wrong associated with it? the better the D is playing the more teams would punt there.

i'm sure you know what expected values are but for some reason, football turns off that part of your brain.

if you punt at the opposing team's goal line, force a fumble and recover it in the end zone, that would be a smart play by this logic

 

[upperdeck]

this is a steaming pile of bullsh!t only used to justify kicking. this silliness makes the perfect be the enemy of the good. do the numbers have enough data with josh parris has a blister? do they? DO THEY?

if momentum is a thing, it's never even considered what conversion would mean for momentum

the bullsh!t is always so one sided, it's never even considered that sh!tty offenses have an easier time scoring when they have the ball closer to the other team's endzone

why is the default always to kick with a million different factors? where are the numbers supporting that? there aren't any. you demand perfect data in a one sided way when you should try to be more objective on both sides

plenty of sites do factor in score of the game. and shafer fails miserably in that respect. like the stupidest punt in history against maryland

I think most of the stats sites are just numbers with little basis in fact. if you wanted to do it correctly you would use the numbers and the cause/effect together but that requires watching the game and analyzing each play.

I dont think the punt was the right call, that doesnt make it bad call. by this argument 95% of the coaches would have punted with that scored and position but most the numbers dont even factor the score

i think we can agree that we all want more aggressive coaching, was the fake not being aggressive?

 

[javadoc]

if we go for it fail and he punts it 60 we get the ball at our 10..

Then don't fail. Seize the victory, or go home.

I don't want my coach fretting over "what if we don't make it" in that position.

A loss is easier to take if you at least tried to win it.

 

[Chip]

so we punted held them, forced them to punt from the 14 and normally would have gotten the ball at the 50 so a 10 yard net change in FP is bad? their kid had a monster punt and we got it at the 35 and lost yards.. he we punts it 35 its a net zero. his prev punt from the same place should be ignored because thats what he did 35 yard punt.

if we go for it fail and he punts it 60 we get the ball at our 10..

and did it really matter we got the ball back and had FD at the 22.. then the INT.. so why does the punt have any right or wrong associated with it? the better the D is playing the more teams would punt there.

We don't have a punt returner who can move the ball, so you think net 36 yards is the average punt?

 

[Millhouse]

I think most of the stats sites are just numbers with little basis in fact. if you wanted to do it correctly you would use the numbers and the cause/effect together but that requires watching the game and analyzing each play.

I dont think the punt was the right call, that doesnt make it bad call. by this argument 95% of the coaches would have punted with that scored and position but most the numbers dont even factor the score

i think we can agree that we all want more aggressive coaching, was the fake not being aggressive?

lots of stupid calls are aggressive. i want them to be smart. punting at the 36 isn't

 

[upperdeck]

i'm sure you know what expected values are but for some reason, football turns off that part of your brain.

if you punt at the opposing team's goal line, force a fumble and recover it in the end zone, that would be a smart play by this logic

can you point to a single team that is winning games by using numbers other than a small streak by Oakland A's

maybe we need to start a school so we can make the decisions based on what the numbers say, but then we have to use the numbers all the time cant make any decisions with our gut.

 

[upperdeck]

We don't have a punt returner who can move the ball, so you think net 36 yards is the average punt?

it was that game and he ran it back 8 yds on the next kick. you could put the number one punt returner in the ncaa on our team and he would be averaging 10 yds a return.

 

[SWC75]

he say anything about Foy?

It's not in my scribbled-down notes.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

so we punted held them, forced them to punt from the 14 and normally would have gotten the ball at the 50 so a 10 yard net change in FP is bad? their kid had a monster punt and we got it at the 35 and lost yards.. he we punts it 35 its a net zero. his prev punt from the same place should be ignored because thats what he did 35 yard punt.

if we go for it fail and he punts it 60 we get the ball at our 10..

and did it really matter we got the ball back and had FD at the 22.. then the INT.. so why does the punt have any right or wrong associated with it? the better the D is playing the more teams would punt there.

This is why this is maddening - if your D was playing well, try to keep the ball!

The thing is though, how the d is playing doesn't matter. You have to have the ball to score. Keep the ball!

 

[Millhouse]

can you point to a single team that is winning games by using numbers other than a small streak by Oakland A's

maybe we need to start a school so we can make the decisions based on what the numbers say, but then we have to use the numbers all the time cant make any decisions with our gut.

since you're going outside college football - San Antonio Spurs

you don't need data to know that turnovers are bad when it's easy to keep the ball

fans have intuitively known this for years - you don't have to know how to teach defensive line technique to intuitely know probabilities. crowds boo and they're right. wisdom of crowds

 

[Millhouse]

This is why this is maddening - if your D was playing well, try to keep the ball!

The thing is though, how the d is playing doesn't matter. You have to have the ball to score. Keep the ball!

upperdeck's whole schtick is to ignore probabilities entirely and when it's all said and done, go back and look for plays that ended up making a big difference. if they had stripped the maryland bubble screen guy and returned it for a TD, game would've been totally different. always absolves the film watchers.

 

[Millhouse]

and using the numbers allows you to back into an imputed break even conversion odds. coaches can then use their addled brains to subjectively factor in momentum, crappy offense, whatever.

and the rest of us will subjectively say that there's no way those factors mean as much as the idiot meathead assumes.

we've seen so many times where the offense just quits after his stupid punts. the thing is, they can see how little the head coach thinks of them when he kicks there

they scored 3 points after that punt

 

[TheCusian]

I've gone around on the "to punt or not punt thing" a few times - and I'm starting to think these guys would be better off creating an arbitrary rule like "We don't punt when we are across the 50" rather than looking at the game clock, down and distance, etc (unless it's super extreme like 4th and 25 or something).

Need to get out of their own way.

 

[Millhouse]

I've gone around on the "to punt or not punt thing" a few times - and I'm starting to think these guys would be better off creating an arbitrary rule like "We don't punt when we are across the 50" rather than looking at the game clock, down and distance, etc (unless it's super extreme like 4th and 25 or something).

Need to get out of their own way.

you'd definitely need crude rules of thumb.

it's easy to just start at the 50. if you're at the 50, picking it up benefits you as much as not picking it up benefits them. so whatever yardage gives you a 50/50 or better shot of converting, go for it

as you get closer to the other end zone but are still out of FG range, bump up the yards to go.

you could just use a chart from the new york times.

 

[javadoc]

you'd definitely need crude rules of thumb.

And maybe some time practicing or scrimmaging in which you are not allowed to punt at all, and the only thing that matters is how many real points the offense scores.

 

[Millhouse]

And maybe some time practicing or scrimmaging in which you are not allowed to punt at all, and the only thing that matters is how many real points the offense scores.

curious why you need that?

 

[SWC75]

I'd prefer to see a coach take more chances than we've seen. Doug Marrone used to describe the mental equation this way: "Do I have a good enough team to overcome the results if we fail?" I think the equation should be: "If our team isn't as good as theirs and we do everything in a conventional fashion, what is the likely result?" I still remember all the things that Maine coach threw at Marrone's superior team that gave us so much trouble. We did beat them but we did it in spite of Maine's tactics, not because of them. I wonder what might have happened if we played that way vs. Penn State, Florida State, Notre Dame, Clemson, etc.

I also recall years ago when Gene Stallings was coaching Alabama. They had a 4th and 9 at the end of an SEC title game against Florida and went for it. They ran the ball, got about 4-5 yards and Florida ran out the clock. The announcers debated running with the ball on 4th and 9. One said "Gene Stallings has always been a conservative coach". I wondered about that statement. What are the odds of running for a 1st down on 4th and 9? Isn't that actually a bigger risk than throwing the ball int hat situation? "Conservative" should mean you play the percentages, not go against them. "Conventional" and "timid" are different words entirely.

So I agree that Shafer should have gone for it on 4th and 3 with 6:58 left.When you are an underdog or depleted or simply down on the scoreboard, especially late in the game, you need to be aggressive. But I don't see it as an indictment of Shafer as much as I see it as an indictment of the vast majority of coaches, who likely would have done the same thing. if you view that as a reason to search for another coach, you need to make sure it's a coach who would have gone for it in that situation. Rightly or wrongly, you won't find a lot of them.

 

[Millhouse]

I'd prefer to see a coach take more chances than we've seen. Doug Marrone used to describe the mental equation this way: "Do I have a good enough team to overcome the results if we fail?" I think the equation should be: "If our team isn't as good as theirs and we do everything in a conventional fashion, what is the likely result?" I still remember all the things that Maine coach threw at Marrone's superior team that gave us so much trouble. We did beat them but we did it in spite of Maine's tactics, not because of them. I wonder what might have happened if we played that way vs. Penn State, Florida State, Notre Dame, Clemson, etc.

I also recall years ago when Gene Stallings was coaching Alabama. They had a 4th and 9 at the end of an SEC title game against Florida and went for it. They ran the ball, got about 4-5 yards and Florida ran out the clock. The announcers debated running with the ball on 4th and 9. One said "Gene Stallings has always been a conservative coach". I wondered about that statement. What are the odds of running for a 1st down on 4th and 9? Isn't that actually a bigger risk than throwing the ball int hat situation? "Conservative" should mean you play the percentages, not go against them. "Conventional" and "timid" are different words entirely.

So I agree that Shafer should have gone for it on 4th and 3 with 6:58 left.When you are an underdog or depleted or simply down on the scoreboard, especially late in the game, you need to be aggressive. But I don't see it as an indictment of Shafer as much as I see it as an indictment of the vast majority of coaches, who likely would have done the same thing. if you view that as a reason to search for another coach, you need to make sure it's a coach who would have gone for it in that situation. Rightly or wrongly, you won't find a lot of them.

I think framing it as "taking chances" isn't accurate.

The old fashioned "safe" punt is often riskier. Taking chances shouldn't take sides between offense and defense. Depending on your defense to stop a 1st down can be taking a greater chance than depending on your offense to convert a 1st down.

 

[RF2044]

I think framing it as "taking chances" isn't accurate.

The old fashioned "safe" punt is often riskier. Taking chances shouldn't take sides between offense and defense. Depending on your defense to stop a 1st down can be taking a greater chance than depending on your offense to convert a 1st down.

True. Coaches have a visual aid chart to help them determine whether to go for 2 or not depending on the score, so that they don't have to think about the math behind the logic. Why can't they have a similar cheat sheet for when to punt or not based on down / distance?

 

[javadoc]

curious why you need that?

If your coaches are stuck in the "we're going to punt on 4th down no matter what" mindset, the play calling is likely to be different than if you have to get the first down. 4 plays to get 10 yards vs 3. I would think that unless you force people to operate in that environment, it's easy for them to regard it as some weird fantasy world heard of only in rumors. The sense I get from 2-minute drills is that the offense runs quickly but conventionally, with the only difference being that you "go for it" on 4th. There has to be another mode, where time isn't the issue, and you work toward manageable distance on 4th down instead of 3rd.

 

[SWC75]

A cool thing to do: Pick a game, either against an over-matched opponent,, (or one that over-matches us), or a late season game after we are bowl eligible or know we can't be, and set up a thing where the fans can text whether they'd like to go for it on fourth down or punt and that's what we do. it would probably pump up the attendance for that game and it would give either the coach or the fans something to think about in making these calls.