Speaking of going for it on fourth down...not a bad write-up

[Cape Fear Cat]

I realize this is probably only marginally NFL related, but given the discord exhibited here over RR's failure to kick field goals, or to go for it on fourth down, etc., I found this to be an interesting read:

http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/men-action/201211/how-oregon-coach-chip-kelly-can-spark-moneyball-revolution-nfl

[Darth Biscuit]

I read this earlier today... I know that there are numbers and all behind what they're saying, but I'm not entirely convinced that those numbers translate to the NFL like they claim.

I do generally agree that NFL coaches tend to be much more conservative, and probably overly so, mainly because of the amount of money on the line for the owners, coaches and players.

[Inimicus]

This guy does a great job making the case for not punting and backs it up with lots of numbers : http://www.advancedn...udy-part-1.html

[rayzor]

if rivera doesn't stick around....i'm slowly moving towards the chip kelly bandwagon, as long as he can get a solid NFL-experienced coaching staff to work with him.

i love aggressiveness and i love creativity in playcalling.

said it many times before...chud's problem isn't that he was running a college offense instead of running a more "traditional" offense. it's that he got stuck in a rut that made his offense as predictable as jeff davidson's. chud's got a brilliant mind and quite a large playbook, but he's only been using a small portion of it.

the answer isn't running a "pro-style" offense. it's just in smart playcalling and taking advantage of the talent that you have and what the defense gives you. there's really not a whole lot of difference between "pro-style" and stuff that is used by most colleges (and a growing number of successful NFL offenses). the difference is in the size of the playbook and how much of it is used as well as how it's used.

any offense that sticks to just a few things will be easy to stop.

[Darth Biscuit]

I now have a statistically induced headache (thanks Inmicus) but that article was very informative...

This is kinda what I was saying, but he stated it a lot better...

David Romer's explanation goes a step further. He suggests that coaches are thinking more about their job security than their team's chances of winning. Coaches know that if they follow age-old convention by kicking and lose, then the players get most of the blame. But if they defy convention and go for the 1st down and fail, even if it was the best decision, they'll take all the criticism.

[Scrumtrilescent]

Overfitting data makes me sad.

[rayzor]

I read this earlier today... I know that there are numbers and all behind what they're saying, but I'm not entirely convinced that those numbers translate to the NFL like they claim.

I do generally agree that NFL coaches tend to be much more conservative, and probably overly so, mainly because of the amount of money on the line for the owners, coaches and players.

teams htat have had the most successful offenses in recent years have moved away from "pro-style" to spread offenses. teams are starting to catch on to the trend. the ones that are resistant to it are likely going to be falling behind.

as far as those numbers translating to the NFL...i don't know why they wouldn't.

[Darth Biscuit]

teams htat have had the most successful offenses in recent years have moved away from "pro-style" to spread offenses. teams are starting to catch on to the trend. the ones that are resistant to it are likely going to be falling behind.

as far as those numbers translating to the NFL...i don't know why they wouldn't.

I don't know that they wouldn't but what I'm referring to (in regards to the original article about Chip Kelly) is taking data from the college game and applying it to the pro game. The athleticism in the NFL is a huge factor.

[rayzor]

I don't know that they wouldn't but what I'm referring to (in regards to the original article about Chip Kelly) is taking data from the college game and applying it to the pro game. The athleticism in the NFL is a huge factor.

not sure it would be any different. offenses and defenses are still playing at the same (equal) level, esp. athletically.

[Peppers90 NC]

I think we see now with Medlocks lack of leg strength why we didnt go for a FG in the Chi game.

[jtnc]

I think we see now with Medlocks lack of leg strength why we didnt go for a FG in the Chi game.

Jonathan Jones said he was hitting from 50 during warm-ups that day and it was windy.....during that game so that is likely why we didn't kick it.

[Peppers90 NC]

Jonathan Jones said he was hitting from 50 during warm-ups that day and it was windy.....during that game so that is likely why we didn't kick it.

Not trying to defend RR, but maybe that was other side. I have no clue but we obviously didnt care about trying to score there.

[rayzor]

btw...i thought it was funny that the guy writing the article was calling out phil simms as an announcer. guess who we've got this week....

[Keith Moons Liver]

First article makes a pretty weak argument. Basically implies it only works because his offense can just overwhelm inferior teams. Most NCAA games are major talent mismatches, you don't see that in the NFL. There is definitely something to it, but the arguments in that article are weak.