Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

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


Cape Fear Cat

Recommended Posts

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Would Morgan or Beason have been HOFers' if injuries hadn't derailed their careers?  I was not a close watcher of the game when Morgan was in his prime but I thought Beason had a few seasons at close to Lukes' level of play.
    • Franchise QBs feast when things are rolling and the tide that raises boats when things are going sideways.  Bryce isn't that. He's a complimentary player, that's it.  When the defense and STs are on point, he plays loose and it shows.  When we are in a dog fight and things haven't gone our way, he struggles.  It's that simple. He's not a horrible QB, but he's not top tier either.  So the question begs, is this worthy of a second contract?  The answer should be no.  It definitely is my answer. Bryce will never be a QB that can produce wins largely on his arm.  That's a FRANCHISE QB, any other QB is simply a placeholder at the starter's position until that guy can be found.   At some point the excuses of lack of weapons will be a straw man.  Heck, it's nearly there now.  I mean if he doesn't look even better than last year will we blame it on the TE position?  'Well if Bryce only had a player like Kelce, Kittle or Gronk on this team...'  Are we really going to do that?  
    • When I arrived at college, I was 18, not too much younger than some of these draft picks.  It was not a huge school, but there were guys on the team who were 21, 22, 23....playing ahead of me.  I was seventh on the depth chart.  Those guys have been through a few seasons, were stronger, more knowledgeable.  I was a better raw player than some of them, but those other factors matter.  As I grew stronger, more familiar with the playbook, and learned what it was like to play in college, I gradually improved and with that, I rose up the depth chart.  It took most of my freshman year for the light to come on.  Had the coach thrown me into the starting lineup day 1, I would have probably failed.    And that was college.  So I agree with you based on my experience on a much lower level.  Frankly, I think that is why so many kids drafted to fill huge gaps bust.  The teams are desperate.  Anyone who looks to fill vacancies in the starting lineup through the draft is desperate.  You draft depth to develop.  For this reason, I say, "Let Walker start for a while."  Maybe Brazzell can be our WR 4.  Throw Hunter into a rotation and ask him to do one or two things.  Freeling needs some strength and he needs to work on run blocking.
×
×
  • Create New...