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

    • Sure it does, maybe not every position and not every draft.  You have to admit the hit rate goes down the further in the draft you get.  Would you more readily find a generational talent at the #2 pick or #19 pick?  High picks are considered "busts" if they doesn't pan out, whereas guys drafted later don't have that level of scrutiny upon them.  Different expectation levels.  If Styles does indeed go #2, I already listed the rarefied air that he would be in.  Maybe he doesn't set the League on fire, but my gut feeling is he does.  Again, you don't take an off-ball LB #2 if he is just a 'really good' player.
    • To illustrate my point, I watched (and commented on the Huddle) that Rozeboom would often wait a full second (or close to it) before taking his first step.  I assume that he probably had issues with false steps, a faulty practice that can take an ILB out of the gap completely.  Watch Luke and you see a step with the snap, and rarely was it a false step.  Rozeboom may have had 100 tackles (speculating) but initial contact was 2-3 yards on the defensive side of the ball.  Luke's 100 tackles were made 1-2 yards from the LOS.  Over the course of a year, Luke was much more productive (more fumbles, fewer long gainers, more OL penalties, fewer first downs, etc) that Rozeboom, but on the stat sheet, they both had 100 tackles.  In fact, Rozeboom's inefficiency kept him on the field more (more first downs, fewer OL penalties, turnovers, and punts) so he should have MORE tackles.   I would like to see stats that break down those things.   For example again, Josh Norman was slow--4.68 or so at CB.  However, his anticipation speed was incredible.  He made as many plays as a 4.4 CB.  I had one coach (college--later became the head coach at WCU) tell me that slower players have to use their brains more to still be around.  Elite athletes can just get by on their physical superiority.  He added, "Rarely does a football player run full speed.  Most of the time, they are not, so the 40 time is misleading stat.  Smart players overcome shortcomings--when the elite athlete becomes average (slows with age, advances in level of competition) they struggle against smarter (football IQ) competition.  
    • Obviously tongue in cheek hyperbole. But we do not need a first round RB to compete for a championship. We need intelligent roster building. That to me is the complete opposite of intelligent roster building because it is a prime resource at a devalued plug and play position when we have needs across the defense.
×
×
  • Create New...