We don't need no stinking punter!

[packrat]

http://highschool.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=892888

[CaptainKickass]

I love it. Great article. Football innovation should never stop or be prohibited.

Challenge the norm.

[red]

i like it

you get 4 downs to get a first down instead of 3

[packrat]

And you are saving a Roster spot from not having to carry a punter. Always going for the onside kick makes sense, too, when your special tams are as bad as the Pack's.

[Badgerinmaine]

And you are saving a Roster spot from not having to carry a punter. Always going for the onside kick makes sense, too, when your special tams are as bad as the Pack's.

Uh, that would be special teams doing that, too...

[Guiness]

And you are saving a Roster spot from not having to carry a punter. Always going for the onside kick makes sense, too, when your special tams are as bad as the Pack's.

Or two spots

[SnakeLH2006]

Ruvell can punt....sorry his roster spot is taken as the BFF (it shows) as of ARod..that's why we are winning et al...

[BobDobbs]

I was having this exact same discussion with a friend of mine during the Bears game. He was telling me that we should never punt, it is statistically inferior, and the only reason coaches do it is because if you go for it and then give up the TD on the short field you'll be grilled mercilessly. But, if you punt it and give up the TD on the return or a longer field than your judgement isn't questioned.

I was telling him that it was a crazy idea and that field position matters and gives you points and points win games. Also, that examples from college and high school level don't necessarily transfer to the pros, because of the difference in film study and athleticism.

I don't know, he's a math major from Harvard and I'm a liberal arts drop out so I have no business arguing stats with him. But, in my gut it just seems wrong. Our differences about what level of risk to gain should be put forth played out a little later. The Packer's had the ball at about the five, 4th and one, up by four.

I was saying clearly you take the easy three to put your self up by a touchdown. Maybe if it only put us up by six it makes sense to go for it, but a team should always take a touchdown lead.

He said no way. A fourth and one is a very high percentage conversion so you take that risk to allow yourself to go up by eleven. We know what happened. McCarthy runs DeShawn Freakin' Wynn (Insane Call?) and it works. We then proceed to FAIL on the TD conversion, and that may have cost us the game.

However, if we had failed on the fourth and one, we maybe don't even go to overtime where we get the opportunity for the coin to bounce off of Grant's helmet instead of Urlacher's, which provides us with a different outcome. Maybe.

What do you think is all this statistical analysis best left for baseball? Or will we see a total overhaul of pro football strategy that will be the equivalent of blitzing or putting men in motion?

[Patler]

The factor that strikes me in this coach's particular situation is that he apparently has a very potent offense. It can pick up yardage (the first down) and make up points surrendered when they don't get a 1st and the other team scores from its super great field position. If you have a team that struggles to score points, anything that lengthens the odds of the other team scoring a TD is important. A punt from deep in your own territory would probably be the better choice.