Kickoff Specialist

[Steve]

Maybe all of you should just admit that math is beyond you. Because that is what you are basically saying. If you would all like, I will stop making mention to it, but mostly because all of you seem seem so dreadful at it. Increasingly, NFL teams are using it more and more, and the Chargers have basically admitted they are trying to find ways to understand the game. Most NFL teams don't use analytic, but TT and MM have already admitted that they use some. They won't admit what areas they use it, but this seems like an obvious area. Besides, there are ST coaches who still would prefer to follow this method (a couple years back at a NE regional coaching meeting).

The other load of bullshit some are prancing around is that we keep Stuckey, Gachkar, Walker and Tutu around for punt coverage? How many of Scfries punts are even fielded? You don't need to spend that much money to cover punts, or even kickoffs if the goal is to just kick out of the endzone. If that where the strategy we were planning on using why would any of those guys be on the team? Clearly there is an emphasis to cover kickoffs and punts, despite the fact that all the players, while OK backups is pretty limited on O & D.

The other thing no one has addressed is Novak. If he has has such a weak leg, how can he consistently kick 50+ field goals, where the ball clearly has plenty of leg? With a longer approach to the ball on kickoffs you don't think he get the ball deep into the endzone at all? Really? Not even if he line drives it? There are plenty of those other kickers who have to line drive it, but the get their touchbacks, but do even though they risk returns. Novaks leg is not the problem, it is a deliberate act.

Also, why do the Chargers sometimes try directional kickoffs?

Just about everything the chargers do is based on field position, and they put a great deal of thought into everything they do. But most fans and sportswriters still like to go with the emotional gut checks and and let their emotions make all their decisions. I'm just glad the chargers don't.

[Steve]

Your expected points analysis is incorrect based upon the very chart you cited and the actual kickoff return data supplied by OIP.

First, from the 10 to the 20 yard line and from the 20 to the 30 yard line, the expected points chart is nearly linear. There is a tiny gain of about 0.1 points by the time you reach the 10 versus when you reach the 30 in terms of the difference in expected points from the value at the 20. But that tiny gain is more than offset by the fact that the vast majority of returns, as documented by OIP, are beyond the 20.

The result is that a team is worse off kicking the ball short, assuming that the team had the choice to go for TBs, when it comes to expected points. Your reference to a drastically sloping non-linear gain by pinning a team back is completely unsupported nonsense. Even if you pin a team all the way back to 5 yard line on a kickoff, which is rare even with a penalty or fumble, the expected points gain is no better than what is lost by allowing the much more common event of a return to the 40 yard line or so.

Surrendering a return past the 40 is more common than pinning a team back inside the 5 yard line on a kickoff and produces a worse result in terms expected points difference versus the value at the 20 line.

Essentially, your own cited chart and the actual kickoff return data we have shows that your analysis is dead wrong. Your inability to recognize this makes me wonder if you are correctly reading the chart because there is no way that you can combine OIP's data and the chart and conclude that kicking short is the best strategy versus kicking TBs.

You didn't seem follow the punt rule for gunners even after I quoted it for you, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you aren't putting together the data with the chart, but I have to admit that I am surprised. You went to the trouble of citing the expected points chart, but you have failed to combine it with the data that we have to see which approach is really better.

You are just dead wrong. And that probably has everything to do with the fact that no team that has a kicker that can get regular TBs uses the strategy you are suggesting in normal kickoff situations.

Add in the pdf and it is far from linear. Plus, you are underestimating how important the inflection point at the 20 yard line. BUt to really get the whole idea, you have to start putting all the factors together, and then it is far from linear. The return, the ensuing drive for us, because we start closer. When you add in the fact that we have so few 3 and outs (or did until recently), we come out way ahead, but those factors don't help much in isolation as they do together, and you need to start combining those factors. But that is beyond your mathematical skills,which are very limited to begin with.

[richpjr]