Could Joe Judge have it all wrong?

...because in the real world, there are times when your team faces 4th and Long inside their own 10 or 20 or 30 yard line... that's why you punt... and yes, there are times when you need to cover those punts... and when you need to return a punt deep in your own territory...

no one was more of a Special Teams freak than Bill Parcells... he was meticulous about how the yards gained or lost in special teams altered the team's field of play.

If you have ever played the game long enough, you know that...

I remember watching the episode of "Real Sports" that featured him and found it interesting, and couldn't help but wonder how it would translate to the NFL?

Quote:

"Bill Belichick calls this coach " The best high-school coach in the nation." Kevin Kelley is head football coach at Pulaski Academy in Little Rock and has been featured on HBO Real Sports and Sports Illustrated. He was also USA Today national coach of the year. He has won 9 state championships & has a record of 216-29-1. His teams average over 500 yards a game. The best part is that coach Kelley never punts!"

That sounds like you're not actively doing anything, by never punting you're actively going for it on 4th down. Also, no run backs, what if the ball is kicked to the one yard line, do you take a knee?

[quote]On this Bring It In podcast episode, 1Huddle’s CEO and Founder Sam Caucci sat down with Kevin Kelley who has been deemed as the ‘mad scientist of football,’ gained cult-like fame for his unconventional football philosophy: he’s the coach who never punts. That might sound crazy to a lot of the football fans out there, but it works. As the head football coach at Pulaski Academy in Arkansas, Coach Kelley has won nine state championships and has one of the best offenses in the entire country. A few years back, TIME Magazine even deemed Coach Kelley’s no punt philosophy as the “33rd best invention of the year.”

Coach Kelley has been featured by ESPN and NFL Films for his “No Punt” philosophy, he’s been featured in ESPN’s 30 for 30, and he’s been featured twice by HBO Real Sports. He even gets calls from NFL coaches who want to discuss his strategy. Coach Kelley used an ESPN database to study college football history, and through his research, he discovered that when a team punts from near its end zone, the opponent takes possession inside the 40-yard line and scores a touchdown 77% of the time. If it recovers on downs inside the 10, the team will score a touchdown 92% of the time. So with the data behind him, Coach Kelley decided: no more punting. Now, he’s regularly featured in the national press all the time — the Washington Post said “Coach Kelley is a rogue high school coach, but his ideas are taken seriously.” Just recently, Coach Kelly recently accepted the job as D1 Head Football Coach at Presbyterian College.{/quote]

In comment 15359022 Mcphedge said:

Quote:

...because in the real world, there are times when your team faces 4th and Long inside their own 10 or 20 or 30 yard line... that's why you punt... and yes, there are times when you need to cover those punts... and when you need to return a punt deep in your own territory... no one was more of a Special Teams freak than Bill Parcells... he was meticulous about how the yards gained or lost in special teams altered the team's field of play. If you have ever played the game long enough, you know that...

Have a field goal kicker who can punt the ball out of bounds and take what you can get?

...oooops, he couldn't do that and DeSean Jackson took it to the house...

In comment 15359024 BestFeature said:

Quote:

That sounds like you're not actively doing anything, by never punting you're actively going for it on 4th down. Also, no run backs, what if the ball is kicked to the one yard line, do you take a knee?

As per no runbacks, I think it would be hard for kickers to consistently kick between the 5 yard and endzone (I think). Many would be touchbacks.

I wonder how many of our drives last year started inside the ten either due to poor decisions to run back or penalties. Its rare that a runner gets past the 25 without a penalty (it seems).

Not advocating for this strategy, just exploring "outside the box"

In comment 15359031 Mcphedge said:

Quote:

...oooops, he couldn't do that and DeSean Jackson took it to the house...

Not punting could not have turned out worse

Think that Joe judge keeps too many guys around that are only special team guys and its not like we saw a huge pay off with it last year Nate Ebner is no Steve Tasker and is taking a jersey on game day to do what really?

We're lucky to have JJ as the HC of the NYG for the reason stated above.

but might not? Special teams are the least of this team's worries.

.

In comment 15359026 steve in ky said:

Quote:

[quote]On this Bring It In podcast episode, 1Huddle’s CEO and Founder Sam Caucci sat down with Kevin Kelley who has been deemed as the ‘mad scientist of football,’ gained cult-like fame for his unconventional football philosophy: he’s the coach who never punts. That might sound crazy to a lot of the football fans out there, but it works. As the head football coach at Pulaski Academy in Arkansas, Coach Kelley has won nine state championships and has one of the best offenses in the entire country. A few years back, TIME Magazine even deemed Coach Kelley’s no punt philosophy as the “33rd best invention of the year.” Coach Kelley has been featured by ESPN and NFL Films for his “No Punt” philosophy, he’s been featured in ESPN’s 30 for 30, and he’s been featured twice by HBO Real Sports. He even gets calls from NFL coaches who want to discuss his strategy. Coach Kelley used an ESPN database to study college football history, and through his research, he discovered that when a team punts from near its end zone, the opponent takes possession inside the 40-yard line and scores a touchdown 77% of the time. If it recovers on downs inside the 10, the team will score a touchdown 92% of the time. So with the data behind him, Coach Kelley decided: no more punting. Now, he’s regularly featured in the national press all the time — the Washington Post said “Coach Kelley is a rogue high school coach, but his ideas are taken seriously.” Just recently, Coach Kelly recently accepted the job as D1 Head Football Coach at Presbyterian College.{/quote]

So Kelley coached his very first college game last weekend against St. Andrews. They won 84-43. Their QB is a transfer from Michigan. Ren Hefley. He threw 10 TDs in the game. They never punted. ; )

and they have no rooting interest except for the money. If it was up to them teams they bet on would go for on 4th down at least 80% of the time and the math backs them up. But it would have to be a head coach who has the GM and owners support to do that and no f**ks to give because the fans and media would kill him every time they got stopped.

You do see some of that gambling math mentality coming into play on going for 2 after TDs. The math supports that as well but the announcers, most fans and the media do not.

As far as Joe Judge goes I think it's fair to examine his roster emphasis on STs. But the NFL game has changed so much. LT used to play STs and so did a lot of the starters in the Parcells years.

Has its place in the game. The 3 point shot had been part of the NBA for decades until teams REALLY started to exploit it... now it makes perfect sense. It takes a brave and dedicated soul (several, in fact) to start the revolution. I'm with those who favor thinking outside the box. Perhaps not 100% of the time, but certainly it needs to be part of the decision-making process. Going for 2 instead of the PAT is another '3-PT shot' moment teams need to consider more. It's a bit harder in the NFL because there are so many 'moving parts' (players on the field and such), compared to the NBA.

But he is still pretty conventional in his thinking. Would love to see him try punting much less often. I don’t think he is there yet and I doubt he ever will be. But maybe when he has more confidence in Jones, the OL and the offense. Maybe.

much more than coaches of his era. It still was a small percentage of the time. But since literally no other coaches had the guts to do it it seemed revolutionary.

They practice onside kicks every day, using a variety of techniques. They kick onside almost every time after they score, and they probably have a better success rate than most since they are practicing them all the time. The idea is that if you don't give up the ball every time after you score, you could score several times in a row. In the 84-43 victory, they kicked onside 9 times.

I remember an interview with him back in the day. He said something to the effect that the best chance a rebuilding team had of beating a superior team was on a big special team's play. As a result he gave a lot of attention to special teams. Just because a coach goes for it on 4th down a lot doesn't mean he doesn't emphasize special teams.

What Giant coach didn't emphasize special teams ? Fassel. It cost us dearly.

and disliked by a lot of people that post here because they are too young to have lived the Giants Camelot days. IMO they see Parcells as just an old school motivator who coached LT and had Belichick as his genius DC. Both things are true but do Parcells a disservice. He was ahead of his time and didn't beat Bill Walsh and Joe Gibbs by accident.

I see a lot of Bill Parcells in Joe Judge. More than Bill Belichick even though Belichick trained him. The Bill's both had something Judge does not and he may never overcome it. Both Bill's had excellent QB's. Judge so far does not. It took Parcells too long to identify Simms but once he did the Giants took off.

I didn't write this. It's what Parcells used to talk about in the 80's:

Quote:

My football mentor loves Bill Parcells. Loves him. And for good reason. He is one of the best coaches in NFL history (I would have him top 10, maybe top 5). He was a great personality and was able to communicate and get through to all sorts of different players. His coaching tree along with Bill Walsh’s is almost as impressive as it gets. But there is one other thing about Parcells – he used analytics. Even though he has been quoted as saying “People are into analytics now, and they think that makes them visionaries”.[1] This quote is actually fairly true as analytics now are focused on predictability – what is sticky game to game or year to year. Regardless, Parcells used analytics and believes in them leading to various quotes and thinking about football. My mentor always said that 100 yards equaled 7 points. Well he got that from Parcells who said that he “always believed that 100 yards of field position is worth 7 points. Bill Parcells thought hidden yardage was important to winning games. And it turns out, he was right. There is a weak association between hidden yardage and points scored. But when offensive yards are added to hidden yards, there is a very strong positive relationship between that, and points scored. 100 offensive yards are approximately equal to 7 points and 100 hidden yards are approximately equal to a field goal. What is the main takeaway then? Yards matter. As simple as it seems, getting yards whether it be via offensive or special teams or defense is important. While there is a stronger relationship between points scored and offensive yards, hidden yards are important as well. Thus, if a team wants to score more points and improving the offense isn’t an option (due to talent, coaching etc.) then the team is best off getting creative and stealing yards with special teams.

There are 3 articles footnoted at the end of the one linked. I think all are interesting when trying to figure out why Joe Judge is keeping so many ST players.
Primitive Analytics: Bill Parcells’ Hidden Yardage - ( New Window )

I think Bill Parcells is actually underrated as an X's and O's coach

without special teams making huge plays for us.

Full disclosure:
None of the statements below are based on statistics, but I believe them to be true.

1. Kickoff from 35 yard line (used to be 30) leads to more touch backs and less returns

2. Touchbacks causes ball to be placed at 25 yard line (used to be 20). Changing risk/reward ratio of retuning kicks.

3. Elimination of wedge blocking on kickoff returns leads to less return yards and more holding penalties.

4. Institution of 2pt option after touchdown and moving back location of 1 point kick attempt changes risk/reward ratio of trying for 2.

5. Protecting receivers and QBs along with PI rule changes (no contact after 5 yards) have made offenses much more explosive. There are now less defensive battles in NFL games. Many more offensive yards and points per game. Field position battle is much less important than previously. Explosive offensive players, quality dbs and edge rushers have never more been important. Ratio of ST yardage/ points compared to Offensive yardage/ points has changed significantly.

These are just a few thoughts off the top of my head that make the defensive/ field position battles of the Parcells era NFL much less important (strategies need to change with times / rule changes).

I'd rather have a better DB then Ebner or better WR then Board on the roster rather than these special teams "specialists".

I would also be happy if the Giants never again returned a kick off from inside their endzone. Between bad returns and penalties is seems like we always end up starting inside the 25 whenever we try to return them. Less injuries as well.

In the NFL, where field position can win or lose a game as most games are close. Field position is a huge factor and special teams can give you 3 or 4 more wins in a season.

In comment 15359492 cjac said:

Quote:

In the NFL, where field position can win or lose a game as most games are close. Field position is a huge factor and special teams can give you 3 or 4 more wins in a season.

I get it. Its the obvious risk. I guess I disagree with how important field position is compared to the pre "offensive fireworks" NFL. See Dallas/TB game. Was field position important in that game? If Giants try to win the way the did in the 80s/90s with D / field position / kill clock strategy, they will continue to lose while GB/TB/KC continue to win with unstoppable offenses.

And, although, I agree that you will give up easy points by not playing for field position, it COULD be that sustaining drives, winning time of possession, and more offensive opportunities MAY make it worth it. Going into every 1st down knowing you have 4 tries rather that 3, will, no doubt, make a difference in % of drives leading to scores.


I'm curious because I'm not sure about the outcome. It intrigues me because I like to explore unconventional ideas.

In comment 15359541 bcinsd said:

Quote:

In comment 15359492 cjac said: Quote: In the NFL, where field position can win or lose a game as most games are close. Field position is a huge factor and special teams can give you 3 or 4 more wins in a season. I get it. Its the obvious risk. I guess I disagree with how important field position is compared to the pre "offensive fireworks" NFL. See Dallas/TB game. Was field position important in that game? If Giants try to win the way the did in the 80s/90s with D / field position / kill clock strategy, they will continue to lose while GB/TB/KC continue to win with unstoppable offenses. And, although, I agree that you will give up easy points by not playing for field position, it COULD be that sustaining drives, winning time of possession, and more offensive opportunities MAY make it worth it. Going into every 1st down knowing you have 4 tries rather that 3, will, no doubt, make a difference in % of drives leading to scores. I'm curious because I'm not sure about the outcome. It intrigues me because I like to explore unconventional ideas.

I guess you missed all those missed FGs by Dallas the other night. Or the game winning FG.

That was special teams

In comment 15359548 cjac said:

Quote:

In comment 15359541 bcinsd said: Quote: In comment 15359492 cjac said: Quote: In the NFL, where field position can win or lose a game as most games are close. Field position is a huge factor and special teams can give you 3 or 4 more wins in a season. I get it. Its the obvious risk. I guess I disagree with how important field position is compared to the pre "offensive fireworks" NFL. See Dallas/TB game. Was field position important in that game? If Giants try to win the way the did in the 80s/90s with D / field position / kill clock strategy, they will continue to lose while GB/TB/KC continue to win with unstoppable offenses. And, although, I agree that you will give up easy points by not playing for field position, it COULD be that sustaining drives, winning time of possession, and more offensive opportunities MAY make it worth it. Going into every 1st down knowing you have 4 tries rather that 3, will, no doubt, make a difference in % of drives leading to scores. I'm curious because I'm not sure about the outcome. It intrigues me because I like to explore unconventional ideas. I guess you missed all those missed FGs by Dallas the other night. Or the game winning FG. That was special teams

Yes I saw and loved it!
But I would blame the misses on the individual kicker rather than a special teams failure

I never suggested not kicking FGs. In fact, in my initial post I mentioned specifically that FG and On-sides kick teams shouldn't be neglected and would be exempted.

But, whatever. Your traditional view might be right. Just some thoughts that amused me to think about while anxiously awaiting the start of the season.

Hoping for the best, but I'm a little PTSD re: recent opening day disappointments.

In comment 15359053 bw in dc said:

Quote:

In comment 15359026 steve in ky said: Quote: [quote]On this Bring It In podcast episode, 1Huddle’s CEO and Founder Sam Caucci sat down with Kevin Kelley who has been deemed as the ‘mad scientist of football,’ gained cult-like fame for his unconventional football philosophy: he’s the coach who never punts. That might sound crazy to a lot of the football fans out there, but it works. As the head football coach at Pulaski Academy in Arkansas, Coach Kelley has won nine state championships and has one of the best offenses in the entire country. A few years back, TIME Magazine even deemed Coach Kelley’s no punt philosophy as the “33rd best invention of the year.” Coach Kelley has been featured by ESPN and NFL Films for his “No Punt” philosophy, he’s been featured in ESPN’s 30 for 30, and he’s been featured twice by HBO Real Sports. He even gets calls from NFL coaches who want to discuss his strategy. Coach Kelley used an ESPN database to study college football history, and through his research, he discovered that when a team punts from near its end zone, the opponent takes possession inside the 40-yard line and scores a touchdown 77% of the time. If it recovers on downs inside the 10, the team will score a touchdown 92% of the time. So with the data behind him, Coach Kelley decided: no more punting. Now, he’s regularly featured in the national press all the time — the Washington Post said “Coach Kelley is a rogue high school coach, but his ideas are taken seriously.” Just recently, Coach Kelly recently accepted the job as D1 Head Football Coach at Presbyterian College.{/quote] So Kelley coached his very first college game last weekend against St. Andrews. They won 84-43. Their QB is a transfer from Michigan. Ren Hefley. He threw 10 TDs in the game. They never punted. ; )

I also read that he doesn't allow his team to return punts. He says the risk of turnovers outweighs yardage benefit.