Our special teams have been abysmall the past few years, pathetic. If we are going to get greedy and talk super bowl, I need to see a marked change in our special teams.
They change field position, they win and lose games. I hope we drafted players to correct this.
Obviously having good punter, kicker and returner are key, but so is having roster depth. For years the Browns have had shallow rosters. The guys who make up the lower end of position groups are who cover and block on special teams. As the depth of those position groups improves, so, in theory, should the quality of special teams players.
I think Dorsey and Freddie understand the importance of having good Special Teams. A lot of our best ST'ers were cut in recent years. Guys like Bademossi, Mingo, Desir, Moore, etc and we counted on guys like Ricardo Louis. Thank goodness we don't have to watch that any longer.
Agreed. One of the things I meant to say in my post was that there should be players who are listed in position groups, but who are, in fact, primarily ST players.
True that. Especially as we get depth and the competition gets more intense. Ability to help ST play is crucial. Can be crucial in wins, can be responsible for losses.
This group has picked some just for ST skills; the general group will need to shine to be kept.
I think everyone drafted is going to play special teams if they make the team (exception is Greedy) We did need a jolt on special teams, that is certain.
We drafted a kicker who holds the BCS record for points. (Seibert) We signed a big-legged punter known as the Scottish Hammer. (Gillan) We signed a kick return demon from a junior college. (Sheehy-Giuseppe) We drafted 3 players with impressive ST tape. (Takitaki, Redwine, Wilson)
I don't know how any of these moves will work out, but it is clear to me the Browns are doing everything they can think of to improve special teams. My opinion is that some will work, others won't, but the results will be better than last year.
Did we improve as team on Special Teams...um yeah!
We went HO-HUM to I think a dominate ST unit. We also got ourselves a reliable kicker.
Honestly I was thinking ok we will go on 4th down a lot. and We will score a lot of TDs...and oh well we go 2 point conversion all the time. So all we got to do is have a good Kick Off guy...which is what we have. Now we got a guy who will kick Ex Points and be steady consistent in his FGs. Also a pressure guy who to win a game will not kick a low knuckleball to pray and hope we get it.
He kicks it high and consistently accurate.
Punter Colquitt is good better than average but a little competition with the Scottish kid. He will probably go on the side possibly practice squad or a - "kid if nobody picks you up stay close" any injury to Colquitt we are signing you.
In the mean time our new kicker also can punt.
So we have a lot of potential ST beasts in the coverage department.
I know we got a pretty good OL kid to help on our returns and we got Hunt who can return and of course Duke.
But we got several WRs that will make this team as a Return specialist...would like to see Wilkes and/or Ratley make that move!
We drafted a kicker who holds the BCS record for points. (Seibert) We signed a big-legged punter known as the Scottish Hammer. (Gillan) We signed a kick return demon from a junior college. (Sheehy-Giuseppe) We drafted 3 players with impressive ST tape. (Takitaki, Redwine, Wilson)
I don't know how any of these moves will work out, but it is clear to me the Browns are doing everything they can think of to improve special teams. My opinion is that some will work, others won't, but the results will be better than last year.
What is he doing nowadays? Liked him until his snapping went south. Also always loved that sig of "Fear us for we have Pontbriand!" That one broke me up from the first time I read it.
Our special teams will get better because the bottom of roster got better. When you have talented players playing special teams the unit will get better.
While that is certainly true, it appears that Dorsey & co. made moves and choices to specifically target players for special teams. Both Redwine and Wilson have big ST plays in their highlight tapes, and Takitaki was a key ST player on his team. Add to that the drafting of Seibert and the signing of Gillam and Sheehy-Guiseppi all appear to directly address ST needs.
If we had a somewhat reliable kicker, I think we try for a field goal at the end of the Baltimore game, instead of going for it on 4th and 10. What would have that been, a 55 yard field goal?
Looks like that drive stalled at the 39, so I believe that would be a 54 yard fg attempt.
Blaming our special team's woes on ST coach is unsound thinking. It kills me how so many people who are not athletic enough to play checkers think they can evaluate football.
Blaming our special team's woes on ST coach is unsound thinking. It kills me how so many people who are not athletic enough to play checkers think they can evaluate football.
Being athletic and evaluating football having nothing to do with each other.
Also, the special teams coach was bad. So were the players. Those two combined make a poop soup.
Being athletic and evaluating football having nothing to do with each other.
I was just quoting Baker.
I will add that you don't have any idea if the ST's coach was bad or not. ST's aren't real complicated schematically. Most people used to put the blame on the Teflon Man. What was his name? Tabor? He gets fired and people celebrate.
The players on the ST unit's were bad. Most of that was due to the roster decisions that were made.
Blaming our special team's woes on ST coach is unsound thinking. It kills me how so many people who are not athletic enough to play checkers think they can evaluate football.
If watching Holmgren on his golf cart taught me anything, it's that I'm more than athletic enough to coach/evaluate football.
Athleticism or lack thereof clearly has little to no bearing on one's ability to evaluate. Still, evaluators don't have to be jerks about it. That will inevitably draw sharp retorts as Baker's tweet illustrates.
I suppose I could blame the HC, who based on the results didn't give special teams enough of a focus.
And again, I will tell you that the schemetaics of coaching special teams is pretty much universal. Our ST unit was horrible under Tabor, as well.
The previous regime cut a ton of very good ST players and kept guys who they drafted instead. Those players were plugged in to the ST units and expected to perform. They didn't.
I watched us have everything in place and a guy like Ricardo Louis simply whiff on a tackle. I saw us perfectly defend a fake punt and the outside guy miss the tackle.
I know I won't convince you and others because you have your minds made up. That's cool. I made my point and will move on.
Being athletic and evaluating football having nothing to do with each other.
I was just quoting Baker.
I will add that you don't have any idea if the ST's coach was bad or not. ST's aren't real complicated schematically. Most people used to put the blame on the Teflon Man. What was his name? Tabor? He gets fired and people celebrate.
The players on the ST unit's were bad. Most of that was due to the roster decisions that were made.
I agree. It's not like the ST coach dials up the TD return play. Players make that happen.
He might call pinch right or pinch left, then players run their lanes. On special teams it is probably 95% or more on the players.
Blaming our special team's woes on ST coach is unsound thinking. It kills me how so many people who are not athletic enough to play checkers think they can evaluate football.
Really, this is your new AGENDA now...slamming Baker at any chance you can... SAD..
One thing I hadn't considered that I heard on Nate Ulrich's podcast about the Scottish Hammer is that he has never held before because he kicked and punted in college. That is a huge disadvantage in his battle against Colquitt and something that could hugely affect the team in a real game.
I've always preferred having a back-up QB hold on place-kicks because it creates the possibility of a fake FG, and it makes a fake more likely to succeed. It also plants a seed with the defense that they had better be mindful of protecting their edges instead of deploying an all out speed rush from the outside. Plus, in the event of an errant or fumbled snap, a QB would be about 10 times more likely to make something positive out of it than a punter would be.
versatile, I think our special teams has been pretty bad under every “regime” the past decade. I do not think it has anything to do with coaching. for years the top half of our roster has been pretty bad. when the top of the roster is bad the bottom half stinks. that leads the front office to constantly “churn” the bottom of the roster looking to add someone with a little more talent to the roster. but that means there is frequent inseason changes in the special teams and they never develop as a cohesive unit.
Our roster is way better now and I will bet that the number of inseason changes will be much less. therefore I predict our st will be much improved.
versatile, I think our special teams has been pretty bad under every “regime” the past decade. I do not think it has anything to do with coaching. for years the top half of our roster has been pretty bad. when the top of the roster is bad the bottom half stinks. that leads the front office to constantly “churn” the bottom of the roster looking to add someone with a little more talent to the roster. but that means there is frequent inseason changes in the special teams and they never develop as a cohesive unit.
Our roster is way better now and I will bet that the number of inseason changes will be much less. therefore I predict our st will be much improved.
Our special teams has been lacking ever since Cribbs and Dawson left Cleveland. Big shoes to fill, as Cribbs IMO is a Hall of Famer, and Dawson has been our most consistent/clutch kicker since 99. Between the both of them, Cribbs and Dawson were the only hopes we had at winning games in the dark days of not having a competent offense.
However, I don't completely agree that our special teams unit will be any better just because the top half of our roster is. I don't think thats an equal correlation; to me, its no different than finding a franchise QB, or a HoF left tackle... We just haven't found that shining star at special teams who simply takes over. And thats either returning kicks/punts, but also on the other end at gunner. HOpefully someone on our current 90-man roster 'takes over' this year.
Turk, it is more from the fact that the bottom half of the roster has been improved enough that we will not be constantly bringing in new guys, thus our special teams will stay together and develop more cohesion and function better.
Be fair. Its stunk it up regularly last year. We improved in my opinion with getting some people out of town . Maybe we are not sure about new fills, but one triage rule is to first stop the bleeding. Some of that has been addressed or will be with coach changes.
unless the difference in capability is marginal or negligible, I'd prefer they use the best talent available for the task.... even if his name is Kellen Winslow, Jr.
unless the difference in capability is marginal or negligible, I'd prefer they use the best talent available for the task.... even if his name is Kellen Winslow, Jr.
Easy to say, until an injury actually happens.
I'm cool with a starter being out there to return kicks/punts, but if you're blocking/tackling.. naw... I wouldn't risk it. Thats just me.
Until the rosters are expanded I think you must use starters on ST. Its an important part of the game. Who is keeping the roster Low??? Players Union or Owners???
If they excel in it...Let the starters contribute. If we are talking about return guy when we are down or needing a spark, if that guy is Holloway fine even if its OBJ fine...We got to do what we have to do to win games.
Hilliard has to make the team. What if this guy Giuseppi turns out to be a solid return guy. Does Hilliard remain when Hunt comes on the roster.
unless the difference in capability is marginal or negligible, I'd prefer they use the best talent available for the task.... even if his name is Kellen Winslow, Jr.
Easy to say, until an injury actually happens.
I'm cool with a starter being out there to return kicks/punts, but if you're blocking/tackling.. naw... I wouldn't risk it. Thats just me.
I said it even when the starter got injured. The entire sport is risky; you don't play scared.
Were the Cleveland Browns playing the wrong players on special teams last year?
BEREA, Ohio -- Were the problems on the Browns’ special teams units a year ago a result of playing the wrong guys?
According to the special teams efficiency metrics from Football Outsiders, Browns special teams ranked 21st last year, dragged down by particularly bad punt coverage (30th) and kick return (30th). Out is special teams coach Amos Jones, in is special teams coach Mike Priefer, who last year in Minnesota oversaw a special teams unit ranked 14th in the league, ranking in the top 10 in both punt coverage and kick return.
But it’s not really the coaching. Before the fifth OTA practice on Wednesday, Priefer admitted he’s not going to scheme up a special teams plan to outdo another coach. It’s the players. While reluctant to critique the special teams of a year ago, Priefer did question a personnel decision that dates back to former coach Hue Jackson.
(Did anyone head to the second session of OTAs open to the media expecting for someone to suggest a faux pas by the previous coaching staff? No. But in the search for the little details of change that may help Freddie Kitchens succeed where the Jackson failed, well, our ears are always open.)
“It looked like some of the best players on special teams were on the sidelines,” Priefer said. “At the end of the day, sometimes you’ve got to put your best players out there. Sometimes your best players are on offense and defense.”
As examples with the Browns, Priefer cited starting linebackers Joe Schobert and Christian Kirksey and starting safety Damarious Randall as potential impact special teams members -- on occasion.
“I wouldn’t use them a lot,” Priefer said. “That would be dumb on my part.”
But he could use them at times, if, you know, it helps the Browns win. Kitchens has emphasized special teams since the moment he was given the job, and Priefer has felt that support in OTAs. He said other expected starters like running backs Nick Chubb and Kareem Hunt, tight end David Njoku and cornerback Denzel Ward have been in special teams meetings and part of special teams drills.
Typically, the special teams aces are the second-team safeties, corners, linebackers, receivers, running backs and tight ends, and Priefer said if the Browns don’t need to use any offensive and defensive starters on special teams, great. But if they do? That’s what now is for.
“If I’m going to ask guys to perform for us, I need to prepare them. So when the head coach says get them ready, I’ll get them ready,” Priefer said.
A year ago, among the 15 players who took part in the most special teams snaps, four also were major players on either offense or defense: starting safety and return man Jabrill Peppers; T.J. Carrie, a part-time starter at corner; and backup safeties Derrick Kindred and Brien Boddy-Calhoun. Chubb made an impact on coverage units before he turned onto the No. 1 tailback.
But Ward (54 special teams snaps), Schobert (46), Randall (25) and Kirksey (19) were special teams non-factors, while backups like linebackers Tanner Vallejo and D’Juan Hines and cornerbacks Taveirre Thomas and Denzel Rice played primary roles.
Vallejo, Hines and Rice are all gone now. Thomas is in a fight for a roster spot. As the Browns become a better team, their depth will improve, and that means their special teams will improve. Among young players catching Priefer’s eye so far, he mentioned rookie safety Sheldrick Redwine and rookie linebackers Mack Wilson and Sione Takitaki, all taken in the middle rounds of the draft, as well as undrafted rookie linebacker Willie Harvey.
Those are potential special teamers to rely upon -- guys on the way up -- as opposed to some of the special teamers last year, who were guys on their way off the roster. Beyond them, the Browns added a true special teams specialist in safety Eric Murray, acquired in a trade with Kansas City, while Priefer also pointed out second-team linebacker Ray-Ray Armstrong, who was 15th in special teams snaps last year.
Of Murray, Priefer said, "He’s got want-to, intelligence and athleticism. He knows if he’s not starting on defense, he’ll play all four core special teams. I love that. We’ve got several guys like that.”
Last year, the Browns didn’t have enough of them. What Priefer said he’s looking for now are guys who want to play special teams, because anyone who isn’t an offensive or defensive starter and doesn’t show special teams desire “will be somewhere else or on the street,” Priefer said.
The work now is on simple techniques -- footwork and hand placement and the art of avoiding special teams penalties, which killed the Browns at times last year. They’re putting in the time -- this is Priefer’s 18th season coaching NFL special teams and he said he’s never had a coach put as much time into it in OTAs as Kitchens.
“Our head coach is not just lip service,” Priefer said. “He’s shown it. He wants to do well on special teams.”
It’s also not just lip service that the Browns could make a jump. With the draft picks the Browns made in 2018, they combined for only 419 special teams snaps. Baker Mayfield and Chad Thomas didn’t play there, and none of the other rookies were core special teamers.
Now, with Redwine, Wilson, Takitaki and maybe cornerbacks Greedy Williams and Donnie Lewis, up-and-coming talent should at least triple the numbers of rookie special teams snaps from a year ago. Throw in Murray and Armstrong as veterans, and the willingness to use starters like Randall, Schobert or Kirksey when necessary, and you can see how the Browns could fix this.
It’s the players. But it’s also coaches willing to put the special teams players on the field needed to win.
What I like is that these guys are LBs and DBs, not WRs. In the NFL, you can have a long career if you are a ST stud. It keeps you on the roster, and puts you in a position to compete for time on offense and defense.
Freddie giving STs equal time also gives these guys a sense of being a big part of the team. An equal part you could say. As a team that has started just about every drive from inside the 20, it would be nice to do that to the opponents for a change.
Thanks for posting and my commentary has nothing to do w/you posting this.
However, as soon as I saw this...
Quote:
Were the Cleveland Browns playing the wrong players on special teams last year?
...I knew who the author was.
People get on Grossi and Mary Kay. Rightfully so. However, Lesmerises is the most clueless and biased reporter on the Cleveland scene. He reminds of two posters on this board. Hmmmm...........
Until your star TE breaks his leg on an off-sides return.
Well it didn't prevent him from riding a rocket in the parking lot to End his career so to speak. We should have drafted Big Ben...I always saw that as one of our biggest mistakes. Nobody builds a team around their TE... smh at our FO
Very worried about our kicking game, can’t go to the super bowl without a somewhat reliable kicker.
Everytime I read
Did we improve special teams?
I want to say NO! but the kicking game is still an unknown, if somehow they find a kicker that hits at an NFL normal, plus, then we could say yes.
I also want to think Shehee Gueseppi is going to make the team as a return specialist, which would probably be an improvement
But then ask myself, if the NFL even allows kickoff and punt returns by rule anymore? They changed the blocking allowed by rule since Cribbs played, and where the kickoffs start and the touchbacks place the ball, but then with Goddell as commissioner, who knows what the rules are, it's just change and change for changes' sake change the overtime, change the extra point, change the definition of a catch, change the definition of a catch a 2nd time, don't allow celebration without penalty, watch every team celebrate in groups without penalty, Change what a block is, change where you can hit, don't allow a hit to a knee, make a pancacke block a personal foul, change if an offensive player can hit with their head while running with the ball outside of the hash's, Change everything,
If they can improve special teams, good luck, if they can understand the rules, even better for them.
If you draft a talented kid from college and he actually lives up to his billing. You got a guy that should be productive and accountable on your team for 15+ years! I would hope that we would draft a late rounder every year till we got it right. I've seen this kid kick and he is pretty consistent and he gets so much HEIGHT on the ball which I cannot explain how important that is.
With no empirical evidence, just gut feeling, I see Siebert making the team about 70%, about 50% for Gillan, and about 20% for Sheehy.
That said, I think it would be cool if all came about. I've never been comfortable with Joseph. Having a punter with a cool nickname is, well, cool, especially if he can live up to it. And if Sheehy makes the team it will be because he truly impressed.
I don't know what it was, but last year a lot of Joseph's successful kicks were iffy. Just inside the pole, barely helicoptering over the cross bar. Did not instill a lot of confidence, even when it was good.
I've said this before, but I think the NFL talent evaluators vastly underrate the importance of having a good kicker and even a punter.
Think about how many games come down to a kick or two. Think about how many games are decided by field position. Yet, most NFL teams rarely draft a kicker high and punters are an afterthought.
Consider how many times we have seen the following scenario play out. Missed kicks keep the game close. Time is winding down and a punter pins the opponent inside the 5 yard line. Not wanting to lose the game on a turnover, the offense proceeds w/caution and then punts it away, thereby providing the other team w/favorable field position. A couple of passes eat up chunks of yardage and out trots a FG kicker w/the entire game resting on his foot.
Understood...sort of why I emphasized the worth of drafting a kicker. Its that once you get a good one you got that kid for 15+ years of excellence...too late for Dawson and the Browns. That day has come and gone. I want somebody here that will be here for a long time of production.
Just like OBJ stated about who wouldn't like to be like the PATS. As in winning. Well they have 2 kickers I think since The Browns have been back.
It's early but that's good to hear. By 'approach' I assume a coach spotted something in his technique....
That would be correct. Just like a golfer needs to get aligned to the target, a kicker needs to do the same. If his "plant" foot doesn't get set in the same position nearly every time, he isn't going to strike the ball on the same point on his foot.
The plant foot also has a impact on direction. If the foot plants a little more open, the kicker tends to sweep through and around the ball hooking the ball left. If the foot plants a little more closed he will tend to push more to the right.
It's ok to do it either way, you just need to do it the same every time so you have a pretty good idea of where the ball is going to go.
I'll go on record saying I think our kicking situation is in good hands with Colquitt and Joseph. I would keep them both. Although I understand wanting to go with the guy you draft.
I also probably would have kept Parkey and Gonzalez.... so there's that.
I've said this before, but I think the NFL talent evaluators vastly underrate the importance of having a good kicker and even a punter.
Think about how many games come down to a kick or two. Think about how many games are decided by field position. Yet, most NFL teams rarely draft a kicker high and punters are an afterthought.
Consider how many times we have seen the following scenario play out. Missed kicks keep the game close. Time is winding down and a punter pins the opponent inside the 5 yard line. Not wanting to lose the game on a turnover, the offense proceeds w/caution and then punts it away, thereby providing the other team w/favorable field position. A couple of passes eat up chunks of yardage and out trots a FG kicker w/the entire game resting on his foot.
I agree to an extent about the importance of having a good kicker, less so about a good punter.
A kicker is directly responsible for putting points on the board and this translates to wins more directly than more abstract metrics like field position (which also can be figured to have a certain expected point value, but field position is becoming relatively less valuable compared to possessions as offenses get more and more dominant.)
A kicker is also more fully responsible for his unit's performance than a punter is. It's true that there still has to be a good snap and a good hold, but this accounts for the success of a play less often than the coverage team does on a punt.
There are also kickoffs to consider. It's nice to have a guy who can consistently put it deep into or out of the end zone. This can nullify a dangerous kick returner, and saves wear and tear on the kickoff team.
Probably something like 40% of punts could be eliminated right off the bat if coaches just used proper 4th down strategy. So instead of 5 punts a game per team, using ideal game theory might get you down to 3 punts a game per team or thereabouts.. I'm sure the analytics nerds have it mathed out more precisely than that but that's close enough for our purposes.
Of course, I'm not opposed to having a good punter. I want good players at every position. It's more that as long as he's not terrible, and he can hold on kicks and function as a competent backup kicker if needed due to injury, I'm probably ok with the guy I have. It's always nice to upgrade but I'd prefer not to use a draft pick or devote much more than minimum salary to the position (which is the strategy most teams use..) whereas with kicker I could go more.
Maybe if there was a need at the position and a really good punter came out, I might begrudgingly use a 7th rounder.
Yup.... it's just been so long since we've been in a game that was a battle of field position, we may tend to forget, lol!
It's one of the things that intrigues me about the Scottish Hammer. Imagine we take a kick off and immediately go 3-n-out after gaining zero yards.
With his leg, with us snapping the ball from the 25, he can pretty much bury them inside their own 10. That's insane, and it helps our defense immensely!
I also think that in Colquitt we have a great Punter, but one who is 34 years old, and who costs a lot more than an UDFA.
I think the team is quietly hoping that Gillam can beat out Colquitt, because he offers a less expensive option, as well as a longer term solution at the P position.
Hammer might be best play option in a tight game. Good snaps are still a must. But wow! Never thought I would welcome the day a punt was your solid quick kick option for offense. Crazy yardage.
Before everyone dismisses Colquit, I want to reiterate that he is actually excellent at pinning teams deep inside their own territory and his punting actually helped us win games last year.
Before everyone dismisses Colquit, I want to reiterate that he is actually excellent at pinning teams deep inside their own territory and his punting actually helped us win games last year.
I agree, I like Colquitt. He is very good at killing punts with a nose down kick.
On the other hand, I like the sound of the "Scottish Hammer".
I know you don't pick football teams that way, but it sounds cool. Seriously, if the Hammer can actually kick anything like the legend that precedes, it could be a real Sidd Finch moment.
Before everyone dismisses Colquit, I want to reiterate that he is actually excellent at pinning teams deep inside their own territory and his punting actually helped us win games last year.
Before everyone dismisses Colquit, I want to reiterate that he is actually excellent at pinning teams deep inside their own territory and his punting actually helped us win games last year.
I'm not usually concerned about "pinning teams deep".
The analytics are very clear. There are two situations that teams regularly screw up in this league on 4th downs:
- 4th and short (4th and 1 or less always, 4th and 2 sometimes), regardless of field position
- 4th down at midfield and somewhat beyond, for example at the opponent's 40 yard line
It's the second scenario that comes into play here. NFL teams are so stupid, seriously, it's mind-boggling how multi-billion dollar businesses still screw this up.
A typical scenario goes something like this: it's 4th and 5 at the opponent's 40 yard line, in comes the punt team (why??), he skies the punt, it lands beautifully at the 6 yard line, but due to the odd shape of a football and human reaction time being what it is, it tumbles into the end zone for a net 20 yard shift in field position.
The team could have just gone for it and kept possession nearly half the time on a short pass. Yet they voluntarily give the ball away and the other team gets the yardage back on one intermediate pass. So frustrating. I'd rather just have a dominant offense, get the big chunks of yardage ourselves, and only punt the ball away when it's actually intelligent to do so. Yet, I know the old-school, 3 yards and a cloud of dust, punt the ball away/play the field position game crowd will never understand this. Reminds me of the days that the Browns and Raiders had the best punters/kickers in the league yet rarely ever won more than 5 games.
JMHO, none of us are sure we'll be here tomorrow, and please note Butch Davis had a WINNING season....play to win. I have NO issue with Callaway returning punts- he's clearly a THIRD option in receiving....an outstanding third option, but third. Go Browns, win games.
We lost games due to kicking, that's our biggest concern in my book....got to make kicks. I love Polish Hammer name/style- money wise he'd be a boost. Go Browns!!!!
We lost games due to kicking, that's our biggest concern in my book....got to make kicks. I love Polish Hammer name/style- money wise he'd be a boost. Go Browns!!!!
We've lost games due to kicking, sure. But I have already said I'd be willing to invest more into the 'K' position.
How many games have we lost due to punting? I'd wager we've lost more games due to punting when we should have gone for it, than we have due to shanked punts or what have you. Though if you have a punter who shanks punts, you obviously need a new punter. It's the NFL after all-- you can get guys like the 'Polish Hammer' as undrafted free agents..
We lost games due to kicking, that's our biggest concern in my book....got to make kicks. I love Polish Hammer name/style- money wise he'd be a boost. Go Browns!!!!
I'm not usually concerned about "pinning teams deep".
I disagree w/that completely.
That's fine. My opinion is that if the Browns are in the area of the field (roughly the opponent's 40 yard line) where pinning the other team deep comes into play, they are better off just going for it on 4th down the large majority of the time, in which case, who your punter is doesn't really matter.
There will be exceptions of course, for example 4th and very long, or some specific end of half situations, or what have you. However, I'd put my aggressive strategy on this issue into the same category as MLB teams prioritizing home runs over 'manufacturing runs', or NBA teams gravitating more toward the 3 point shot.
You want runs/points on the board, quickly, and the more the better. Some might feel these are not be the most exciting ways to play, it might tick off some old-timers who feel the game isn't being played the supposed "correct" way, which is a separate issue. However, I want my teams to play to win, and it turns out those are winning strategies.
The NFL equivalent is prioritizing touchdowns. I actually think that's more exciting anyway, and appreciate a good 4th down "gamble" every now and then. I put gamble in quotation marks because I'd only "gamble" when it gives us a better chance to win, so it's not really a gamble in the traditional sense. I look at it more as playing smart-- but with more short-term volatility to the decisions.
Even without taking my aggressive 4th down strategy into play, there's a lot of luck involved in pinning a team deep-- how the ball bounces, where the coverage players are and/or how quickly they can react.
I'm not opposed to having a good punter. You can get them in free agency though.. which we did ourselves this year.
Gillan is signed for 3 years 1.75 mil with virtually no guaranteed money. Monster leg, left footed, knuckleball kicker-- if he can show he is reliable with punts and holds, he should be the guy. That would be ideal.
If not then we'll probably keep Colquitt. I'd rather not pay $2.7million/yr for a punter (Gillan would be 495k this year) but it is what it is. Not sure who else we'd go with this year other than those two.
I wonder what the analytics say about a team pinning a team inside the 5 yard line, stopping them, and then scoring due to favorable field position as opposed to having to drive 80 plus yards?
I'm sure the old math teacher can get through the fairly simple math concepts in that article. Whether that's enough to persuade the stubborn old football player is another story.
I wonder what the analytics say about a team pinning a team inside the 5 yard line, stopping them, and then scoring due to favorable field position as opposed to having to drive 80 plus yards?
Kelley’s philosophy hatched from his devotion to statistical analysis. The underlying math and probability made him believe that possession in football had been astonishingly undervalued, and that it was irrational to give the ball away when you had a chance to keep it. Only convention dictated normal punting and kickoff patterns. Imagine, he likes to say, if punting had never been part of football. What would fans think if a coach suddenly sent out a specialized player to kick away the ball after three plays?
I read about that guy a while back. Interesting case. I'm hesitant to use him as an example because I don't want to go for it on 4th down all the time. I just want to go for it on 4th down when the numbers say we should, which is more than we do but certainly not every time.
That's a good article that also briefly mentions Kelley, though it makes note that he does sometimes punt in dire circumstances. It's hard to know how much that translates without knowing more about his program, the teams he plays, and so on. Maybe they have such dominant offenses but can't find a competent punter. Maybe it's about fun and excitement, or limited practice time, or something else. I don't really know.
A small snippet from that article:
Quote:
A lot of the probability-based math boils down to this: Coaches who would punt when faced with Garrett's perceived dilemma or similar circumstances overvalue field position and undervalue possession. Having the ball matters more than where the ball is on the field. In the current scoring environment, that reality has only grown starker.
"One my favorite sayings is 'fortune favors the bold,'" Pro Football Focus head data scientist George Chahrouri said. "I feel like really in this situation, it's fortune favors the logical. It would be a risk not to go for it. The idea it's not a risk to be giving the ball to an opponent is hilarious to me."
And another:
Quote:
Last year, Eagles coach Doug Pederson frequently went for it on fourth down, including twice in Philadelphia's Super Bowl victory over the Patriots. His choices stemmed from the Eagles' extensive analytics department, which ran the odds for scenarios before the season and armed Pederson with information.
"What we found is, there's been so many decisions over time that are too conservative for the odds of maximizing your chance to win at the opportunity," Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie told ESPN.com last year. "I mean, you've seen certain coaches that are deemed more aggressive because the math leads them there. That's all it is."
One of the things that intrigues me about Jamie Gillan, The "Scottish hammer", is the big leg. Teams may overvalue field position but it still matters. You want a punter that can punt the ball high and deep. High because you need the time for the gunners to get down there; you don't want to outkick the coverage. If he has a little less finesse when "pinning the other team deep", I can accept that, because that's the area of the field where you should be most aggressive on 4th downs anyway.
I'm sure the old math teacher can get through the fairly simple math concepts in that article. Whether that's enough to persuade the stubborn old football player is another story.
I don't see where that article addressed the percentage of points scored having to drive a short field as opposed to having to drive 80 plus yards.
Reread the article and apply a little logic. The models are based on 2,400 games from the 2000-2008 seasons (which was before the more recent offensive boom and thus likely understates the best strategy on 4th downs.)
Understand the expected points chart early on, where each first down field position corresponds to how many points the offense is likely to score. This also takes into account the value of the possible ensuing kickoff.
So for example, a first down at the opponent's 20 is worth 3.7 expected points, but a first down 75 yards earlier at one's own 5 yard line is worth -0.5 expected points-- essentially meaning the team on defense is more likely to score next. Now, that's a 75 yard swing in field position.
Look at the net punt distance by field position. A punt from the opponent's 40 yard line nets about 26 yards on average. Clearly, pinning a team inside the 5 yard line is not an automatic occurrence. Sometimes the ball bounces the wrong way, or into the end zone, or the punt returner fair catches at the 10 or makes a nice return.
Some end notes from the article that has some interesting bits and pieces:
Quote:
End Notes
The 37 yard line is the boundary between FGs and punts
All data are from official NFL gamebooks for all non-preseason games from 2000 through 2008.
This analysis only applies to ‘typical’ game situations when the score is relatively close, time is not expiring, and weather is not a large factor. With time expiring or if one team has a large lead, a different type of analysis is required. An analysis based on Win Probability can be generalized to any game situation.
This type of analysis can be tailored to any team’s specific characteristics, or opponent characteristics. For example, the Expected Points curve, 4th down conversion probability, and FG range and accuracy can be customized to produce a chart specific to a particular game.
My comment would be that while the data is a raw average over many, many games, there is no account for opponent. In those numbers are defenses who performed well above the mean, and teams that performed well below.
I am not sure a guy like Depo could enter each teams D to increase or decrease the expected result since teams change year to year.
I do know I have wanted the Browns to go for it more often. I can't even begin to estimate how many times I told the people around me that if the Browns can't gain 1-2 yards, they don't deserve to win. I would especially go for it often if between the 40's. I have always felt that your potential gain was worth more then what you might lose.
It it is true the data is a raw average over many games. In specific situations you might have an excellent punter/kicker and strong defenses (which would mean you'd be more conservative than the numbers suggest), or you might have weak specialists and strong offenses (which would mean you'd be more aggressive than the numbers suggest.)
I think teams should account for differences between teams, players, and for different situations. Of course. However, it's important to acknowledge that this can take things both ways.
Look at the best teams in the league. Patriots and Chiefs in the AFC Championship game, Rams and Saints in the NFC Championship game. Those are 4 elite offenses. If we want to advance through the AFC, we very well may have to beat the Pats and/or Chiefs. Throw the Chargers in there at 12-4 last year as well.
The best way to stop offenses led by Patrick Mahomes, Tom Brady, and Philip Rivers is to keep them from having the ball in the first place! Of course, they're going to get the ball back eventually (sometimes with a shortened field, due to our aggressive strategy), but then the defense is well-rested, explosive, and ready to rock.
It's a winning strategy. The question is whether or not the coaching staff will figure it out and implement it. From where I sit, it could be the difference between edging out a close playoff win or a heartbreaking loss. I say we should be the team to capitalize on this edge before other teams figure it out and logic finally prevails.
This is my last post to you. I never dissed going for it on 4th down. I simply stated that Colquit was good at pinning teams inside their 10 yard line and that helped us score points and even win some games.
You disputed that comment.
Thus, I asked if there are stats that state that pinning teams deep in their own territory is not beneficial. You just keep changing the narrative to something I never said and of course, others don't even recognize it.
Btw.............no need to answer. I already looked it up. Pinning teams deep in their own territory does help teams score points.
And for everyone else............I am not even arguing a bit about the 4th down decisions of going for it or not. I never once even mentioned it. That is a different conversation than the importance of having a punter who can deaden the ball inside the 10 yard line.
Dude, why argue? Those that know, understand the value of a good punter. They also understand why you don't go for it on fourth and three from the 40 in a tie game, despite what Madden says. Field position means something.
Until recently we did not have an offense that could get 2 yards let alone 5. So I sort of agree with you with our current offense and actually I think Kitchens did do that last year???
Dude, why argue? Those that know, understand the value of a good punter. They also understand why you don't go for it on fourth and three from the 40 in a tie game, despite what Madden says. Field position means something.
Which 40?
From the opponent's 40, you should go for it on 4th and 3 in a tie game. There's no doubt about this-- it's not even close.
From your own 40, it actually is kind of close.
Yes I realize this is a bit radical for some of the old timers out there, though none of this has anything to do with Madden, so let's put that to rest right now.
Dude, why argue? Those that know, understand the value of a good punter. They also understand why you don't go for it on fourth and three from the 40 in a tie game, despite what Madden says. Field position means something.
There is value in having a good punter, obviously. I would punt less often than NFL coaches do but I'd still punt at least half the time they do. Those remaining 3 punts (or whatever it is) per game are important plays.
Since a lot of my punts would be from our side of the field (since the leeway to go for it on 4th downs would basically be limited to 4th and short), this calls for a punter with a big leg. The bigger the leg the better.. I want high and deep punts to flip field position. Enter the 'Scottish Hammer'.
That you can get a guy like that as an undrafted free agent, signed for 3 years with almost no guaranteed money for near minimum salary is great. Now, he has to show he is reliable enough and I'm sure the coaching staff and front office will keep a close eye on that.
This is my last post to you. I never dissed going for it on 4th down. I simply stated that Colquit was good at pinning teams inside their 10 yard line and that helped us score points and even win some games.
You disputed that comment.
Thus, I asked if there are stats that state that pinning teams deep in their own territory is not beneficial. You just keep changing the narrative to something I never said and of course, others don't even recognize it.
Btw.............no need to answer. I already looked it up. Pinning teams deep in their own territory does help teams score points.
And for everyone else............I am not even arguing a bit about the 4th down decisions of going for it or not. I never once even mentioned it. That is a different conversation than the importance of having a punter who can deaden the ball inside the 10 yard line.
I don't really see it that way. I prefer to look at the big picture. The importance of having a punter that has that skill is directly tied toward your strategy on 4th down. The numbers say that around the opponent's 35-40 yard line is when you should be most aggressive on 4th downs. This is also the area where pinning a team deep is most applicable. Closer than that and you're looking at a FG attempt, not a punt. Much farther away and pinning a team deep isn't very likely.
The 37 yard line is the boundary between FGs and punts
All data are from official NFL gamebooks for all non-preseason games from 2000 through 2008.
This analysis only applies to ‘typical’ game situations when the score is relatively close, time is not expiring, and weather is not a large factor. With time expiring or if one team has a large lead, a different type of analysis is required. An analysis based on Win Probability can be generalized to any game situation.
This type of analysis can be tailored to any team’s specific characteristics, or opponent characteristics. For example, the Expected Points curve, 4th down conversion probability, and FG range and accuracy can be customized to produce a chart specific to a particular game.
I agree that there is room to consider going for it more often than is currently the norm. That makes analyses like this useful. But Vers has a good point, which falls into that last note about a team's specific characteristics. One of the assumptions of the study is that balls inside the 10 have a 50/50 chance to bounce into the end zone. Colquitt has developed his ability to kick the ball in such a way that reduces the tendency of the ball to bounce into the end zone. That specific ability then influences the decision making.
Further, the 3rd note stipulates that the analysis applies to close games with time left and normal weather. There's plenty of football outside of those conditions, where again, having a good punter could be the difference.
The 37 yard line is the boundary between FGs and punts
All data are from official NFL gamebooks for all non-preseason games from 2000 through 2008.
This analysis only applies to ‘typical’ game situations when the score is relatively close, time is not expiring, and weather is not a large factor. With time expiring or if one team has a large lead, a different type of analysis is required. An analysis based on Win Probability can be generalized to any game situation.
This type of analysis can be tailored to any team’s specific characteristics, or opponent characteristics. For example, the Expected Points curve, 4th down conversion probability, and FG range and accuracy can be customized to produce a chart specific to a particular game.
I agree that there is room to consider going for it more often than is currently the norm. That makes analyses like this useful. But Vers has a good point, which falls into that last note about a team's specific characteristics. One of the assumptions of the study is that balls inside the 10 have a 50/50 chance to bounce into the end zone. Colquitt has developed his ability to kick the ball in such a way that reduces the tendency of the ball to bounce into the end zone. That specific ability then influences the decision making.
Further, the 3rd note stipulates that the analysis applies to close games with time left and normal weather. There's plenty of football outside of those conditions, where again, having a good punter could be the difference.
All good points, and you are right that Colquitt's ability to do this does influence the decision making. How much is up for debate-- I don't think massively-- but it would be interesting to see more team-specific models. I imagine some NFL analytic departments have them but most of the publicly available ones go by NFL average. Maybe someday I'll get the time and motivation to make my own.
I would punt less often than NFL coaches do but I'd still punt at least half the time they do.
This is why those coaching offers keep pouring in.....
On a more serious note, most NFL coaches would actually do well to have a game management coach on staff. There are coaches like Andy Reid, who is excellent at most aspects of being a head coach including building an offense, grooming QBs, leading a team and so on, but are borderline inept at game mangement.
On second thought, let him keep doing what he's doing there. Let it be the Browns who pave the way. It's likely that sometime in the 2020s what I wrote here will be widely understood and implemented; we might as well get that competitive advantage while it's there.
It's likely that sometime in the 2020s what I wrote here will be widely understood and implemented; we might as well get that competitive advantage while it's there.
I would add to this: it's already widely understood. It's starting to be implemented. Front office types and even some coaches have already acknowledged it. It's widely talked about on football sites. Coaches like McVay and Pederson are already starting to go for it more. The Eagles possibly won a Super Bowl because of it. Belichick has been criticized for "going for it too often" in the past (in reality, all good decisions even if one in particular didn't work out at the time.)
I'm pretty sure for the most part they're going to keep doing what they're doing. Most of the changes we see are often due to rule changes. ie... You change the rules to make it harder on DB's to cover WR's and teams began passing even more.
There were 73 games decided by 3 points or less in 2018.
Let's look at a very different angle than the one you propose.
In 2018, the team with the longest average offensive drive total in the NFL was Kansas City. They averaged just 41.53 yards per drive. So on average, if you pin them inside their own 10 yard line, they won't even get into field goal range on an average possession. While losing the ball to them at the 35 will surely net them a chip shot FG using that same average as a metric.
There are reasons why NFL coaches make the big bucks. It's not like they don't have analytic departments and don't understand the numbers. It's just that they look at all the numbers. Football has both offense and defense. And from a defensive perspective, pinning a team deep is just as a viable option as risking losing the the ball on fourth down.
There are reasons why NFL coaches make the big bucks. It's not like they don't have analytic departments and don't understand the numbers. It's just that they look at all the numbers. Football has both offense and defense. And from a defensive perspective, pinning a team deep is just as a viable option as risking losing the the ball on fourth down.
The analytics departments are saying to go for it more often. The coaches just aren't doing it, at least not nearly to the extent that they should. Call it stubbornness, incompetence, fear of getting fired, or they just plain don't understand these game theory type decisions, they are doing the wrong thing. That is the inescapable conclusion based on what is happening on the field.
This appeal to authority, that "NFL coaches make the big bucks" (so obviously must know what they are doing on this) doesn't sway me. I realize this is the NFL and they are at the top of their profession. They're still doing it wrong-- I would stake my reputation on it.
History will prove the analytics people right on this topic and current/past NFL coaches wrong. That's really the bottom line. The "when" is a little harder to pin down. I personally feel that it's comical that the status quo has gone on this long, but there has been a lot of incompetence in this league.
I would punt less often than NFL coaches do but I'd still punt at least half the time they do.
This is why those coaching offers keep pouring in.....
On a more serious note, most NFL coaches would actually do well to have a game management coach on staff. There are coaches like Andy Reid, who is excellent at most aspects of being a head coach including building an offense, grooming QBs, leading a team and so on, but are borderline inept at game mangement.
On second thought, let him keep doing what he's doing there. Let it be the Browns who pave the way. It's likely that sometime in the 2020s what I wrote here will be widely understood and implemented; we might as well get that competitive advantage while it's there.
I am one of those old timers who agrees with you on playing the percentages. 12 or more years ago I was talking about the spread O and how pure drop back QBs are going to be a thing of the past...and now we are seeing QB's 6" or less going #1.
When I saw nearly all HS coaches switching to some form of a spred, read option system, I knew that sooner or later the NFL was going to have a QB shortage unless they made some changes.
We just saw another big shift in ZO with Klingsbury and the air raid.
I notice you totally avoided where I pointed out that the best offense in football averaged a little over 41 yards per offensive drive last season. Which means if you pin then deep the odds are they won't even make it into field goal range on that possession. And that was the best team on O in football. The odds only go down from there.
Showing one side of the coin makes for a good argument when you ignore the other side of the coin.
It's not that I avoided it so much as I've already said what I wanted to say. The analytics and various game models out there already take into account the importance of field position. We already know that it's hard to drive 80+ yards in a possession-- again, it's already taken into account. Throwing these isolated situations into the mix doesn't prove what you think it proves.
People have already made up their minds by now so no point in going back and forth. Time will tell who is right on this one.
I would punt less often than NFL coaches do but I'd still punt at least half the time they do.
This is why those coaching offers keep pouring in.....
On a more serious note, most NFL coaches would actually do well to have a game management coach on staff. There are coaches like Andy Reid, who is excellent at most aspects of being a head coach including building an offense, grooming QBs, leading a team and so on, but are borderline inept at game mangement.
On second thought, let him keep doing what he's doing there. Let it be the Browns who pave the way. It's likely that sometime in the 2020s what I wrote here will be widely understood and implemented; we might as well get that competitive advantage while it's there.
I am one of those old timers who agrees with you on playing the percentages. 12 or more years ago I was talking about the spread O and how pure drop back QBs are going to be a thing of the past...and now we are seeing QB's 6" or less going #1.
When I saw nearly all HS coaches switching to some form of a spred, read option system, I knew that sooner or later the NFL was going to have a QB shortage unless they made some changes.
We just saw another big shift in ZO with Klingsbury and the air raid.
Don't read too much into the old timers comment. Friendly banter, nothing more. We like to do it to millennials too.
In this case, I do think more old school types lean toward the field position side of things-- possibly due years and years of it being overemphasized, and actual possession of the ball being underemphasized.
I do remember your comments about the spread O coming to the NFL and it turns out you were spot on about that. Nice call. We see shifts in sports all the time... starting with the actual shift in baseball. It took teams over a hundred years to figure out to consistently put fielders where a batter is most likely to hit the ball. Or to emphasize home runs over 'manufacturing runs', the 3 point shot in basketball, and so on.
Times change, coaches figure out better ways to play, and that will continue to happen.
I don't actually lean to either side. I think both should be applied in different situations. It's not the "one size fits all" some seem to make it out to be.
I don't actually lean to either side. I think both should be applied in different situations. It's not the "one size fits all" some seem to make it out to be.
I feel the same way myself. I think the status quo is far too conservative, but I don't want to go for it all the time like that one high school coach does. Extremes on both sides, really. I prefer a sensible middle approach where we go for it when the numbers say to go for it, and we punt it when the numbers say to punt it. Add field goals and and 2 point conversions to that list also.
When I say the numbers, I mean the actual numbers. You have to understand that when coaches say the numbers, or odds, in regards to this situation, they are rarely referring to the actual number-- it's more like a cliché. If they followed the actual numbers, they wouldn't have to defend situations like punting on 4th and 2 when their team is losing with 4:30 left in the game.
Announcers are even worse, if that's possible. It's almost like there's a subconscious bias to keep the game going for as long as possible (good for ratings). That and most just genuinely don't seem to know what they are talking about on the topic.
Even with a potent offense, we'd still figure to punt the ball at least twice, probably closer to three times a game on average. For example, if it's 4th and 3 from our own 20, I'd punt it. At midfield, I'd go for it. To me, this is sensible and intelligent.
We still see situations where coaches take an elite QB off the field on 4th and 1 at midfield. This is the kind of stuff that I think is comical-- I recognize that the "full" strategy is more than most are ready to get on board with but that's ok. I'd be fine with the Browns just taking the 'no brainers' and perhaps a little more, as those will give a lot of the advantage with little controversy/volatility.
Don't read too much into the old timers comment. Friendly banter, nothing more. We like to do it to millennials too.
No offense taken. I am glad I made it to old timer status. Many of us don't get there for one reason or another. Heck, I was a grumpy young man. At least I am now acting my age!
It is obviously not ideal, but we have to consider this a viable option. Not just a 2:00am special teams rant. I hope it doesn’t come to that, but we must consider.
Do teams normally do this? I can’t say I’ve seen that before.
They have done that for a long while. Normal width in 18' 6". Teams usually set them at 12' wide.
The cross bar is 10'off the ground. Looking at the picture the posts look about as wide as the are off the ground which would make them 10' wide, but I think the angle distorts the view.
Ouch. Hopefully those misses by Siebert were 60+ yarders or he's really sick or something. 1-4 in training camp probably means you won't be here tomorrow.
Incumbent Greg Joseph taking control of #Browns kicking battle, going 4-for-4 on field goals just now. Rookie fifth-round draft pick Austin Seibert went 1-for-4, missing back-to-back kicks from 43 and 52 yards to end drill.
I can care less who does what now...I want to know who will do what with oncoming Rushers in game time situations. So preseason will be the real battle for these kickers.
I don't care who as long as we have a reliable kicker for the playoffs! Last year we lost, what??? 3 games on the kicking alone??? That has to be -0- Nice to see Joseph doing well when there is no pressure...he always had a good strong leg. But his best kick was a winner against the Ravens that didn't get more than 15 feet off the ground and was a knuckle ball!
I don't want Practice players on this team I want Football game day players! Is there an outright system for the coaches to determine this success rate??? All I know is Joseph last year didn't instill much and was the #1 reason I think Kitchens went for it on 4th down last year.
It seems like our kicking situation remains a big question mark at this point. The draft pick certainly can’t make the team at this point ... and the incumbent doesn’t necessarily inspire a lot of confidence either
Welp, we can officially scrap PD from potential plans, bit of a bummer. I suppose he has done enough for us. I want to scream everytime I hear someone come on WKNR and say, “the Browns don’t really have a weakness”.
Welp, we can officially scrap PD from potential plans, bit of a bummer. I suppose he has done enough for us. I want to scream everytime I hear someone come on WKNR and say, “the Browns don’t really have a weakness”.
Ummm, hello.
Yeah , that's a little bit homerism there.
We have a weakness at K, as well as the right side of our line. We still don't have a starter at RG last I heard, and its not because the guys we have are all sooooo good.
Kicking isn't a weakness until we get to the season and lose more than 1 game because of missing fairly simple kicks....say 40 and in....maybe 45 in All kickers miss some kicks, and that is in decent conditions. If the weather sucks for any number of reasons, I don't blame kickers for a missed kick with snow on the ground or 30MPH swirling winds..
I am not going to get all bunched up about it at this point.
Right now by all accounts, Joseph is making most of his kicks and Siebert is struggling. If it stays this way, I hope we make sound football decisions and don't let ego get in the way. I hope we don't keep him because 5th round drafted kickers are supposed to make the team.
Cutting a 5th round kicker is about the same as cutting a 2nd round non-kicker. Heck, maybe close to cutting your first round pick considering most kickers are usually drafted in the 7th or signed as a UDFA.
While I don’t agree with 2 points everytime, you bring up a good point. Some smart cats at MIT did a study several years ago, it basically said NFL teams play scared. That going for it on fourth down, especially in opponents territory, is the right move.
If our kicking situation stays stays quo, I would not be shocked to see the Browns lead the league, in 4th down attempts.
Its way to early to panic ... but if these two don’t improve in game situations ... we’ll be skowering the waiver wire come time ... these guys have 2 maybe 3 more weeks to start being consistent in game situations or their days are numbered ..
No way are KJ/Freddie gonna let us lose games cause of our FG kicker .. NOT A SHOT IN HECK!!!!
Except for QB, I think K is the most important single position.
If you have an o-lineman who is bad, you can scheme around him. Run to the other side, use a back or TE to chip. Cb? Safety help, D-line? Stunt, Punter? The D can make a stand.
But if the K is bad, there is no getting around it. Missing kicks cost games
He’s doing great “off to the side” .. almost perfect ... rook is inconsistent even off to the side ...
Freddie then has game situations every practice ... and Joseph’s not doing good at all .. not sure overall but the other day he was 1 - 4 ...
The rook is struggling ... not to worried about him ... he has the rugby dude holding for him and he’s never held before so u have the rook dealing with an inexperienced holder and dealing with not having a tee to kick off of like they do in college for FG’s and dealing with his first nfl camp ... OK thelast one’s kinda BS but the other two are legite ...
Has Joseph been performing poorly in camp? Last time I looked he was 8 of 9. Did he miss a bunch in a row after that?
Rookie fifth-round pick Austin Seibert has struggled with consistency, and on Wednesday, Greg Joseph joined him in struggling during team periods, where end-of-game situations are simulated.
Thanks again. I have always despised press conferences and interviews for the most part. I am a pretty good public speaker and listening to those guys drives me absolutely crazy. They can't even utter a complete sentence. I prefer to read an editorialized version. LOL
I disagree, it’s the perfect time to panic. Maybe I’m still playing Tressel ball at tOSU, but special teams are way important. We cannot go another season holding our breath, during punt returns and kicks. Can’t do it, won’t do it.
There are 2 points raised earlier in this discussion that seem to have been lost. First, someone pointed out that Joseph had learned a new approach (the 2-3 steps taken before kicking the ball.) The new approach was said to result in a better trajectory of the ball than we saw from him last season. Most of us are apprehensive about Joseph because we remember the knuckleballs he was kicking last year. If the new approach is working, then that may not be a problem anymore.
The second point made earlier was that most or all of Siebert's kicks were with Gillam holding. Gillam's lack of experience with holding for place kicks may be contributing to Siebert's inaccuracy. I would hope that the coaches would give Siebert time kicking with Colquitt holding to see it that improves his accuracy.
Homerism at its best 
