DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Special Teams really, really matter!

An important area for wins and losses are special teams. They don't get the attention they deserve, at least I routinely fail to give much attention to who is actually on these units. I'll be giving closer attention over the next several weeks to better identify who is on each unit.

I think the kick return wedge was outlawed recently. With that in mind, these are the guys I think must make up the kickoff and kick return units as well as punt and punt return units. These don't include the specialist including the holder, long snapper or returners.


Ten of these guys:
Willies
Fells
Charles
Neary
Odenigbo
T. Thomas
Rice
Avery
Burgess
Vallejo
C. Thomas
Chris Smith

Field Goal Unit (eight of the following)
Neary
Watford
Robinson
Fells
Charles
Odenigbo
C. Thomas
C. Smith
Vallejo
Burgess
Avery

I'll be most interested to see who is on the field for the kick-off and punt return coverage teams. Thank God I won't have to watch Ricardo Louis trying to tackle this year.

I want to see linebackers and DBs primarily make-up both coverage teams. Maybe a receiver like Willies, but I have no idea if he can tackle. I thought Cajuste could have helped on special teams.

Watched him trying to block a few times and that dude is extra soft or just happened to whiff when I was focused on his play. If he can't block, one could assume he can't tackle. In his presser he said he's never played any ST's in college.

Thanks for the info. Scratch him. LOL

My guess is that Peppers and/or Kindred will be on the kickoff unit. Same with T.J. Carrie and E.J. Gaines.

Give Callaway the keys to Punt Returns.. I think he'll own it; Peppers doesn't excite me there.

Peppers can keep kick return though.

maybe we'd be better off just saying to our returners: "You are not allowed to do anything but take a touchback on kickoffs and fair catch on punts"

Tell the blockers to not even block. Literally just run beside a guy on the cover team and don't ever touch him.

This would make ST's penalties impossible. We'd never gain any yards, but also wouldn't kill ourselves with penalties (which seems to happen 1/3 of all ST's plays)

The flying wedge was outlawed in college ball in 1894.


In reference to what you are talking about, indeed, about 10 years ago.

I would love to see the actual stats for this. I bet the average net yards gained on punt returns is very minimal when corrected for penalties. I've looked for the statistical analysis and could never find anything.

I would almost guarantee that the net effect of a penalty is much more negative than the positives of an average return. The only real upside to returns is the chance that a player "breaks one".

Factor in injuries and turnovers and I bet fair catches are the way to go. Sounds crazy but probably true.

I'd like to see a statistical breakdown as well. IMO, factoring in everything (yardage, risk, injuries, etc) I bet it isn't a terrible idea ... especially if you're as bad as we are.

Interesting topic, although in some situations it'd still be worth the risk - like when you're behind, need a big play and you get a returnable punt - even if the stats showed its' low percentage.

Boom. That's the kicker. When you need a big play (or maybe you're ahead by a comfortable margin and looking for the kill) return the punt. When you're close, why bother risking the downside.

I think it was two seasons ago?? By week 8 I was firmly convinced - put the player out there with the best hands and fair catch every punt. Anything that wasn't a penalty was a devastating turnover that season.

Didn't we have a punt catcher when Pettine was here? Someone that came from Buffalo with him. Some safety I think that I can't remember the name of.

Rings a bell but I really can't recall.

Justin Leonard.

yep, Leonard was a Rex Ryan/Pettine dude

I vaguely remember the name. Wow.

Jim Leonhard is a rising coaching star. He's currently the defensive coordinator for Wisconsin.

And excelling at it. He's on the fast track to being a HC, and after that, maybe in the NFL.

j/c

As for the touchback/fair catch idea, that seems to be where football is headed. While a run back can be one of the most exciting plays in football, there are so many injuries, both college and the NFL are doing their best to nerf them. D4L is on to something. No penalties, no injuries, just fair catch and bring on the offense.

Makes some sense. You can't really factor in injury risk. I suppose that risk is equal and totally random on every snap of the game.

Last year we returned 38 punts for 221 yards gained. A average of 5.8 yards per return. Our opponents returned 45 punts for 482 yards gained, a average of 10.7 yards per return.

Those numbers are actual returns. Any play that involved a penalty wouldn't be recorded as a return.

Another factor not noted is how many are fumbled or muffed away?

I think that was the guy. I was thinking it was Jim Leonard, but it doesn't matter. He was a safety.

Problem is that in the mind of an athlete, it's almost always worth the risk.. they want to make a play and they don't process the negative, they only think about them running the ball into the endzone.

I was thinking the same thing about the punt return stats. I bet if you developed a metric that considered positive return yardage, then compared it to negative events (penalties (which either move you back or allow the other team to keep the ball), turnovers, lost yardage, injuries) the benefits to trying for that one long return is negligible. Its like the stats that show you should always go for it on 4th and less than X.. or that you should always go for 2... it would be very unconventional to say we aren't going to even try to return punts, we are just going to fair catch them but the numbers very well could show that it's a good idea.

I don't think that would be a good idea for punts, but I think that a case can be made for not returning kickoffs, especially with the rule that puts the ball at the 25.

IIRC, the reason we had a "Punt Catcher", is because our Punt Returners were really bad at hanging onto the ball.

In the age of analytics, do you really think "they"= every team hasn't looked at this. JMHO, I'm positive they have....GO Browns!!!

That wasn't Gerrett, if it's the play I am thinking of. The announcer said Garrett, but it was Njoku. (85, not 95)

Yeah, it was Njoku, not Garrett. It's the 4th or 5th Browns drive in the 1st game.

Yeah tab, the announcer said it was Garrett, but it was actually Njoku.

Zane Gonzalez today:
2/4 FG
0/2 XP

Browns lose by 3.

He's back in the exact slump he was in last year. Should've kept Martin.

HAS GONZALEZ BEEN CUT YET!

I doubt he gets cut. He's a second year, drafted kicker who was been pretty damn good for the team. He's just about had more kicks blocked than missed.

The kid went 2/6 today, which damn near matches the six he missed last year... of 46.

Zane Gonzalez is a good, young kicker. It'd be an extreme reaction to cut him because of one bad game.

I've always thought kickers are like fine wine. They have to age at least 25 years before you know what you have.

He sucks donkey balls, sorry. Cut his ass now.

Or its going to be more of the same.

Ya ... thats exactly what ya’all said last year ,,, be patient hes young ...

Does he need til year 3 ...

If a kicker is reliable but blows one game, I say to keep them.

2 games one of which you miss 4 kicks, TWO EXTRA POINTS? Naw, dudes gotta go

We could have said the same thing about a guy who was kicking at 66% at the same point of his career that Zane Gonzalez was at.

Phil Dawesome.

Kinda glad we didn't conclude so soon that Dawson sucked donkey balls. He was kinda good.