DawgTalkers.net Forums The Archives 2019 NFL Season 2019 NFL Draft Did we improve special teams?

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..

I disagree w/that completely.

Do you mean Scottish?

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 think teams should go for it more often as well.

You still need a good punter.

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?

Some of these arguments are wild.

This is a good intro to the topic: https://www.advancedfootballanalytics.com/index.php/home/research/game-strategy/120-4th-down-study

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.

J/C

"Did we improve Special Teams"

I would like to answer that question with a question.

My answer to that is, did we get a new coaching staff?

Then yes, we did.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/spor...m=.3e64e3893eed

Works for this guy.

They never punt. Or field kicks.

I think this is a great question

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.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/ct-spt-nfl-fourth-down-playcalling-20181009-story.html

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:



And another:



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.

It is very interesting. I would like to see us go for it about 25% more of the time myself, if not more.

Lets face it, if we are on our own 35 on 4th and 2, do you trust baker, chubb, obj, Jarvis to get 2 yards more than our punter to pin them down deep?

I roll with baker on this.

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.

Good stuff.

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:

Again, good stuff.

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.

Good points.

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.

"....if he can show he is reliable with punts and holds, he should be the guy. That would be ideal."


I guess it's the "holds" part for me. From what I've read, this is something he is still learning.

Don't want to see a botched PAT or FG hold by the Scottish Hammer cost us a game.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This is why those coaching offers keep pouring in.....

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.

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 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.)

Sean McVay hired a game management coach last year to perform some of the duties you mention. His name is Jedd Fisch.

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.

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 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.

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 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.