Let's talk punt returns | Page 5 | The Boneyard

Let's talk punt returns

Status
Not open for further replies.
Edsall won a bunch of games through special teams. Field position is part of our problems the last few years.

Getting the ball back inside the 20 isn't a numbers positive situation.

Getting one or two first downs to get into FG range is a heck of a lot easier and more probable than getting 3 or 4.
 
Yes, returns are down. I don't think anyone is debating that. Doesn't mean you should stop trying. At least 40% of punts are not fair caught or downed. That's 3-5 opportunities to make a play every game that you're just giving up.
 
But if Matt's quote is on the mark - he didn't say they would stop trying:

>>"But don't mistake that mentality for the belief that they will never return a kick. If there is a lane or an opportunity, returners will have the freedom to make the call. "Now if Brian [Lemelle] or Q [Quayvon Skanes] can return it for a touchdown, fantastic," he said. "If the protection is a liability and we can attack it and block it, fantastic. But risk, reward there in my mind for blocking punts as it relates to roughing a punter, I'm really not for that."

I asked Campbell about the philosophy, as well during media day and he echoed Diaco's sentiments, almost to a T. "First of all, field the ball first, after that, everything else is a bonus," Campbell said. "The biggest thing is getting the ball and if you do that, you have a chance."<<
 
I can see both sides. I love the excitement and chance for glory (Larry, Tyvone, Robbie, Nick and Deshonn), but now it's 4th down. We've held the opposition and we should get the ball back in great field position for a hopeful scoring drive. Punt is caught, he reverses field, is hit from behind...fumble, recovered by the opponent. A fair catch would have looked pretty good right there. It's called second guessing. We're all good at it.
 
Nostical said:
I can see both sides. I love the excitement and chance for glory (Larry, Tyvone, Robbie, Nick and Deshonn), but now it's 4th down. We've held the opposition and we should get the ball back in great field position for a hopeful scoring drive. Punt is caught, he reverses field, is hit from behind...fumble, recovered by the opponent. A fair catch would have looked pretty good right there. It's called second guessing. We're all good at it.
Expand ...

Don't have the stats but based on my "memory" as many kicks are fumbled doing fair catches as trying to catch and run, if not then sure isn't 5 to 1 other way. Safest thing is let it roll and everyone get out of the way. Let other teams screw up by trying to catch or catch and run. Just 'cause Alabama had about 300 times as many punt return yards as UConn last year doesn't mean we should try to do it to, that's big boy football and there's risks if you want to play that way.
 
.-.
huskymedic said:
But if Matt's quote is on the mark - he didn't say they would stop trying:

>>"But don't mistake that mentality for the belief that they will never return a kick. If there is a lane or an opportunity, returners will have the freedom to make the call. "Now if Brian [Lemelle] or Q [Quayvon Skanes] can return it for a touchdown, fantastic," he said. "If the protection is a liability and we can attack it and block it, fantastic. But risk, reward there in my mind for blocking punts as it relates to roughing a punter, I'm really not for that."

I asked Campbell about the philosophy, as well during media day and he echoed Diaco's sentiments, almost to a T. "First of all, field the ball first, after that, everything else is a bonus," Campbell said. "The biggest thing is getting the ball and if you do that, you have a chance."<<
Expand ...
Yeahhh... But I'm skeptical until we see otherwise. Didn't Diaco say he was going to do on offense all the things he hated to see on defense? I got excited at that thought, probably my own fault, but reality has been vastly more conservative... We'll see.
 
CTMike said:
Yeahhh... But I'm skeptical until we see otherwise. Didn't Diaco say he was going to do on offense all the things he hated to see on defense? I got excited at that thought, probably my own fault, but reality has been vastly more conservative... We'll see.
Expand ...

That was kind of the point of my earlier comment on blah, blah, blah, coach speak until what we see what happens live. Let's see what "another coat of paint does" ;)
 
Husky68 said:
Don't have the stats but based on my "memory" as many kicks are fumbled doing fair catches as trying to catch and run, if not then sure isn't 5 to 1 other way. Safest thing is let it roll and everyone get out of the way. Let other teams screw up by trying to catch or catch and run. Just 'cause Alabama had about 300 times as many punt return yards as UConn last year doesn't mean we should try to do it to, that's big boy football and there's risks if you want to play that way.
Expand ...

This is the type of mentality that will keep us in the AAC forever. The fact that we are debating whether our FBS college football team is competent enough to return a punt makes me sad. Have we really regressed that much? Maybe on offense we should just run the ball every play and hope we can get at least 4 yards each carry. A forward pass may lead to a sack or INT!
 
Like anything else situation matters. You can go for the block, guard against a fake, set up a return, or fair catch it.

You can't do more than one at a time and you should never let the ball bounce as we have done far too often.

So if the call is set up for a return and if it's not there fair catch it, then that's what most everyone does.

It's not what we've done and it doesnt sound like that is our first option going forward either.
 
CTPride said:
This is the type of mentality that will keep us in the AAC forever. The fact that we are debating whether our FBS college football team is competent enough to return a punt makes me sad. Have we really regressed that much? Maybe on offense we should just run the ball every play and hope we can get at least 4 yards each carry. A forward pass may lead to a sack or INT!
Expand ...

I don't understand how imprinting the mentality that we can't do something almost every other team is capable of doing is encouraging to the players or the fanbase. More importantly you'd have to show me how the risk/reward numbers back up the philosophy. Until I see those numbers just can't be on board with it. Taking weapons off the table feels like we've gone beyond conservative into negative thinking in another area. Again, this is year 3 not year 1 and coaches should be competent to coach punt returns. It's not like our offense couldn't use another 5-15 yards of field position occasionally.
 
.-.
"Fans may not like the conservative approach, and media may question it. But it makes sense."

Just because he's put a lot of thought into it doesn't mean he's right. If we were even average at returning punts, then we'd get around 8-9 yards/return. We averaged 310 ypg, and under 5 yards per play. If we could get 8-9 yards/return, we'd be starting first down where we would normally be starting 3rd down. We were 112th in the country in first downs. For a team that goes 3, 4, 5 and out as often as we do, those two extra plays could be huge for field position over the course of the game. His approach might make sense, but it doesn't give us the best chance to win.
 
Someone can check, but I think punt returns average about 7 yds. Are we really willing to lose 7 yds on every change of possession?
 
I'd need to see hard data that this leads to a better chance to win. But color me skeptical and I just don't like the idea that we are going to avoid this whole area of the game because it's too risky. Get better at it.
 
SubbaBub said:
Someone can check, but I think punt returns average about 7 yds. Are we really willing to lose 7 yds on every change of possession?
Expand ...

In 2014, the average was 8.4 yards per return, with 46% of punts resulting in a fair catch. Assuming that a ball that is downed is a "0" return and not a separate category, the average return per punt is .64 x 8.4, or 5.376 yards of field position per punt. The average punt return distance has dropped 13% since 2005, and the number of returns per game is down 29%.
 
Last edited:
Excalibur said:
In 2014, the average was 8.4 yards per return, with 46% of punts resulting in a fair catch. Assuming that a ball that is downed is a "0" return and not a separate category, the average return per punt is .64 x 8.4, or 5.376 yards of field position per punt. The average punt return distance has dropped 13% since 2005.
Expand ...
Hmm... Ok. This is a start.
 
.-.
SubbaBub said:
Someone can check, but I think punt returns average about 7 yds. Are we really willing to lose 7 yds on every change of possession?
Expand ...

The median last year in CFB is about 8.6. I'm not adding up the numbers for 127 teams to figure out the average.
 
CTMike said:
I'd need to see hard data that this leads to a better chance to win. But color me skeptical and I just don't like the idea that we are going to avoid this whole area of the game because it's too risky. Get better at it.
Expand ...

Based on the stats in my previous post, you would need to know the % of punts that are muffed or otherwise fumbled, and multiply that by the distance of the average punt (assuming that the typical muffed punt is recovered at the point where the returner tried to field it). I can't imagine that this number would be greater than 5.37 yards.
 
Excalibur said:
In 2014, the average was 8.4 yards per return, with 46% of punts resulting in a fair catch. Assuming that a ball that is downed is a "0" return and not a separate category, the average return per punt is .64 x 8.4, or 5.376 yards of field position per punt. The average punt return distance has dropped 13% since 2005.
Expand ...

I'm not sure where you got your numbers, but the NCAA doesn't count fair catches as returns, so I don't believe you need to adjust for fair catches.
 
Excalibur said:
Based on the stats in my previous post, you would need to know the % of punts that are muffed or otherwise fumbled, and multiply that by the distance of the average punt (assuming that the typical muffed punt is recovered at the point where the returner tried to field it). I can't imagine that this number would be greater than 5.37 yards.
Expand ...

Let's make some assumptions. The average punt last year was roughly 37.5 yards. Let's assume 10% of attempted fielded punts are fumbled (probably way too high), and all of those are recovered by the punting team (not true). That's 3.75 yards of downside. So, the reward of returning a punt is 5.376 yards, vs. a potential downside of 3.75. I've majorly inflated the risk, and the math still says to try to return punts. Diaco is wrong.
 
Last edited:
WingU-Conn said:
I'm not sure where you got your numbers, but the NCAA doesn't count fair catches as returns, so I don't believe you need to adjust for fair catches.
Expand ...

Subba estimated a loss of 7 yards per change of possession. I'm looking it at it on a similar "per change of possession" basis. You need to try to capture all punts.

Much of my data comes from here, and the article notes that ball security on punts is being stressed across the college football landscape, in the name of "saving yards". Diaco's taking that to an extreme.
 
.-.
Last year I was ok with this strategy because I genuinely thought we may not have had the depth to field a competent PR unit nor did we have the personnel required at the return spot.

This is year 3 for Diaco. This should be fixed by now. I'll reserve my outrage until I see what happens with my own 2 eyes. But if I see us fair catching punts with no defenders within 10 yards I'll be very disappointed.
 
Jimmy Serrano said:
Last year I was ok with this strategy because I genuinely thought we may not have had the depth to field a competent PR unit nor did we have the personnel required at the return spot.

This is year 3 for Diaco. This should be fixed by now. I'll reserve my outrage until I see what happens with my own 2 eyes. But if I see us fair catching punts with no defenders within 10 yards I'll be very disappointed.
Expand ...

What has me concerned is that it doesn't appear to be an issue of "fixing" anything. It's deliberate strategy, at least as he describes it . . .
 
Excalibur said:
Subba estimated a loss of 7 yards per change of possession. I'm looking it at it on a similar "per change of possession" basis. You need to try to capture all punts.

Much of my data comes from here, and the article notes that ball security on punts is being stressed across the college football landscape, in the name of "saving yards". Diaco's taking that to an extreme.
Expand ...

It's not just loss of yards, but loss of possession. He's clearly focusing on what was our nemesis in the PP years, turnovers. He knows he has a defense that can win games, and the single worst thing he can do is hand the other team the ball inside our 40.

I'd like to see more returns too, but I understand his mindset.
 
Excalibur said:
Subba estimated a loss of 7 yards per change of possession. I'm looking it at it on a similar "per change of possession" basis. You need to try to capture all punts.

Much of my data comes from here, and the article notes that ball security on punts is being stressed across the college football landscape, in the name of "saving yards". Diaco's taking that to an extreme.
Expand ...

I understand now. Not every punt is going to be returned, so you're taking all of them into account.

Being conservative and stressing ball security is justifiable. Not even trying to return punts isn't.
 
Excalibur said:
What has me concerned is that it doesn't appear to be an issue of "fixing" anything. It's deliberate strategy, at least as he describes it . . .
Expand ...

Correct. I gave him a pass for his strategy last year. This year I won't be so much obliged.
 
Returns would be nice but first things first we need to focus on catching the ball and not letting it roll 25 yards towards our endzone.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,333
Messages
4,564,900
Members
10,464
Latest member
Rollskies27


Top Bottom