Turn kicking woes into competitive advantage

[NWICY]

We should never kick again, this has been a **** show for decades.

Shaggy says you take that back!

 

[CtownCyclone]

I'd be on board with this. No reason to punt, we can't hit a field goal, and you can change your strategy from "3 downs to get 10" to "4 downs to get 10".

As far as our "1 for 6" stat goes, it would be interesting to see the context of each of those decisions.

 

[Al_4_State]

I think we should just take everything over 40 yards off the table and leave Assalley in place. It's clear that giving Narveson the "long" job ****** with his head, even though we had essentially quit even trying to have Assalley make anything past 40.

I love the idea of treating everything between the 45 and the 20 as 4 down territory.

 

[ISUMojoMan]

I don't think you can have one standard rule. The decision varies game to game. Going for it on 4th down also depends on down and distance, if you wind up with 4th and 15 on the 40 you might as well punt and play the field position game. Sometimes when you punt and make a team start close to their goal line for a few series in a row you can suffocate their offense, get a turnover or the ball back inside the 50 by just being patient. If you go for it on 4th down and don't get it you might be allowing their offense to open up the playbook and go for it on 4 downs which flips the pressure to your defense.

 

[psychlone99]

I think we should just take everything over 40 yards off the table and leave Assalley in place. It's clear that giving Narveson the "long" job ****** with his head, even though we had essentially quit even trying to have Assalley make anything past 40.

I love the idea of treating everything between the 45 and the 20 as 4 down territory.

Agree on all points. And I like the idea of applying that general philosophy to a wider swath of opponent's territory. I was a bit conservative by suggesting between the 35 and 25, but I think it's reasonable (logical) to expand it further.

I don't think you can have one standard rule. The decision varies game to game...

Right. Which is why I acknowledged this in my original post- every decision will be situational. But I think there is an inherent freedom that comes with proactively adopting that general philosophy into your game planning and playcalling.

 

[SCarolinaCy]

Am I the only one who thinks the recent kicking woes might be a great opportunity to create a competitive advantage? Every decision is situational, of course, but I think we would be pretty dangerous if the coaches used the general philosophy that we're going for it on any 4th down between the opponent's 25 and 35. From the opponent's perspective, I would hate to have to defend this offense for four downs in that field position.[/QUOT

I agree with what you are saying. The biggest drawback, however, is come the end of the half and end of the game, when crunch time is at hand. Let's say you are down two points, 4th and 4, ball is at the 25 yard line, two seconds left in the game.

 

[NickTheGreat]

I agree with what you are saying. The biggest drawback, however, is come the end of the half and end of the game, when crunch time is at hand. Let's say you are down two points, 4th and 4, ball is at the 25 yard line, two seconds left in the game.

Worked out okay for Baylor

 

[CoKane]

There should certainly be no punting inside the opponents 40. I may even be in favor of extending that to the 50.

Same. Unless it's a 4th and 10 or longer I like our chances a lot better the less I see of our special teams units minus kickoffs of course

 

[Aclone]

I’d rather the two current kickers just settle into reliable kickers when we need them. Great kicking would be a bonus.

 

[ISUAlum2002]

Worked out okay for Baylor

You could even make the argument that Baylor's own kicking woes contributed to their win against us. If they had made that PAT earlier in the game, we would have been tied up at 21 late in the 4th quarter and maybe they wouldn't have felt the need to be more aggressive to get into FG range toward the end. They may have played a bit more conservatively to get to OT.

But as it was, they were down 1 and were forced to be aggressive at the end of regulation. If they had played for OT instead, who knows what may have happened.