Um, KF is actually correct about not returning punts. It's not worth it.

hawkfan340

hawkfan340

Well-Known Member
Punt return stats via Yahoo since 2009:

2012: 119 yards, 16 returns, 9.9 yards/game
2011: 111 yards, 14 returns, 8.5 yards/game
2010: 138 yards, 21 returns, 10.6 yards/game
2009: 173 yards, 29 returns, 13.3 yards/game

Total: 541 yards, 80 returns, 10.6 yards/game


If I offered that you are guaranteed to get possession on every punt situation in exchange for 10 total yards of field position per game, you would be crazy not to take it. Ten yards each game. That's all we're getting for setting up these returns.

Not worth it.
 
I agree with this. Ferentz claims the team had practiced being prepared for fake punt situations all week leading up to MSU. So unless you think he's a liar, for whatever reason his teams cannot defend them. Yes, that comes back on him. But regardless, the answer is yes that I'd trade fair catches in all those situations to not losing those possessions. Especially considering the critical juncture that many of them came at.
 
As thrilling as KMM's returns agains WMU were, they are highly unlikely. If a wide receiver doesn't catch the ball ever, no matter how much coaching he receives, he shouldn't be played. If the team can't prepare for fakes, no matter how much time the staff spends teaching it, they shouldn't ever return. Smart, economical thinking on the hands of Kirk.
 
I agree with this assessment. I think it's in Iowa's best interest to call a "punt block safe" against basically every punt formation. It would drastically reduce the probability of a successful fake; it would greatly increase the probability of a blocked punt; and bringing more heat would increase the likelihood of a shanked punt.
 
Of course, in reality returning a punt and stopping a fake are not mutually exclusive conditions.

But if KF wants to coach in a binary world, by god, choose the one where we get possession of the ball.
 
hawkfan340 said:
Punt return stats via Yahoo since 2009:

2012: 119 yards, 16 returns, 9.9 yards/game
2011: 111 yards, 14 returns, 8.5 yards/game
2010: 138 yards, 21 returns, 10.6 yards/game
2009: 173 yards, 29 returns, 13.3 yards/game

Total: 541 yards, 80 returns, 10.6 yards/game


If I offered that you are guaranteed to get possession on every punt situation in exchange for 10 total yards of field position per game, you would be crazy not to take it. Ten yards each game. That's all we're getting for setting up these returns.

Not worth it.
Click to expand...

I think you have to look past averages. 1 time per game putting you in field position to score can make a difference even if the other 7 times it is a zero.

Averages are not always a good way to evaluate things.
 
hawkfan340 said:
Punt return stats via Yahoo since 2009:

2012: 119 yards, 16 returns, 9.9 yards/game
2011: 111 yards, 14 returns, 8.5 yards/game
2010: 138 yards, 21 returns, 10.6 yards/game
2009: 173 yards, 29 returns, 13.3 yards/game

Total: 541 yards, 80 returns, 10.6 yards/game


If I offered that you are guaranteed to get possession on every punt situation in exchange for 10 total yards of field position per game, you would be crazy not to take it. Ten yards each game. That's all we're getting for setting up these returns.

Not worth it.
Click to expand...

If you have a punt block on every time, it would be very difficult to successfully execute a fake. Also, chances are you'd actually block one once and a while (maybe not with our special teams play), which would give you better field position than if you got even a decent return.
 
This post is so stupid. You should have your football fan membership card revoked to agree with this stupidty.
 
UrbandaleHawk01 said:
I agree with this. Ferentz claims the team had practiced being prepared for fake punt situations all week leading up to MSU. So unless you think he's a liar, for whatever reason his teams cannot defend them. Yes, that comes back on him. But regardless, the answer is yes that I'd trade fair catches in all those situations to not losing those possessions. Especially considering the critical juncture that many of them came at.
Click to expand...

You do not have to sacrifice a punt return to ensure that the opposing team does not fake punt.
Rush the damn punter, occupy their blockers and put an athlete back there to run back the punts.
Their blockers can't cover the punt IF THEY HAVE TO ACTUALLY BLOCK SOMEONE!
Iowa players are obviously coached to turn their back on the play as soon as the ball is snapped because that's what they have been doing, time and time again.
Other coaches see that. A fake punt is a high risk play in your own territory, clinging to a small lead, yet teams choose to do it against Iowa.
Why? They watch film & against Iowa, it is not nearly as risky as against teams that are coached up.
 
Stop the defeatist attitude. Brodell's return against ISU won the game. Ochoa's return against Michigan won the game in 2003. If you have a guy like Brodell, Ochoa, Sandeman, etc. back there, you give those guys a wall and outcomes of games will change.
 
blubberhawk said:
You do not have to sacrifice a punt return to ensure that the opposing team does not fake punt.
Rush the damn punter, occupy their blockers and put an athlete back there to run back the punts.
Their blockers can't cover the punt IF THEY HAVE TO ACTUALLY BLOCK SOMEONE!
Iowa players are obviously coached to turn their back on the play as soon as the ball is snapped because that's what they have been doing, time and time again.
Other coaches see that. A fake punt is a high risk play in your own territory, clinging to a small lead, yet teams choose to do it against Iowa.
Why? They watch film & against Iowa, it is not nearly as risky as against teams that are coached up.
Click to expand...

Rushing punts is too risky. You risk roughing the punter. Converting a fake punt or a roughing call are both pretty much equally disastrous for the defense. In addition, when you rush a bunch of guys, you might leave yourself susceptible to the pass. I'd like to see a modified Norm Parker prevent defense with one guy deep for punt situations. 3 down lineman. 3 LBs. 5 DBs. No one can get a first down against that except Juice Williams, but he has graduated.
 
UrbandaleHawk01 said:
I agree with this. Ferentz claims the team had practiced being prepared for fake punt situations all week leading up to MSU. So unless you think he's a liar, for whatever reason his teams cannot defend them. Yes, that comes back on him. But regardless, the answer is yes that I'd trade fair catches in all those situations to not losing those possessions. Especially considering the critical juncture that many of them came at.
Click to expand...

Then he's either a poor teacher or poor technician, take your pick.
 
The 49ers with Harbaugh as their coach got burned on fake punts two times in one game against the horrible rams, so things could be worse.
 
okeefe4prez said:
Rushing punts is too risky. You risk roughing the punter. Converting a fake punt or a roughing call are both pretty much equally disastrous for the defense. In addition, when you rush a bunch of guys, you might leave yourself susceptible to the pass. I'd like to see a modified Norm Parker prevent defense with one guy deep for punt situations. 3 down lineman. 3 LBs. 5 DBs. No one can get a first down against that except Juice Williams, but he has graduated.
Click to expand...

You do not have to go with an all out, punt block effort. You can still put enough of a rush on to occupy blockers and speed up the punter. Why can't people just admit that Iowa has messed up defending fake punts worse than any team in college football history and get on with fixing the damn problem. (and it has nothing to do with having the "return" on)
 
David79 said:
The 49ers with Harbaugh as their coach got burned on fake punts two times in one game against the horrible rams, so things could be worse.
Click to expand...

Harbaugh is 27-9 with the 49ers with a NFL title game and a super bowl appearance to show for his two full seasons. Believe me, these fake punt successes against Iowa would be much less of an issue if Iowa was winning.
 
Kernt has got all you Kool Aid drinkers to actually believe that receiving punts is a zero sum game.

You can pressure punters, and protect against fakes, and return punts. You don't need to emphasize one at the expense of the others.
 
NCHawker said:
I think you have to look past averages. 1 time per game putting you in field position to score can make a difference even if the other 7 times it is a zero.

Averages are not always a good way to evaluate things.
Click to expand...

The longest return over the same period is only 30 yards.

So we haven't broken any big ones since 2008 and, although I don't have individual data easily available, I would bet the mean & median are approximately equal.

Averages are very valuable in general game planning, but I agree that individual situations require unique analysis and decision making.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top