Punt formation

[jay santos]

I remember a couple weeks ago Jan and Gunther were talking about the three man punt formation and someone asked why you never see it in the NFL. Gunther was going on and on about it, how he used to play that middle guy in the three man punt formation and how it was the worst job he ever had. He said no one in the NFL does it because NFL guys have the speed to beat it. You can get by in college with it but not NFL. He mentioned how he went up against someone with NFL speed once doing it in college and the guy had seven yards of steam coming at him and nearly blew him over.

So this was in my head watching the game. We put a guy in the middle, Walter Kahailii, a backup offensive lineman who is not the most nimble guy on the team.

I think TCU's speed blew up two punts because of this formation. 1) Kahailii panicked and moved over too fast, hitting the ball. 2) the TCU guy beat the guy on the left and got to Stephenson. I looked at the replay over and over, and I think it was tipped (the ball seems to change direction), but if not i think he hurried Stephenson into a bad punt. The one that ended up at like our 40.

The snap Stephenson muffed, can't blame it on the formation, but maybe at that point the punt team was so frazzled it led to more mistakes.

[Shaka]

The purpose of the formation is to get more people down the field quicker to cover. I'm not a big fan but understand why they do it. BYU's punt coverage has been pretty decent.

[MartyFunkhouser]

It's just a dumb formation. The reason why NFL teams don't use that formation is because NFL teams have more money to hire smarter special teams coaches.

Why would you let the opponent run unblocked for ten yards before offering any resistance? Football is about momentum, not emotional momentum, I'm talking physical momentum = mass*velocity. You're letting your opponent get up to a velocity to hit your stationary player.

Aside from this, those three players you put back by the punter are now ten yards further away from the punt returner.

There is absolutely no sound logic behind that punt formation. Utah uses it as well, and it is dumb, dumb, dumb. Look at how many blocked punts have killed Utah the past couple years.

Except that Urban Meyer, who was the special teams coach at Utah, was pretty well paid and a damn good coach and decided to use the formation.

[Jarid in Cedar]

The reason you only see this formation in college is because of a difference in the rules between college and the NFL.

In the NFL, the interior 5 lineman cannot release downfield until the ball is punted. So if you lined up 3 players in the shield, you basically would be committing 8 players to protection and only 2 to get downfield for coverage. For this reason, it is not a viable option in the NFL.

In college, all of the lineman can release on the snap, therefore get better coverage downfield. If you use the shield, you are basically saying that we don't think that you can penetrate up the middle against the 3 bigmen and you are not fast enough to run around the outside of the shield and still get to the punter.

[woot]

The shield formation gives you the equivalent of 7 gunners in punt coverage instead of 2. Those 7 guys don't have to block much at all. Get a little jam on your guy, and take off. I like it. BYU just runs it wrong, as I explained elsewhere.

[pellegrino]

The shield formation gives you the equivalent of 7 gunners in punt coverage instead of 2. Those 7 guys don't have to block much at all. Get a little jam on your guy, and take off. I like it. BYU just runs it wrong, as I explained elsewhere.

can you provide a link for those who are interested but too lazy unable to find it.

[woot]

can you provide a link for those who are interested but too lazy unable to find it.

http://cougaruteforum.com/showpost.p...&postcount=685

[woot]

Just goes to show you that even the smartest college coaches don't understand physics and probability as well as the average college graduate. These are former jocks we're talking about, not exactly the most brilliant people in the world. Mike Leach didn't use that gimmicky formation.

So, your argument is that you know more about football than "even the smartest college coaches". Does that strike you as naive at all? Just wondering.

[woot]

No, not at all. Remember, these are the same guys who spent their formative years as jocks. Is it any wonder that a guy like Mike Leach with no experience playing the game himself was able to dominate other coaches in the Big 12 with inferior talent and program? There are some aspects of the game that just have not been well thought out. There are several things I have figured out much better than most coaches.

I agree that coaches have some bad habits, but why do you assume that the shield punt formation is something they just kept using despite its lack of effectiveness? Its widespread use is actually somewhat recent, I'm thinking maybe 2004 or 5, so it wouldn't seem to have anything to do with that.

I'm also skeptical of your premises that Mike Leach "dominated" the Big 12 and that lack of playing experience correlates to innovative ability.

What are some other things that you "have figured out much better than most coaches"?

[Portland Ute]

What did Texas Tech do before Mike Leach? They went to BCS bowls with Mike Leach, I doubt they went to more than a handful of bowl games, even small ones, for several decades before Mike Leach. So yes, Mike Leach was dominant in the Big 12.

No, no he was not. He was successful relative to TT's past. But he was not dominant.

Some things that I've figured out that college coaches don't understand: Going for it on 4th and short is much more advantageous than punting in nearly EVERY situation, I've run the statistics myself. I've also calculated that it is much more advantageous to line your holder up 10 yards behind the line of scrimmage on short fg's and extra points than it is to line him up the traditional 7 yards behind. I've also calculated that a 6'2" CB who runs a 4.50 forty can cover the same area on a 30 yd fly pattern that a 5'10" CB who runs a 4.40 can. But coaches will invariably recruit 5'10" CB's with 4.4 forty times over taller slower CB's. It's a matter of math, which most coaches don't have.

Ah...you've done all these calculations yourself or did you recently read a book?

[woot]

What did Texas Tech do before Mike Leach? They went to BCS bowls with Mike Leach, I doubt they went to more than a handful of bowl games, even small ones, for several decades before Mike Leach. So yes, Mike Leach was dominant in the Big 12.

Did I ever say that lack of playing experience correlates to innovative ability? No, I said that playing experience doesn't correlate to innovative ability. There is a difference.

Some things that I've figured out that college coaches don't understand: Going for it on 4th and short is much more advantageous than punting in nearly EVERY situation, I've run the statistics myself. I've also calculated that it is much more advantageous to line your holder up 10 yards behind the line of scrimmage on short fg's and extra points than it is to line him up the traditional 7 yards behind. I've also calculated that a 6'2" CB who runs a 4.50 forty can cover the same area on a 30 yd fly pattern that a 5'10" CB who runs a 4.40 can. But coaches will invariably recruit 5'10" CB's with 4.4 forty times over taller slower CB's. It's a matter of math, which most coaches don't have.

Yeah, your definition of dominance seems to be incorrect. If by "dominated the Big 12" you mean "dominated the previous Texas Tech coaches in a transitive fashion", then sure. By that logic, however, UNM's next head coach is guaranteed to dominate the MWC.

The rest of your arguments seem plausible. Certainly college coaches punt far too often, which is a drum I've banging for quite a while. Regarding 6'2" guys who can run a 4.5, they're called NFL WRs. I doubt there is any position where 4 inches with a commensurate increase in mass isn't better than being .1 faster in the 40. The bigger issue here, however, is that CBs aren't tasked with simply covering 30 yards of ground. They're tasked with figuring out what the WR is doing and to run his route for him. I'll take a CB with quick hips over a straight-ahead burner any day. 6'2" guys have a harder time with that, which is why they tend to play safety, not corner. Math doesn't always tell you the whole story.

[UtahDan]

The purpose of the formation is to get more people down the field quicker to cover. I'm not a big fan but understand why they do it. BYU's punt coverage has been pretty decent.

What's with your Billy Kilmer avatar?

[Shaka]

No, not at all. Remember, these are the same guys who spent their formative years as jocks. Is it any wonder that a guy like Mike Leach with no experience playing the game himself was able to dominate other coaches in the Big 12 with inferior talent and program? There are some aspects of the game that just have not been well thought out. There are several things I have figured out much better than most coaches.

Umm, Urban Meyerr didn't play college football either.


You're point regarding coaching being nothing more than dumb jocks is ridiculous.

[Shaka]

What's with your Billy Kilmer avatar?

I'm going old school on my quarterback avatars. This time I felt like going for the tough guy with the single-bar facemask.

[il Padrino Ute]

Umm, Urban Meyerr didn't play college football either.


You're point regarding coaching being nothing more than dumb jocks is ridiculous.

Actually, Meyer did play college football at Cincinnati. He was a DB. He played minor league baseball too.