Just want to make sure I understand our situation with PK. We have 0 PKs on the team. We have an offer out to a potential incoming freshman. And that’s it?

lvbuckeye said:

Why TF would he want to go to a school that doesn't even have a dedicated special teams coach? Illinois does. Texas A&M does. Ohio State does not.

Click to expand...

This is holding us back big time when it comes to getting quality special teams guys. Until Day gets it in his head that special teams do indeed actually matter and hired a dedicated coach, we are screwed here.

Why TF would he want to go to a school that doesn't even have a dedicated special teams coach? Illinois does. Texas A&M does. Ohio State does not.

Paul Davis called the ref a midget.

Login to view embedded media

BB73 said:

I won’t tell Woody. I was hoping for that guy also.

But Olano announced yesterday he’s headed to aTm.

Click to expand...

Crap

buckeyemania11 said:

Texas transfer WR commits to rival Oklahoma via NCAA Transfer Portal

.

www.on3.com

This makes Texas fans very happy im sure

Click to expand...

He was pushed out.

Onebuckfan said:

what have I become. I’m pining for the Illinois kicker. Don’t tell Woody.

Click to expand...

I won’t tell Woody. I was hoping for that guy also.

But Olano announced yesterday he’s headed to aTm.

Tomateaux Quinoa Gumbeaux said:

Cignetti is older than Urban Meyer, I believe. Even if they get the most out of him, it's unlikely that he'll be there for more than 7 years.

Click to expand...

Stress is the “ager” though. Urban was hyper focused on self perception, and it showed. Cig doesn't give a shit about what anyone thinks, and it’s not an act.

what have I become. I’m pining for the Illinois kicker. Don’t tell Woody.

RuGettinIt said:

I was always watching for this in the games and how the team did.

Click to expand...

It's a pretty clear mid game tell of how the game is going to go with a Day coached team.

Lack of execution in the middle 8 vs reasonably skilled team is a problem. Typically can be overcome against bad teams. It's a kill shot against almost anyone when it works (which is a lot).

Jaxbuck said:

Understood. Nothing works 100% of the time

That does not invalidate the approach.

Click to expand...

I was always watching for this in the games and how the team did.

RuGettinIt said:

Unfortunately we did not win the middle 8 in the games we lost.

Click to expand...

Understood. Nothing works 100% of the time

That does not invalidate the approach.

Jaxbuck said:

Agreed and I think it gets down to then stepping outside of just the possession math and also taking into account the other big constraint which is clock and to a lesser degree game state.

I think that middle 8 is the real world spot where they are making the bet that they can grab the extra possession (in essence) by getting ahead two scores at that spot in the game (clock constraint now) you really start to squeeze the opponent and change the efficacy of their possessions the rest of the way.

We have all seen it work a lot more than it fails.

Click to expand...

I agree with you on the middle 8 concept. Day brought this up a lot. Unfortunately we did not win the middle 8 in the games we lost.

BB73 said:

I agree that ability to get the extra possession is going to be worth several deltas of pts/possession for teams that are fairly even.

That seems to raise a question about teams having a preference for winning the coin toss and deferring. By deferring, a team is giving the opponent a chance to have an extra possession in the first half. And is more likely to end up playing from behind.

Click to expand...

Agreed and I think it gets down to then stepping outside of just the possession math and also taking into account the other big constraint which is clock and to a lesser degree game state.

I think that middle 8 is the real world spot where they are making the bet that they can grab the extra possession (in essence) by getting ahead two scores at that spot in the game (clock constraint now) you really start to squeeze the opponent and change the efficacy of their possessions the rest of the way.

We have all seen it work a lot more than it fails.

Bborg140 said:

Not that it changes much, but I believe my total was 17.

Jax St. 3.5
Miami, FL 3.5
Penn St. 3.5
Virginia 6.5

Click to expand...

Yep, sorry, I’ve updated it, I missed the Jax St game when I was adding up your score.

Jaxbuck said:

Springs slips

Click to expand...

Too soon.

sparcboxbuck said:

I think that's covered under this:
-- Where there is a significant advantage for the defense but not the offense, I agree with the Day MO this year. Minimize where you fall shorter and just be good enough to score one more point than they do... win the games ugly and with defense. Field position is key and the special teams has to be on point.

Ultimately, in this case, we would be the team that just hung around and was there at the end with a chance to win it. This is a rock fight and you want to keep it low scoring and close because one can count on the defense to get the out. The offense just needs to score one point more than the other guy for the W.

Click to expand...

Going back to my fundamental model of an outcome (skill + random variance = outcome)

My issue is (and this is what's changed for me as a football observer over the years), I don't care how good the defense is, RV/"luck" is asymmetrical on the defensive side of the ball. When that skinny tail variance expresses itself on defense, the opponent scores. Springs slips.

As a general strategy (not talking about in game tactical uses of tempo) therefore, I would always optimize to play as few defensive snaps as possible if I had the better team. The surest path to victory in football is to have the per play points advantage because of your skill and to have more offensive plays relative to your opponent...not just absolute, volume more plays because you are actually increasing your odds of winning by limiting their chance at luck.

In general, every offensive snap is a chance for you to express skill and suppress luck. Every defensive snap is an elevated chance for the lesser skilled team to get lucky. It's like giving them more lottery tickets or playing Russian Roulette with more bullets, not fewer.

So anyway, you clearly understand it so that's my only actual point on the risk mitigation/constraint/game theory side of it.

My main argument is that people are confusing the undesirable outcome with the approach and this is the real mistake. Not once have I seen anyone who says "go faster" give equal mind share to the very real possibility that you fail and just end up punting faster.

It's a very common cognitive bias buy essentially it's if they just did this we would have won.
they get x = desired outcome anchored and give zero credence to the possibility of failure of x

It's why the Spinal Tap bit on "these go to 11" is so funny, it hits close to the mark on the truth of the human existence.

NT: "If we sped up, we'd have more chances"
Marty: "What if you sped up and just punted faster?"
NT (long pause): "If we sped up we'd have more chances"