|
|
Post by gonzo13 on Sept 17, 2007 19:59:55 GMT -5
I have to take Mr. Exit's side on this one. As a coach myself, (albeit in the outdoor game) if I have a good kicker, I'll take the 3 on a 4th down with short field instead of going for it.
And on the other side, if my kicking game isn't so great, I'll just try to pick up the first, or score if I'm close enough.
All that aside, Rockhold is a solid kicker...Good sign for the Express.
|
|
|
|
Post by exit322 on Sept 17, 2007 20:01:30 GMT -5
You're not taking my side, Gonzo. My side is that I wonder if it hurts teams with great kickers when they don't take the shot.
|
|
|
|
Post by gonzo13 on Sept 17, 2007 20:14:33 GMT -5
OK, maybe "taking your side" was a bad way to put it. My post was just meant to add a little credence to your argument from a coaches perspective.
|
|
|
|
Post by exit322 on Sept 17, 2007 20:16:39 GMT -5
Right...I'm taking the opposite point on with a good kicker. I've said settling for the "guaranteed" 60% shot at 3 costs you the likely 50% shot at 6/7.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tatonka on Sept 17, 2007 20:54:16 GMT -5
Attempting field goals all the time cost the Express a shot at a ring in '06, when Rockhold had a bad game in the Northern Conference title game. I pointed that out to Coach Olive; that Reading led the league, by a huge margin, in field goal attempts. They were also at the very bottom of the league in 4th down conversions and attempts...
If Rockhold had an off-game (and he did) and Reading was behind and needed to go for it 4th downs to get back into it, it would play into Canton's hands. The Legends shut out the Express in the second half of that game, because 3's wouldn't help them get back into the game, and they weren't practiced at converting 4th downs throughout the season.
Not saying he isn't a great kicker and probably won more games with his foot than he lost... but I think Josh is right, sometimes you might have the tendency to rely too much on the easy 3.
|
|
|
|
Post by xmradiodave on Sept 17, 2007 20:59:38 GMT -5
It's a 50-yard field. You're in scoring position with the start of every drive. Believe it or not (I studied this in detail with the GLIFL), teams starting on the short side of the field didn't score appreciably more often than teams starting on their own side of the field. I agree with you on this point, but still, if you are almost guaranteed 3 points why would you not take it? Sure 6 is great but those 3's and 1's add up real quick too. |
|
|
|
Post by exit322 on Sept 17, 2007 21:25:21 GMT -5
This is indoor football. not the NFL. You're not guaranteed 3 points. I don't have Rockhold's stats. But here are some comparisons:
The best kicker in the UIF (comparable to the AIFA, and with full stats), Doug Daniel, converted 31/52 (59.6%) of his figgies (Adam Hicks was the only other kicker to be above 50%). Rockhold is probably at this level, which means by using pure stats, every field goal attempt is worth about 1.8 points.
Rock River converted 9/21 fourth down conversions (pretty poor at this level, and worse than good AIFA offenses would do because the UIF is a more defensive league), and on six of the nine drives, they scored a touchdown. So, by going for it on fourth down, they got 2.0 points per go at it (they converted all six PATs). So even in a situation where they were very shaky on fourth downs, Rock River did better on going for it than by kicking...with the UIF's best kicker.
You don't go for it every time. If it's 4th and over 3 or 4, you should be kicking unless you really need six. If it's fourth and short, kicking every time just might cost a team.
|
|
|
|
Post by Canton Cougar Fan on Sept 17, 2007 21:43:56 GMT -5
I know that the Legends were infinitely better with Cipra than they were without him. Good signing for the Express ... damn it! LOL  |
|
|
|
Post by xmradiodave on Sept 17, 2007 22:18:48 GMT -5
This is indoor football. not the NFL. You're not guaranteed 3 points. I said almost. You mean to tell me that there is no field goal attempts for 3 points in indoor football? |
|
|
|
Post by exit322 on Sept 17, 2007 22:31:29 GMT -5
I'm telling you that even short kicks are no guarantee when PAT percentages are in the low-to-mid 80s (maybe higher for a guy like Rockhold). It's just not a gimme, even with a top kicker, to hit the field goal.
I just think the AIFA game's far too offensive to give up touchdown chances, especially when even good defenses are going to give up 40-50-60 points to good offenses.
But there's two sides to this, and a good debate never hurt anyone. I see the other side of the argument and it makes conventional sense; I just wonder if "conventional football wisdom" actually makes logical sense in the high-flying AIFA.
|
|
|
|
Post by xmradiodave on Sept 17, 2007 22:42:14 GMT -5
Thanks for clarifying. I was scratcing my head there.
|
|
|
|
Post by colossus on Sept 18, 2007 0:23:02 GMT -5
When I played in Huntington in 2006 we tried to plau a game (ironically against Reading) without a kicker and it bit us on the ass big time.
|
|
|
|
Post by exit322 on Sept 18, 2007 8:23:45 GMT -5
I'm certainly not saying "don't have a kicker." All I'm saying is that "a kicker that good becomes a crutch." An interesting theory.
|
|
|
|
Post by Free Agent Fan on Sept 18, 2007 14:22:47 GMT -5
I'm certainly not saying "don't have a kicker." All I'm saying is that "a kicker that good becomes a crutch." An interesting theory. A kicker with a crutch wouldn't be very productive.  |
|
|
|
Post by xmradiodave on Sept 18, 2007 14:31:15 GMT -5
I'm certainly not saying "don't have a kicker." All I'm saying is that "a kicker that good becomes a crutch." An interesting theory. A kicker with a crutch wouldn't be very productive. One more like that and you will have to issue yourself a warning. |
|
