Special Teams

Canadian Fan said:
It would be more consistent if Frost had a direct channel to Lubick and when Frost called him, the play call was relayed through Lubick.  And if Frost has ideas about changing some things he can always talk to Lubick between offensive series. 
Click to expand...


So basically you're saying that... Frost should talk to Lubick during the game? I dunno, man, seems sus.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gorillahawk said:
Whats he supposed to say? We sucked and I'm not happy with our current players? That's a good way to lose the locker room. I'd say that Frost is a lot more honest with his players in small position group or individual meetings then he is when he talks about them to the media.
Click to expand...
You joke, but that's almost exactly what he did for the last 3 years with Riley's kids. 

Now they're gone, he can't make the excuse anymore, and I think he's learned that's a good way to piss kids off. 

 
I've said this now way too many times on this forum and I said in the OP of this thread, but I still think special teams was again the weakest unit in 2020.

Still can't tell if our kicker is struggling to consistently kick the ball down to around the goal line or whether he was being coached to loft it a bit higher and shorter and then let our coverage unit try to pin them deep. But either way, it didn't work.

Then when we're returning kickoffs, we're constantly trying to take the ball out and getting pinned inside the 25 and sometimes even the 20. You combine that with a bad punt unit and we're behind in field position all game just based on those two factors together.

If it's actually as hard to fix this situation as our program makes it out to look, then I sympathize with Frost a bit. But I kind of don't think it's as hard as we're making it, honestly.

 
Undone said:
we're constantly trying to take the ball out and getting pinned inside the 25 and sometimes even the 20.
Click to expand...
I don't know about "constantly".  We had 18 returns over 15 games.  So, that's less than 2 per game.  We had an 18 yard average.  That needs to improve and I'm not poo pooing that.  But, our opponents only averaged 22 yards per return for only 4 yards more.  Take out the one or two TDs on returns and that average would go down.

 
BigRedBuster said:
I don't know about "constantly".  We had 18 returns over 15 games.  So, that's less than 2 per game.  We had an 18 yard average.  That needs to improve and I'm not poo pooing that.  But, our opponents only averaged 22 yards per return for only 4 yards more.  Take out the one or two TDs on returns and that average would go down.
Click to expand...


This is why the field position metrics are better though - 22 yards per return when you're catching it at the 10 is a massive difference compared to 18 yards per fielding it at the 2. 18 yards per return is terrible. Giving up 22 per return isn't atrocious, but when combined with where they were catching it it's pretty bad. There were also at least a handful of kicks where our coverage would be good on paper (10-15 yard return), but were pop up kicks to up backs that still led to excellent field position. You're hoping for basically a 0 yard return on those, and consistently gave up positive yards. Yards that would pull our average given up down to the respectable range, but not when you account for where they were fielded.

 
Husker in WI said:
This is why the field position metrics are better though - 22 yards per return when you're catching it at the 10 is a massive difference compared to 18 yards per fielding it at the 2. 18 yards per return is terrible. Giving up 22 per return isn't atrocious, but when combined with where they were catching it it's pretty bad. There were also at least a handful of kicks where our coverage would be good on paper (10-15 yard return), but were pop up kicks to up backs that still led to excellent field position. You're hoping for basically a 0 yard return on those, and consistently gave up positive yards. Yards that would pull our average given up down to the respectable range, but not when you account for where they were fielded.
Click to expand...
Totally agree.  But, I don't have any other stats to go on.  

I always feel like they should have return yards based on where the ball would be if they didn't return it.  Meaning, if they field it at the goal line and return it to the 30, that should only be a 5 yard return.  If they get to the 20, that's -5.

So, if we only kicked it to the 15 and they returned it to the 35, that's a 10 yard return.  

It would take into account the kick and the return.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BigRedBuster said:
Totally agree.  But, I don't have any other stats to go on.  

I always feel like they should have return yards based on where the ball would be if they didn't return it.  Meaning, if they field it at the goal line and return it to the 30, that should only be a 5 yard return.  If they get to the 20, that's -5.

So, if we only kicked it to the 15 and they returned it to the 35, that's a 10 yard return.  

It would take into account the kick and the return.
Click to expand...


I think that's effectively what the field position stats do, yeah. But I also don't have access to most of them, proprietary stats are cool but annoying because the good ones are behind paywalls. The free one I have found has us 113th in kickoffs and 118th in kick returns, which honestly feels accurate. "average values generated per kickoff based on field position at the conclusion of the play" is vague, but I assume translates pretty directly to what you described.

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaa/fei/overallst/2020

 
BigRedBuster said:
I always feel like they should have return yards based on where the ball would be if they didn't return it.
Click to expand...


Yep, this.

As @Husker in WI said, field position differential metrics are well-applied here. And I don't have those stats to share right now, admittedly, but the eyeball test tells me we were indeed typically not on top in that element. 

Combine that with a team prone to committing dumb penalties and also fairly consistently being negative in the turnover margin, it's just hard to have a winning season.

 
Undone said:
As @Husker in WI said, field position differential metrics are well-applied here. And I don't have those stats to share right now, admittedly, but the eyeball test tells me we were indeed typically not on top in that element. 
Click to expand...
And, I think this is why we didn't even try returning them 2 times per game.  I'm actually of the opinion that if you don't have a great returner, you should almost ALWAYS fair catch kickoffs since you can just get it at the 25.  There is just way too much bad that can happen.

 
BigRedBuster said:
And, I think this is why we didn't even try returning them 2 times per game.  I'm actually of the opinion that if you don't have a great returner, you should almost ALWAYS fair catch kickoffs since you can just get it at the 25.  There is just way too much bad that can happen.
Click to expand...


Yes, especially when you're already playing from behind in any given game. The risk/reward ratio just isn't favorable.

And in my opinion this falls squarely back onto bad coaching and bad in-game adjustments.

If we watch this same stuff next season and we also have another losing season it will absolutely lead to hands down the lowest point in the program.

 
Undone said:
Yes, especially when you're already playing from behind in any given game. The risk/reward ratio just isn't favorable.

And in my opinion this falls squarely back onto bad coaching and bad in-game adjustments.

If we watch this same stuff next season and we also have another losing season it will absolutely lead to hands down the lowest point in the program.
Click to expand...
Our opponents only returned 22 for the year, so even with our horrible coverage, they only returned less than one more per game than we did.

If the rules stay the same, I don't see us really increasing the number of returns a lot because of what you and I agree on.  It's just not worth it.  Even if you're ahead.

Are you sayin that you think the lack of number of returns falls on bad coaching?  If so, I disagree.

 
BigRedBuster said:
Are you sayin that you think the lack of number of returns falls on bad coaching?  If so, I disagree.
Click to expand...


No, the opposite. Choosing to return balls that land inside the 3 yard line should be fair caught unless - as you say - you have a really good returner.

*Edit: And probably even inside the 5, period.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Undone said:
No, the opposite. Choosing to return balls that land inside the 3 yard line should be fair caught unless - as you say - you have a really good returner.

*Edit: And probably even inside the 5, period.
Click to expand...
For the most part, I agree.  However, I'm fine with them trying it every once in a while.  If you're a team that doesn't return many, maybe sometime you can catch the coverage unit sleeping.

 
The fair catch inside the 5 yard line takes away a lot of dynamics from the game - both in game strategy but in actual play.   Living in Oklahoma, I remember the very first time Barry Sanders touched the ball for OK State it was the 1st kickoff of the first game for 1987.  He gets the kickoff and runs all the way for a TD. He did the same thing in 1988- his Heisman  year.  Dynamic moments like that become fewer and the game becomes less. The same is true of 'targeting' penalties.  In the interest of safety, I think the college game has gone beyond common sense and the game has suffered because of it.  Safety yes, but lets not turn this into flag football. 

 
Back
Top