I saw this elsewhere and thought it was quite interesting and wonder if a few more open minded high school coaches would consider trying it if they had a good offense.
http://highschool.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=892888
High school coach never punts
Moderators: MickeyDavis, paulpressey25, humanrefutation
High school coach never punts
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 20,545
- And1: 1,328
- Joined: May 30, 2005
- Location: Working on pad level
Re: High school coach never punts
- ReasonablySober
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 107,846
- And1: 42,152
- Joined: Dec 02, 2001
- Location: Cheap dinner. Watch basketball. Bone down.
- Contact:
Re: High school coach never punts
Punting and kicking have been on my mind since I read this in 2006.
All it takes is one ballsy coach to go against conventional wisdom and have success. I'm sure we'll see it someday.
All it takes is one ballsy coach to go against conventional wisdom and have success. I'm sure we'll see it someday.
Re: High school coach never punts
- ReasonablySober
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 107,846
- And1: 42,152
- Joined: Dec 02, 2001
- Location: Cheap dinner. Watch basketball. Bone down.
- Contact:
Re: High school coach never punts
This is a mind-bending aspect that despite being inherent in such a strategy is something I didn't fully comprehend until now:
If you know that you're going for it on 4th down, then your play calling on those first three downs becomes much different.
Keeping the offense on the field on fourth down allows for more creative play-calling. Third-and-long does not have to be a passing down. The Little Rock school can run the ball, throw a screen pass or use any number of formations. Defenses do not know whether to use a nickel or dime defense. And Pulaski's offense has less pressure on third down.
If you know that you're going for it on 4th down, then your play calling on those first three downs becomes much different.
Re: High school coach never punts
- LUKE23
- RealGM
- Posts: 72,762
- And1: 6,963
- Joined: May 26, 2005
- Location: Stunville
-
Re: High school coach never punts
Very interesting article. I don't think we would ever see this in major college or in the NFL, just because coaches are way too openly-criticized by fans and media alike when they make mistakes, and coaches get fired yearly for poor performance. Just a lot more on the line in college/NFL than there is in high school (along with the fact that this Pulaski school just might be that much more talented across the board than all of their opponents in their conference).
Re: High school coach never punts
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 20,545
- And1: 1,328
- Joined: May 30, 2005
- Location: Working on pad level
Re: High school coach never punts
I don't think you could get away with NEVER punting in college ball or the NFL, but i do think we'll at some point see a college coach who goes for it on most fourth downs that aren't really deep in their own territory.
One thing that i took from both articles is how deflating it could be to opposing defenses to think they've got stops, only to see a team keep going for it on fourth down and keep drives alive.
Imagine playing that high school team in games where they are doing well on fourth downs? Mix in that they'll likely also onside kick after most scores, their offense could be on the field for multiple drives in a row.
One thing that i took from both articles is how deflating it could be to opposing defenses to think they've got stops, only to see a team keep going for it on fourth down and keep drives alive.
Imagine playing that high school team in games where they are doing well on fourth downs? Mix in that they'll likely also onside kick after most scores, their offense could be on the field for multiple drives in a row.

Re: High school coach never punts
- Simulack
- RealGM
- Posts: 11,300
- And1: 4
- Joined: Jan 03, 2002
Re: High school coach never punts
Great link, I love reading stuff like this. I've always assumed statistics would dictate that teams should punt far less frequently than they do and remember reading excerpts from that study done by the Berkeley economist in the past.
I'd bet the statistics would be even more in favor of going for it on 4th if coaches called their whole sequences of downs already planning to do so. As the article said, this would allow for more creative, less predictable play calling that would keep defenses off guard. I've also always thought that plays like running for a yard or 2 on 2nd and 1 type situations were a waste of a down - why not take a deep shot since you have another high % opportunity to pick up the first on your next play anyway (the key of course in unpredictability so it goes withotu saying that you can't do it in ever short distance situation)? This would create even more opportunities for that kind of play calling.
NFL coaching staffs have always seemed to me like they tacitly agree beforehand to follow a set of conventions (like nearly always punting, only onside kicking when there are less than 2 minutes in the game etc) that aren't part of the rule book and are not in their best interest. I think a renegade coach who did things like start going for it more frequently on 4th down would have a huge advantage until others adopted the same strategy.
I'd bet the statistics would be even more in favor of going for it on 4th if coaches called their whole sequences of downs already planning to do so. As the article said, this would allow for more creative, less predictable play calling that would keep defenses off guard. I've also always thought that plays like running for a yard or 2 on 2nd and 1 type situations were a waste of a down - why not take a deep shot since you have another high % opportunity to pick up the first on your next play anyway (the key of course in unpredictability so it goes withotu saying that you can't do it in ever short distance situation)? This would create even more opportunities for that kind of play calling.
NFL coaching staffs have always seemed to me like they tacitly agree beforehand to follow a set of conventions (like nearly always punting, only onside kicking when there are less than 2 minutes in the game etc) that aren't part of the rule book and are not in their best interest. I think a renegade coach who did things like start going for it more frequently on 4th down would have a huge advantage until others adopted the same strategy.
Re: High school coach never punts
- TJ_Ford_11
- Rookie
- Posts: 1,243
- And1: 965
- Joined: Nov 09, 2005
- Location: Hawaii
-
Re: High school coach never punts
This coach must have watched me and my friends play Madden too much.

Re: High school coach never punts
- Bernman
- RealGM
- Posts: 27,902
- And1: 8,404
- Joined: Aug 05, 2004
-
Re: High school coach never punts
Yeah, how much you want to bet that the guy got the idea from playing Madden, where the punting function is horrible. You only gain 25-30 yards each punt and figure why even bother.
You have to have a certain level quarterback in order to justify it like the Pulaski coach did. Preferably dual threat. Imagine if Dustin Sherer or Allan Evridge were leading his team. Also, it depends on your defense. A Baltimore or Pittsburgh level defense, punt away and trust them to shut the opponent down as they are accustomed. Our defense? Did it really matter how long the field was late in games especially? Or against New Orleans? We could have easily justified employing the no punt philosophy at times this season.
I always thought Sherm's decision late in the Eagles' game in the '03 playoffs to punt from no man's land on 4th and 1, w/ a dominant running game, punter who struggled downing the ball deep, and defense who couldn't stop the Eagles on the previous drives; was one of the worst decisions game management wise ever from a coach. How much did he reasonably stand to gain by doing so? That guy was a slave to conventions and lacked logic always at key times. I have to bury my head in my hands every time somebody asserts he was a good coach simply because our winning percentages during that period.
No team with any trust in their offense should ever kick a field goal inside the opponent's 3 unless it's the game winning score. They are tantamount to 2-point conversions or more favorable situations. The success rate for 2-point conversions in the NFL is 45-50 percent. So twice as often as not a team isn't going to score any points choosing that option (that's assuming the field goal is made, which isn't completely a given). But half the time they're going to score 2.33 times as many points (7 v. 3). Even if you don't score the opponent is going to be buried deep and be forced to waste possessions running in vein against a stacked box lest risk throwing out of their end zone and taking a safety. What the drive will likely come down to is one down, 3rd, where the team will have to throw quicker than desired because once again the fear of taking a safety. They probably end up punting and you receive the ball near field goal range already, the field goal that you supposedly lost by opting to go for it.
Too many guys coaching by a convention which probably started as a motive to avoid criticism and not lose the game for your team.
You have to have a certain level quarterback in order to justify it like the Pulaski coach did. Preferably dual threat. Imagine if Dustin Sherer or Allan Evridge were leading his team. Also, it depends on your defense. A Baltimore or Pittsburgh level defense, punt away and trust them to shut the opponent down as they are accustomed. Our defense? Did it really matter how long the field was late in games especially? Or against New Orleans? We could have easily justified employing the no punt philosophy at times this season.
I always thought Sherm's decision late in the Eagles' game in the '03 playoffs to punt from no man's land on 4th and 1, w/ a dominant running game, punter who struggled downing the ball deep, and defense who couldn't stop the Eagles on the previous drives; was one of the worst decisions game management wise ever from a coach. How much did he reasonably stand to gain by doing so? That guy was a slave to conventions and lacked logic always at key times. I have to bury my head in my hands every time somebody asserts he was a good coach simply because our winning percentages during that period.
No team with any trust in their offense should ever kick a field goal inside the opponent's 3 unless it's the game winning score. They are tantamount to 2-point conversions or more favorable situations. The success rate for 2-point conversions in the NFL is 45-50 percent. So twice as often as not a team isn't going to score any points choosing that option (that's assuming the field goal is made, which isn't completely a given). But half the time they're going to score 2.33 times as many points (7 v. 3). Even if you don't score the opponent is going to be buried deep and be forced to waste possessions running in vein against a stacked box lest risk throwing out of their end zone and taking a safety. What the drive will likely come down to is one down, 3rd, where the team will have to throw quicker than desired because once again the fear of taking a safety. They probably end up punting and you receive the ball near field goal range already, the field goal that you supposedly lost by opting to go for it.
Too many guys coaching by a convention which probably started as a motive to avoid criticism and not lose the game for your team.