Do you hear that?

[Red Devil Alum]

The magnificent sound of silence from Highway 10 after a season long of chirping?

[Maynard G Krebs]

Silence is golden

[Chin Music]

PA just puts so much pressure on every aspect of their opponent.  The defense is under pressure to stop that offense to less than 10 yards on 4 plays.  The offense is under pressure to score basically every possession.  The coach is even under pressure if he wins the coin toss.  Do you kick and give it to that explosive offense to start?  Or do you take the ball and have to come up with the onside kick?  No doubt that is a tough decision, especially in the rain.

I can't recall seeing such a hyped game literally be over after the opening "kickoff".

[Overdahill]

Silence is golden

Amen, and I am loving it!

[PA Dad]

PA just puts so much pressure on every aspect of their opponent.  The defense is under pressure to stop that offense to less than 10 yards on 4 plays.  The offense is under pressure to score basically every possession.  The coach is even under pressure if he wins the coin toss.  Do you kick and give it to that explosive offense to start?  Or do you take the ball and have to come up with the onside kick?  No doubt that is a tough decision, especially in the rain.

I can't recall seeing such a hyped game literally be over after the opening "kickoff".

Serious question.  Kelley has proven that his system works.  Why don't other coaches try it?

I won't accept that other teams don't have the athletes to make it work.  I think most coaches would say that LRC has better athletes than PA.  Hope was loaded with good athletes.

Everyone acknowledges that PA's scheme is nearly impossible to defend but no one else runs it.  Why not?

[PA Dad]

There's an old maxim that "when you win, say little; when you lose, say less."  Maybe LRC is following it.

[Red Devil Alum]

PA just puts so much pressure on every aspect of their opponent.  The defense is under pressure to stop that offense to less than 10 yards on 4 plays.  The offense is under pressure to score basically every possession.  The coach is even under pressure if he wins the coin toss.  Do you kick and give it to that explosive offense to start?  Or do you take the ball and have to come up with the onside kick?  No doubt that is a tough decision, especially in the rain.

I can't recall seeing such a hyped game literally be over after the opening "kickoff".

Serious question.  Kelley has proven that his system works.  Why don't other coaches try it?

I won't accept that other teams don't have the athletes to make it work.  I think most coaches would say that LRC has better athletes than PA.  Hope was loaded with good athletes.

Everyone acknowledges that PA's scheme is nearly impossible to defend but no one else runs it.  Why not?

There were times last night that LRCA should have gone for it on 4th. They didn't kick off enough to try an onside. I don't think they want to
"Copy" PA.

[Lanny]

PA just puts so much pressure on every aspect of their opponent.  The defense is under pressure to stop that offense to less than 10 yards on 4 plays.  The offense is under pressure to score basically every possession.  The coach is even under pressure if he wins the coin toss.  Do you kick and give it to that explosive offense to start?  Or do you take the ball and have to come up with the onside kick?  No doubt that is a tough decision, especially in the rain.

I can't recall seeing such a hyped game literally be over after the opening "kickoff".

very good

[Lionheart88]

PA just puts so much pressure on every aspect of their opponent.  The defense is under pressure to stop that offense to less than 10 yards on 4 plays.  The offense is under pressure to score basically every possession.  The coach is even under pressure if he wins the coin toss.  Do you kick and give it to that explosive offense to start?  Or do you take the ball and have to come up with the onside kick?  No doubt that is a tough decision, especially in the rain.

I can't recall seeing such a hyped game literally be over after the opening "kickoff".

Serious question.  Kelley has proven that his system works.  Why don't other coaches try it?

I won't accept that other teams don't have the athletes to make it work.  I think most coaches would say that LRC has better athletes than PA.  Hope was loaded with good athletes.

Everyone acknowledges that PA's scheme is nearly impossible to defend but no one else runs it.  Why not?

Some others have tried to copy elements of it.  After being in conference with PA in 06-07, White Hall seems to have picked up onside kicking a lot.  Not as much as PA, but more than most teams.  It doesn't work nearly as well for us.  Sometimes it's hard to replicate a system without that system's designer.  It'd be like saying "well, Picasso's paintings are worth a lot of money, why doesn't everyone just paint like him?"  Or "Look at all the national championships John McDonnell has won.  Why doesn't everyone coach track like him?"

[Complete Biased PoV]

PA just puts so much pressure on every aspect of their opponent.  The defense is under pressure to stop that offense to less than 10 yards on 4 plays.  The offense is under pressure to score basically every possession.  The coach is even under pressure if he wins the coin toss.  Do you kick and give it to that explosive offense to start?  Or do you take the ball and have to come up with the onside kick?  No doubt that is a tough decision, especially in the rain.

I can't recall seeing such a hyped game literally be over after the opening "kickoff".

Serious question.  Kelley has proven that his system works.  Why don't other coaches try it?

I won't accept that other teams don't have the athletes to make it work.  I think most coaches would say that LRC has better athletes than PA.  Hope was loaded with good athletes.

Everyone acknowledges that PA's scheme is nearly impossible to defend but no one else runs it.  Why not?

There is only one Kevin Kelley.   His offensive mind and how he "dials up plays" has got to be in the top 1% of offensive play callers.  And as good as he is, he has an equal play caller on the other side of the ball in DC Todd Wood.

[InYoGrill]

PA and Kelly are on a whole higher plane with the offensive schemes and execution they do above everyone else. Just look at their first game smearing against Dallas Highlands. I think I read where they finished this season with a playoff win and 10-2 in big boy TX football. I would be curious as to what a typical 7 on 7 schedule is like for PA. How many tourny's?

If you noticed several GWOOD posters creeped in on our threads in regards to LRC. LRC is coached by one of their own with Weaver being a previous O coordinator under Coach Jones. You have to believe under that GW system that Weaver would be one of those that could replicate a high scoring O but just not to the degree that PA does each and every game. 

Does anyone know through the years the schools that have contacted/offered Kelly to move up whether high school or college???

[Yellowcake]

I agree. The system works because of Kevin Kelley. From preparation to game time play calls. End of story.

You realize we purposely ran the first play to the right side with 10 players? Was completely intentional. And with no one coming off the field, no one noticed Zach sneak on and catch the TD completely uncovered. I am still not sure LRCA's coach knows what happened.

[Grond]

PA just puts so much pressure on every aspect of their opponent.  The defense is under pressure to stop that offense to less than 10 yards on 4 plays.  The offense is under pressure to score basically every possession.  The coach is even under pressure if he wins the coin toss.  Do you kick and give it to that explosive offense to start?  Or do you take the ball and have to come up with the onside kick?  No doubt that is a tough decision, especially in the rain.

I can't recall seeing such a hyped game literally be over after the opening "kickoff".

Serious question.  Kelley has proven that his system works.  Why don't other coaches try it?

I won't accept that other teams don't have the athletes to make it work.  I think most coaches would say that LRC has better athletes than PA.  Hope was loaded with good athletes.

Everyone acknowledges that PA's scheme is nearly impossible to defend but no one else runs it.  Why not?

There is only one Kevin Kelley.   His offensive mind and how he "dials up plays" has got to be in the top 1% of offensive play callers.  And as good as he is, he has an equal play caller on the other side of the ball in DC Todd Wood.

+1    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YES! The "onside kick" and "go on 4th" is a philosophy, but not the reason.

PA has 11 players that are ALL doing their job, ALL making the right decision. On offense and defense.

[Maynard G Krebs]

I agree. The system works because of Kevin Kelley. From preparation to game time play calls. End of story.

You realize we purposely ran the first play to the right side with 10 players? Was completely intentional. And with no one coming off the field, no one noticed Zach sneak on and catch the TD completely uncovered. I am still not sure LRCA's coach knows what happened.

He knows by now.  Isn't that the score where the LRC bench got an unsportsmanlike penalty?  I'm not really sure if that was the call.  The PA system there was difficult to hear.

[Yellowcake]

Yessir. Second play of the game.

[wildboy44]

I was at the PA LRC game last night..I asked the same question...I figured coaches should be knocking coach Kelly's door down. If you cant beat em join em.

[Red Devil Alum]

I agree. The system works because of Kevin Kelley. From preparation to game time play calls. End of story.

You realize we purposely ran the first play to the right side with 10 players? Was completely intentional. And with no one coming off the field, no one noticed Zach sneak on and catch the TD completely uncovered. I am still not sure LRCA's coach knows what happened.

Funny thing is that PA got a first down on that play with 10
Players.

[Overdahill]

PA just puts so much pressure on every aspect of their opponent.  The defense is under pressure to stop that offense to less than 10 yards on 4 plays.  The offense is under pressure to score basically every possession.  The coach is even under pressure if he wins the coin toss.  Do you kick and give it to that explosive offense to start?  Or do you take the ball and have to come up with the onside kick?  No doubt that is a tough decision, especially in the rain.

I can't recall seeing such a hyped game literally be over after the opening "kickoff".

Serious question.  Kelley has proven that his system works.  Why don't other coaches try it?

I won't accept that other teams don't have the athletes to make it work.  I think most coaches would say that LRC has better athletes than PA.  Hope was loaded with good athletes.

Everyone acknowledges that PA's scheme is nearly impossible to defend but no one else runs it.  Why not?

This is just my personal opinion but the system is highly complex and the indoctrination (system and mentality) begins in grade school and becomes a year round commitment by HS. Not every school is situated to be able to make that happen. Also, Coach had to do a lot of "missionary selling" to the fan base as well as all other stakeholders and interested parties on the front end and probably still to this day. Not very many people have the brains and fortitude to take on that task as the second guessing was often and endless with the exception of the "already converted"

[whippersnapper]

PA dad the reason why others don't use Kelley's system is because of athletes. And if you can't see that then you're blind. I'd be willing to bet that about a third of the PA football players have a parent/relative that played a sport on the collegiate level. So naturally their children could be just as athletic or more. 5A schools and down struggle to just find a kid to complete an XP let alone be able to master onside kicks to kick every kick off attempt. Also I have brought this up before but private schools have "smarter" players. Match private school teams GPA up to public schools and it isn't close. Mix that with the genius of Kelley and its a perfect storm. Then final fact of what are private schools made of?.....Money. Players have a better in home diet, more opportunities for camps, and some maybe even personal football/strength trainers.

[Red Devil Alum]

PA dad the reason why others don't use Kelley's system is because of athletes. And if you can't see that then you're blind. I'd be willing to bet that about a third of the PA football players have a parent/relative that played a sport on the collegiate level. So naturally their children could be just as athletic or more. 5A schools and down struggle to just find a kid to complete an XP let alone be able to master onside kicks to kick every kick off attempt. Also I have brought this up before but private schools have "smarter" players. Match private school teams GPA up to public schools and it isn't close. Mix that with the genius of Kelley and its a perfect storm. Then final fact of what are private schools made of?.....Money. Players have a better in home diet, more opportunities for camps, and some maybe even personal football/strength trainers.

PA doesn't have better athletes than the better teams they play. HP, McClellan, Hope and LRCA have better athletes than do PA.

I do agree the average PA (and LRCA, Catholic, CAC)
Player has an advantage over many others in terms of
Support.

[Intelligentsia]

Certainly a combination of factors and not just the coach.  Just enough outstanding and above averge athletes, parent/school support, elementary - senior high program consistance, overall player aptitude, advantaged students who:  *can better focus on sports, (and not the multiple burdens of poverty), *participate in camps, *receive personal training, and the list could go on.  All of that COMBINED with a very good coach, provides the P.A. advantage.  You have good reason to toot your coaches horn, he is outstanding, but realize that he is coaching in an exceptional setting found in very few public schools.   

[Red Devil Alum]

Certainly a combination of factors and not just the coach.  Just enough outstanding and above averge athletes, parent/school support, elementary - senior high program consistance, overall player aptitude, advantaged students who:  *can better focus on sports, (and not the multiple burdens of poverty), *participate in camps, *receive personal training, and the list could go on.  All of that COMBINED with a very good coach, provides the P.A. advantage.  You have good reason to toot your coaches horn, he is outstanding, but realize that he is coaching in an exceptional setting found in very few public schools.   

But available to almost every private school that doesn't have the same success.

[MDXPHD]

PA should not lose to most of the teams they face because they do have better athletes with more opportunities in life. It's the combination of those two things. Sure, the system is great for their school, but it wouldn't work at most other schools. I wish he would go coach college but I think there is a reason he hasn't left. He knows he is in the best spot for his system.

[Intelligentsia]

Certainly a combination of factors and not just the coach.  Just enough outstanding and above averge athletes, parent/school support, elementary - senior high program consistance, overall player aptitude, advantaged students who:  *can better focus on sports, (and not the multiple burdens of poverty), *participate in camps, *receive personal training, and the list could go on.  All of that COMBINED with a very good coach, provides the P.A. advantage.  You have good reason to toot your coaches horn, he is outstanding, but realize that he is coaching in an exceptional setting found in very few public schools.   

But available to almost every private school that doesn't have the same success.

Indeed - That is where the coaching and "total system" coach Kelly has developed sets P.A. apart. 

[PA Dad]

I agree with most of what all of you say.  I think I just asked a poor question.

Most of the responses are directed to why PA is successful or why Kelley is successful.  That's not my question.  It's more basic than that.

Kelley's philosophy of onside kicks and no punting is based on statistics.  Some professor did a study which demonstrated that onside kicking every time and going for it on 4th down increases a team's chances of winning.  Kelley has proved that is correct.  So, why don't more coaches do that?

If Wynne is playing Batesville, PA's athletes or advantages or Kelley's genius are irrelevant to the discussion.  If a coach can increase the odds of winning by onside kicks and no punts, why don't they?

[sevenof400]

There's an old maxim that "when you win, say little; when you lose, say less."  Maybe LRC is following it.

Surely, you jest......













...waiting for it.....

[MDXPHD]

I think the statistics are relevant, but those statistics vary greatly in between teams. Some teams have a much better chance to convert on a 4th down conversion than holding their opponent after giving them good field position, but others don't. Others have a better chance to play defense and hold the opponent. Sure, general statistics are fun to throw out, but that doesn't hold true for other teams.

Another example would be the average starting position. So, you do a traditional kickoff and the average position is like 35 or so..but of course it's that when several high schools don't have a good kicker. So, the odds of holding them after giving them decent field position are lower than the recovery of the onside kick combined with the 10 yard field position you're gonna give them. But, if you have a kicker that makes them start on their 20 every time, it changes the statistics. Statistics can beasily adjusted to support any theory.

[PA Dad]

I think the statistics are relevant, but those statistics vary greatly in between teams. Some teams have a much better chance to convert on a 4th down conversion than holding their opponent after giving them good field position, but others don't. Others have a better chance to play defense and hold the opponent. Sure, general statistics are fun to throw out, but that doesn't hold true for other teams.

The study I referenced wasn't based on one team - it considered many teams over several years.  So it's hard to argue it applies only to "some" teams.

[MDXPHD]

I think the statistics are relevant, but those statistics vary greatly in between teams. Some teams have a much better chance to convert on a 4th down conversion than holding their opponent after giving them good field position, but others don't. Others have a better chance to play defense and hold the opponent. Sure, general statistics are fun to throw out, but that doesn't hold true for other teams.

The study I referenced wasn't based on one team - it considered many teams over several years.  So it's hard to argue it applies only to "some" teams.

The many teams it was based on is the point of my argument. So much variation between the teams. I promise you Batesville has a better chance to punt the ball and hold the other team than they do on a 4th down conversion attempt in almost every situation. It's team specific.

[HorseFeathers]

I think the statistics are relevant, but those statistics vary greatly in between teams. Some teams have a much better chance to convert on a 4th down conversion than holding their opponent after giving them good field position, but others don't. Others have a better chance to play defense and hold the opponent. Sure, general statistics are fun to throw out, but that doesn't hold true for other teams.

The study I referenced wasn't based on one team - it considered many teams over several years.  So it's hard to argue it applies only to "some" teams.

The many teams it was based on is the point of my argument. So much variation between the teams. I promise you Batesville has a better chance to punt the ball and hold the other team than they do on a 4th down conversion attempt in almost every situation. It's team specific.

In my experience watching the smaller classes, 2A/3A specifically. There are teams like a prescott that might be better served going for it on 4th down a lot. Until the playoffs there defense didn't give anyone any fear, not sure they still do. But their offense might be the best in the two lowest classes. But take someone like a rison, that has 5 plays in their playbook and 4 of them are run, and the 5th one is a desperation heave...Going for it on fourth down everytime makes little sense from my and probably Coach Clay Totty's view point. How many times are you going to convert 4th and 8 against a good team with a toss sweep? Or a FB Dive?

[PA Dad]

I think the statistics are relevant, but those statistics vary greatly in between teams. Some teams have a much better chance to convert on a 4th down conversion than holding their opponent after giving them good field position, but others don't. Others have a better chance to play defense and hold the opponent. Sure, general statistics are fun to throw out, but that doesn't hold true for other teams.

The study I referenced wasn't based on one team - it considered many teams over several years.  So it's hard to argue it applies only to "some" teams.

The many teams it was based on is the point of my argument. So much variation between the teams. I promise you Batesville has a better chance to punt the ball and hold the other team than they do on a 4th down conversion attempt in almost every situation. It's team specific.

I'd actually like to see those stats.  You may be right, but we're talking about percentages which accounts for variations between different teams.

I remember one stat in particular.  On 4th and two yards or less, a team goin for it makes it 80% of the time.  Why wouldn't any coach play the odds in that circumstance?

[whippersnapper]

Maybe i am reading to much into this. But can I ask why some think McClellan and Hope have better "athletes"? Cause it reads to me that some are stereotyping that since those 2 schools have more black players that they must be better " athletes " or football players. Which is far from the truth. Not trying to start anything, just asking is all.

[PA Dad]

I think the statistics are relevant, but those statistics vary greatly in between teams. Some teams have a much better chance to convert on a 4th down conversion than holding their opponent after giving them good field position, but others don't. Others have a better chance to play defense and hold the opponent. Sure, general statistics are fun to throw out, but that doesn't hold true for other teams.

The study I referenced wasn't based on one team - it considered many teams over several years.  So it's hard to argue it applies only to "some" teams.

The many teams it was based on is the point of my argument. So much variation between the teams. I promise you Batesville has a better chance to punt the ball and hold the other team than they do on a 4th down conversion attempt in almost every situation. It's team specific.

In my experience watching the smaller classes, 2A/3A specifically. There are teams like a prescott that might be better served going for it on 4th down a lot. Until the playoffs there defense didn't give anyone any fear, not sure they still do. But their offense might be the best in the two lowest classes. But take someone like a rison, that has 5 plays in their playbook and 4 of them are run, and the 5th one is a desperation heave...Going for it on fourth down everytime makes little sense from my and probably Coach Clay Totty's view point. How many times are you going to convert 4th and 8 against a good team with a toss sweep? Or a FB Dive?

I get the point and I concede that sometimes the odds do not favor going for it on 4th down.  But, as I noted above, the odds overwhelmingly favor going for it if there's less than two yards needed for a 1st yet most coaches won't play those odds.

And what about onside kicks?  That should work in 2A as well as in 5A.

[HorseFeathers]

I think the statistics are relevant, but those statistics vary greatly in between teams. Some teams have a much better chance to convert on a 4th down conversion than holding their opponent after giving them good field position, but others don't. Others have a better chance to play defense and hold the opponent. Sure, general statistics are fun to throw out, but that doesn't hold true for other teams.

The study I referenced wasn't based on one team - it considered many teams over several years.  So it's hard to argue it applies only to "some" teams.

The many teams it was based on is the point of my argument. So much variation between the teams. I promise you Batesville has a better chance to punt the ball and hold the other team than they do on a 4th down conversion attempt in almost every situation. It's team specific.

In my experience watching the smaller classes, 2A/3A specifically. There are teams like a prescott that might be better served going for it on 4th down a lot. Until the playoffs there defense didn't give anyone any fear, not sure they still do. But their offense might be the best in the two lowest classes. But take someone like a rison, that has 5 plays in their playbook and 4 of them are run, and the 5th one is a desperation heave...Going for it on fourth down everytime makes little sense from my and probably Coach Clay Totty's view point. How many times are you going to convert 4th and 8 against a good team with a toss sweep? Or a FB Dive?

I get the point and I concede that sometimes the odds do not favor going for it on 4th down.  But, as I noted above, the odds overwhelmingly favor going for it if there's less than two yards needed for a 1st yet most coaches won't play those odds.

And what about onside kicks?  That should work in 2A as well as in 5A.

Go watch a 2A game sometime....and see how many have decent kickers

[PA Dad]

Maybe i am reading to much into this. But can I ask why some think McClellan and Hope have better "athletes"? Cause it reads to me that some are stereotyping that since those 2 schools have more black players that they must be better " athletes " or football players. Which is far from the truth. Not trying to start anything, just asking is all.

Actually, I said LRC and Hope have the athletes to run Kelley's system.  Race never entered my mind.

[PA Dad]

I think the statistics are relevant, but those statistics vary greatly in between teams. Some teams have a much better chance to convert on a 4th down conversion than holding their opponent after giving them good field position, but others don't. Others have a better chance to play defense and hold the opponent. Sure, general statistics are fun to throw out, but that doesn't hold true for other teams.

The study I referenced wasn't based on one team - it considered many teams over several years.  So it's hard to argue it applies only to "some" teams.

The many teams it was based on is the point of my argument. So much variation between the teams. I promise you Batesville has a better chance to punt the ball and hold the other team than they do on a 4th down conversion attempt in almost every situation. It's team specific.

In my experience watching the smaller classes, 2A/3A specifically. There are teams like a prescott that might be better served going for it on 4th down a lot. Until the playoffs there defense didn't give anyone any fear, not sure they still do. But their offense might be the best in the two lowest classes. But take someone like a rison, that has 5 plays in their playbook and 4 of them are run, and the 5th one is a desperation heave...Going for it on fourth down everytime makes little sense from my and probably Coach Clay Totty's view point. How many times are you going to convert 4th and 8 against a good team with a toss sweep? Or a FB Dive?

I get the point and I concede that sometimes the odds do not favor going for it on 4th down.  But, as I noted above, the odds overwhelmingly favor going for it if there's less than two yards needed for a 1st yet most coaches won't play those odds.

And what about onside kicks?  That should work in 2A as well as in 5A.

Go watch a 2A game sometime....and see how many have decent kickers

Touché!

[HorseFeathers]

I think the statistics are relevant, but those statistics vary greatly in between teams. Some teams have a much better chance to convert on a 4th down conversion than holding their opponent after giving them good field position, but others don't. Others have a better chance to play defense and hold the opponent. Sure, general statistics are fun to throw out, but that doesn't hold true for other teams.

The study I referenced wasn't based on one team - it considered many teams over several years.  So it's hard to argue it applies only to "some" teams.

The many teams it was based on is the point of my argument. So much variation between the teams. I promise you Batesville has a better chance to punt the ball and hold the other team than they do on a 4th down conversion attempt in almost every situation. It's team specific.

In my experience watching the smaller classes, 2A/3A specifically. There are teams like a prescott that might be better served going for it on 4th down a lot. Until the playoffs there defense didn't give anyone any fear, not sure they still do. But their offense might be the best in the two lowest classes. But take someone like a rison, that has 5 plays in their playbook and 4 of them are run, and the 5th one is a desperation heave...Going for it on fourth down everytime makes little sense from my and probably Coach Clay Totty's view point. How many times are you going to convert 4th and 8 against a good team with a toss sweep? Or a FB Dive?

I get the point and I concede that sometimes the odds do not favor going for it on 4th down.  But, as I noted above, the odds overwhelmingly favor going for it if there's less than two yards needed for a 1st yet most coaches won't play those odds.

And what about onside kicks?  That should work in 2A as well as in 5A.

Go watch a 2A game sometime....and see how many have decent kickers

Now that I thought about it...not having decent kickers would lend itself to actually promoting the onside options. I have seen more onside, squib style kicks this year than I have remembered int he past...Last night we pooched kicked it at the same kid on every kickoff...he fumbled it twice but they recovered..

[MDXPHD]

I think the statistics are relevant, but those statistics vary greatly in between teams. Some teams have a much better chance to convert on a 4th down conversion than holding their opponent after giving them good field position, but others don't. Others have a better chance to play defense and hold the opponent. Sure, general statistics are fun to throw out, but that doesn't hold true for other teams.

The study I referenced wasn't based on one team - it considered many teams over several years.  So it's hard to argue it applies only to "some" teams.

The many teams it was based on is the point of my argument. So much variation between the teams. I promise you Batesville has a better chance to punt the ball and hold the other team than they do on a 4th down conversion attempt in almost every situation. It's team specific.

I'd actually like to see those stats.  You may be right, but we're talking about percentages which accounts for variations between different teams.

I remember one stat in particular.  On 4th and two yards or less, a team goin for it makes it 80% of the time.  Why wouldn't any coach play the odds in that circumstance?

"A team" isn't enough though. What team? Does PA have a better chance to get two yards on fourth down than LR Hall does? You see, that percentage changes greatly depending on several factors. Would PA have an 80 percent chance against a Pine Bluff or would it drop?

[MDXPHD]

I think the statistics are relevant, but those statistics vary greatly in between teams. Some teams have a much better chance to convert on a 4th down conversion than holding their opponent after giving them good field position, but others don't. Others have a better chance to play defense and hold the opponent. Sure, general statistics are fun to throw out, but that doesn't hold true for other teams.

The study I referenced wasn't based on one team - it considered many teams over several years.  So it's hard to argue it applies only to "some" teams.

The many teams it was based on is the point of my argument. So much variation between the teams. I promise you Batesville has a better chance to punt the ball and hold the other team than they do on a 4th down conversion attempt in almost every situation. It's team specific.

In my experience watching the smaller classes, 2A/3A specifically. There are teams like a prescott that might be better served going for it on 4th down a lot. Until the playoffs there defense didn't give anyone any fear, not sure they still do. But their offense might be the best in the two lowest classes. But take someone like a rison, that has 5 plays in their playbook and 4 of them are run, and the 5th one is a desperation heave...Going for it on fourth down everytime makes little sense from my and probably Coach Clay Totty's view point. How many times are you going to convert 4th and 8 against a good team with a toss sweep? Or a FB Dive?

I get the point and I concede that sometimes the odds do not favor going for it on 4th down.  But, as I noted above, the odds overwhelmingly favor going for it if there's less than two yards needed for a 1st yet most coaches won't play those odds.

And what about onside kicks?  That should work in 2A as well as in 5A.

Go watch a 2A game sometime....and see how many have decent kickers

Now that I thought about it...not having decent kickers would lend itself to actually promoting the onside options. I have seen more onside, squib style kicks this year than I have remembered int he past...Last night we pooched kicked it at the same kid on every kickoff...he fumbled it twice but they recovered..

Yes, a bad kicker would definitely favor onside kicks. Without a doubt.

[PA Dad]

I think the statistics are relevant, but those statistics vary greatly in between teams. Some teams have a much better chance to convert on a 4th down conversion than holding their opponent after giving them good field position, but others don't. Others have a better chance to play defense and hold the opponent. Sure, general statistics are fun to throw out, but that doesn't hold true for other teams.

The study I referenced wasn't based on one team - it considered many teams over several years.  So it's hard to argue it applies only to "some" teams.

The many teams it was based on is the point of my argument. So much variation between the teams. I promise you Batesville has a better chance to punt the ball and hold the other team than they do on a 4th down conversion attempt in almost every situation. It's team specific.

I'd actually like to see those stats.  You may be right, but we're talking about percentages which accounts for variations between different teams.

I remember one stat in particular.  On 4th and two yards or less, a team goin for it makes it 80% of the time.  Why wouldn't any coach play the odds in that circumstance?

"A team" isn't enough though. What team? Does PA have a better chance to get two yards on fourth down than LR Hall does? You see, that percentage changes greatly depending on several factors. Would PA have an 80 percent chance against a Pine Bluff or would it drop?

I understand your point.

One of my favorite sayings by Mark Twain is "there are lies, dang lies, and then there are statistics."  Maybe that applies here.

[whippersnapper]

Maybe i am reading to much into this. But can I ask why some think McClellan and Hope have better "athletes"? Cause it reads to me that some are stereotyping that since those 2 schools have more black players that they must be better " athletes " or football players. Which is far from the truth. Not trying to start anything, just asking is all.

Actually, I said LRC and Hope have the athletes to run Kelley's system.  Race never entered my mind.

You weren't the only one I was addressing. I am just curious as to what some posters are basing this better "athletes" on? But like I said maybe I am reading to much into this.

[Red Devil Alum]

Maybe i am reading to much into this. But can I ask why some think McClellan and Hope have better "athletes"? Cause it reads to me that some are stereotyping that since those 2 schools have more black players that they must be better " athletes " or football players. Which is far from the truth. Not trying to start anything, just asking is all.

I watched them both play and they have more players that are bigger and faster. I get your point, but that's not mine.

[Red Devil Alum]

I think the statistics are relevant, but those statistics vary greatly in between teams. Some teams have a much better chance to convert on a 4th down conversion than holding their opponent after giving them good field position, but others don't. Others have a better chance to play defense and hold the opponent. Sure, general statistics are fun to throw out, but that doesn't hold true for other teams.

The study I referenced wasn't based on one team - it considered many teams over several years.  So it's hard to argue it applies only to "some" teams.

The many teams it was based on is the point of my argument. So much variation between the teams. I promise you Batesville has a better chance to punt the ball and hold the other team than they do on a 4th down conversion attempt in almost every situation. It's team specific.

I'd actually like to see those stats.  You may be right, but we're talking about percentages which accounts for variations between different teams.

I remember one stat in particular.  On 4th and two yards or less, a team goin for it makes it 80% of the time.  Why wouldn't any coach play the odds in that circumstance?

"A team" isn't enough though. What team? Does PA have a better chance to get two yards on fourth down than LR Hall does? You see, that percentage changes greatly depending on several factors. Would PA have an 80 percent chance against a Pine Bluff or would it drop?

The book is called scorecasting.  It answers all your questions.

[MDXPHD]

I think the statistics are relevant, but those statistics vary greatly in between teams. Some teams have a much better chance to convert on a 4th down conversion than holding their opponent after giving them good field position, but others don't. Others have a better chance to play defense and hold the opponent. Sure, general statistics are fun to throw out, but that doesn't hold true for other teams.

The study I referenced wasn't based on one team - it considered many teams over several years.  So it's hard to argue it applies only to "some" teams.

The many teams it was based on is the point of my argument. So much variation between the teams. I promise you Batesville has a better chance to punt the ball and hold the other team than they do on a 4th down conversion attempt in almost every situation. It's team specific.

In my experience watching the smaller classes, 2A/3A specifically. There are teams like a prescott that might be better served going for it on 4th down a lot. Until the playoffs there defense didn't give anyone any fear, not sure they still do. But their offense might be the best in the two lowest classes. But take someone like a rison, that has 5 plays in their playbook and 4 of them are run, and the 5th one is a desperation heave...Going for it on fourth down everytime makes little sense from my and probably Coach Clay Totty's view point. How many times are you going to convert 4th and 8 against a good team with a toss sweep? Or a FB Dive?

I get the point and I concede that sometimes the odds do not favor going for it on 4th down.  But, as I noted above, the odds overwhelmingly favor going for it if there's less than two yards needed for a 1st yet most coaches won't play those odds.

And what about onside kicks?  That should work in 2A as well as in 5A.

Go watch a 2A game sometime....and see how many have decent kickers

Now that I thought about it...not having decent kickers would lend itself to actually promoting the onside options. I have seen more onside, squib style kicks this year than I have remembered int he past...Last night we pooched kicked it at the same kid on every kickoff...he fumbled it twice but they recovered..

Yes, a bad kicker would definitely favor onside kicks. Without a doubt.

[MDXPHD]

I think the statistics are relevant, but those statistics vary greatly in between teams. Some teams have a much better chance to convert on a 4th down conversion than holding their opponent after giving them good field position, but others don't. Others have a better chance to play defense and hold the opponent. Sure, general statistics are fun to throw out, but that doesn't hold true for other teams.

The study I referenced wasn't based on one team - it considered many teams over several years.  So it's hard to argue it applies only to "some" teams.

The many teams it was based on is the point of my argument. So much variation between the teams. I promise you Batesville has a better chance to punt the ball and hold the other team than they do on a 4th down conversion attempt in almost every situation. It's team specific.

I'd actually like to see those stats.  You may be right, but we're talking about percentages which accounts for variations between different teams.

I remember one stat in particular.  On 4th and two yards or less, a team goin for it makes it 80% of the time.  Why wouldn't any coach play the odds in that circumstance?

"A team" isn't enough though. What team? Does PA have a better chance to get two yards on fourth down than LR Hall does? You see, that percentage changes greatly depending on several factors. Would PA have an 80 percent chance against a Pine Bluff or would it drop?

The book is called scorecasting.  It answers all your questions.

Interesting. I will order that and read it pretty soon. It's similar to freakanomics. But again, a general analysis of multiple teams skews the numbers big time. I agree that it works for PA, but I also contend PA would win with any system. Kevin is a good coach, great high school coach, but I honestly think he would have to change his system to reach the level of success he has had at PA.

[Red Devil Alum]

I think the statistics are relevant, but those statistics vary greatly in between teams. Some teams have a much better chance to convert on a 4th down conversion than holding their opponent after giving them good field position, but others don't. Others have a better chance to play defense and hold the opponent. Sure, general statistics are fun to throw out, but that doesn't hold true for other teams.

The study I referenced wasn't based on one team - it considered many teams over several years.  So it's hard to argue it applies only to "some" teams.

The many teams it was based on is the point of my argument. So much variation between the teams. I promise you Batesville has a better chance to punt the ball and hold the other team than they do on a 4th down conversion attempt in almost every situation. It's team specific.

I'd actually like to see those stats.  You may be right, but we're talking about percentages which accounts for variations between different teams.

I remember one stat in particular.  On 4th and two yards or less, a team goin for it makes it 80% of the time.  Why wouldn't any coach play the odds in that circumstance?

"A team" isn't enough though. What team? Does PA have a better chance to get two yards on fourth down than LR Hall does? You see, that percentage changes greatly depending on several factors. Would PA have an 80 percent chance against a Pine Bluff or would it drop?

The book is called scorecasting.  It answers all your questions.

Interesting. I will order that and read it pretty soon. It's similar to freakanomics. But again, a general analysis of multiple teams skews the numbers big time. I agree that it works for PA, but I also contend PA would win with any system. Kevin is a good coach, great high school coach, but I honestly think he would have to change his system to reach the level of success he has had at PA.

You're misunderstanding statistics. Of course a good team has a better chance at success than a bad team. LR Fair is not going to the playoffs refardless of system. But certain things give ALL teams an advantage. That's the point of statistics.

[HorseFeathers]

I think the statistics are relevant, but those statistics vary greatly in between teams. Some teams have a much better chance to convert on a 4th down conversion than holding their opponent after giving them good field position, but others don't. Others have a better chance to play defense and hold the opponent. Sure, general statistics are fun to throw out, but that doesn't hold true for other teams.

The study I referenced wasn't based on one team - it considered many teams over several years.  So it's hard to argue it applies only to "some" teams.

The many teams it was based on is the point of my argument. So much variation between the teams. I promise you Batesville has a better chance to punt the ball and hold the other team than they do on a 4th down conversion attempt in almost every situation. It's team specific.

I'd actually like to see those stats.  You may be right, but we're talking about percentages which accounts for variations between different teams.

I remember one stat in particular.  On 4th and two yards or less, a team goin for it makes it 80% of the time.  Why wouldn't any coach play the odds in that circumstance?

"A team" isn't enough though. What team? Does PA have a better chance to get two yards on fourth down than LR Hall does? You see, that percentage changes greatly depending on several factors. Would PA have an 80 percent chance against a Pine Bluff or would it drop?

The book is called scorecasting.  It answers all your questions.

Interesting. I will order that and read it pretty soon. It's similar to freakanomics. But again, a general analysis of multiple teams skews the numbers big time. I agree that it works for PA, but I also contend PA would win with any system. Kevin is a good coach, great high school coach, but I honestly think he would have to change his system to reach the level of success he has had at PA.

You're misunderstanding statistics. Of course a good team has a better chance at success than a bad team. LR Fair is not going to the playoffs refardless of system. But certain things give ALL teams an advantage. That's the point of statistics.

IDK...one of my statistics text book in College was called something along the lines of "how to lie with statistics"

[Red Devil Alum]

I think the statistics are relevant, but those statistics vary greatly in between teams. Some teams have a much better chance to convert on a 4th down conversion than holding their opponent after giving them good field position, but others don't. Others have a better chance to play defense and hold the opponent. Sure, general statistics are fun to throw out, but that doesn't hold true for other teams.

The study I referenced wasn't based on one team - it considered many teams over several years.  So it's hard to argue it applies only to "some" teams.

The many teams it was based on is the point of my argument. So much variation between the teams. I promise you Batesville has a better chance to punt the ball and hold the other team than they do on a 4th down conversion attempt in almost every situation. It's team specific.

I'd actually like to see those stats.  You may be right, but we're talking about percentages which accounts for variations between different teams.

I remember one stat in particular.  On 4th and two yards or less, a team goin for it makes it 80% of the time.  Why wouldn't any coach play the odds in that circumstance?

"A team" isn't enough though. What team? Does PA have a better chance to get two yards on fourth down than LR Hall does? You see, that percentage changes greatly depending on several factors. Would PA have an 80 percent chance against a Pine Bluff or would it drop?

The book is called scorecasting.  It answers all your questions.

Interesting. I will order that and read it pretty soon. It's similar to freakanomics. But again, a general analysis of multiple teams skews the numbers big time. I agree that it works for PA, but I also contend PA would win with any system. Kevin is a good coach, great high school coach, but I honestly think he would have to change his system to reach the level of success he has had at PA.

You're misunderstanding statistics. Of course a good team has a better chance at success than a bad team. LR Fair is not going to the playoffs refardless of system. But certain things give ALL teams an advantage. That's the point of statistics.

IDK...one of my statistics text book in College was called something along the lines of "how to lie with statistics"

If you learned in the class, you'll know how to
Tell the difference between a lie and the truth.

[MDXPHD]

Lol, believe me, I understand statistics more than you know. But it's always unrealistic to rely solely on immensely varying statistics to justify a teams strategy. The Certain things that you are referring to don't give ALL teams an advantage. That's just not true. Some things do, sure. But never punting or kicking deep definitely don't.

Just like the theory,  based on statistics, that the murder rate increased in the early 90s because of Roe v Wade. Apparently, statistically speaking, there was a correlation between children who would have been aborted  and murder rates. It's interesting to read and learn about, but it doesn't mean it's true.

[whippersnapper]

Maybe i am reading to much into this. But can I ask why some think McClellan and Hope have better "athletes"? Cause it reads to me that some are stereotyping that since those 2 schools have more black players that they must be better " athletes " or football players. Which is far from the truth. Not trying to start anything, just asking is all.

I watched them both play and they have more players that are bigger and faster. I get your point, but that's not mine.

Bigger or faster doesn't necessarily mean better though. Just because some WR is 6'1 and runs like a deer doesn't mean he should catch everything thrown in front of him. The game of football is so much more then just being big and fast. That tailback for Hope may not see running lanes as well the tailback for PA. Some never get the vison to run the ball. One of the best linebackers I have seen for a team was a guy of the size around 5'8 165-175 from Magazine during their 3 year run 09-11. He was the smallest out their on defense but the best tackler and defensive player for them. He didn't look like no athlete for sure. But on Saturday in the paper 10+ tackles for the game.