4th and 1.... should we go for it?

Discussion in 'The Tiger's Den' started by Robidoux87, Oct 14, 2018.

  1. kcal

    kcal Founding Member

    the rams are the best example but I think the trend will continue
     
  2. lsu-i-like

    lsu-i-like Playoff advocate

    I don’t like sitting on it to end the first half. I’m ok punting on occasion. Field position matters.
     
    BAY0U BENGAL likes this.
  3. shane0911

    shane0911 Helping lost idiots find their village

    Why?
     
  4. Rolan

    Rolan Back to my roots

    I think he is breaking the coaches norms out there and making people look at the statistics of the choice between giving the ball up or trying to keep it. But I don't see a college or pro team doing what the high school team does on every change of position.
     
    lsu-i-like likes this.
  5. shane0911

    shane0911 Helping lost idiots find their village

    Probably so, the fascinating thing is he is very successful.
     
  6. Bengal B

    Bengal B Founding Member

    Yet, he is still only a high school coach.
     
  7. shane0911

    shane0911 Helping lost idiots find their village

    Yeah I know. I wonder if it works for him because he just has the horses in the stable type thing. If the talent gap is big enough that would explain why his system works.

    Wonder how many of his kids play at the next level?
     
  8. Bengal B

    Bengal B Founding Member

    Does he coach at a private school that can recruit players from all over the area? U High could probably take that approach and still win. Maybe Catlick High and John Curtis too.
     
  9. shane0911

    shane0911 Helping lost idiots find their village

    I dont know, I remember starting a thread about it a year or so ago. The game I saw they were having their way with the other team iirc which led me to the better players thing. It obviously wouldn't work where it is apples vs. apples.
     
  10. lsu-i-like

    lsu-i-like Playoff advocate

    I think statistically it is probably sound. Too many coaches very risk averse.
     

Share This Page