Ay-Ziggy-Zoomba.com

Nuff said.

Our punter needs to learn to get the ball off quicker and higher as well. Everytime we got to a 4th down, I cringed just at the thought of seeing that ball get kicked 15 ft high and go down the field 25-30 yards only to get it returned for 35-40 yards a couple times. Hopefully this can be a wakeup call to the Special Teams in that regard.

The punter isn't the problem. No one can get off a decent kick in one second. When the opposition is in your face as you're receiving the snap you are going to punt it bad. Spread = five hundred record at very best (unless our offense in conference is so stellar that we never have to punt the ball )

Miami tried a very similar punt formation, with rather disasterous results against Northwestern. When I saw the formation, I thought... Well, it barely works for BG, why the hell is it gonna work better for us?! Low and behold.. blocked punt, returned for 7.

The Niz wrote:The punter isn't the problem. No one can get off a decent kick in one second. When the opposition is in your face as you're receiving the snap you are going to punt it bad. Spread = five hundred record at very best (unless our offense in conference is so stellar that we never have to punt the ball )

What I had said earlier was not meant to be a crack on the punter directly. It was actually more of on the entire offense for the punts. I guess I should have been more clear, but it's kind of hard early in the morning. But thanks for clearing that up for me anyway Niz!!

You know, all those traditionalists must not know what they have been talking about all those years with punt formations. Obviously, Brandon and his screwed up punt formations are the only way to go, especially if you have a true frosh back there. Honestly though, I agree that the punt formation sucks and needs to go...is there anything wrong with a hummingbird punt these days?

When something doesn't work, you back up a few steps and try to make it simple. What's the simplest punt formation? Seven men TOGETHER on the line two wings, a guy in front of the punter and a P. Block your ass off and kick it away. I think they are way too concerned about covering the punt to not give up a big return, that they forget you have to be able to kick the ball first.

Rojas was probably scared to death kicking it that formation. And that lead him to always angleing his punt to left because the pressure was coming from the right. So that lead to shorter punts when he did get one off as well.

I don't like the spread punt fomation either, butr Rojas seems to be struggling with consistency right now. I noticed that during the scrimmage from a week ago. He has a great leg and really booms it when he gets ahold of one, but he also has a tendency to shank a few too.

Here, Here!

Flipper wrote:I don't like the spread punt fomation either, butr Rojas seems to be struggling with consistency right now. I noticed that during the scrimmage from a week ago. He has a great leg and really booms it when he gets ahold of one, but he also has a tendency to shank a few too.

As I said, I think his 'shanks' are a result of avoiding the upcoming rush to his right. He always ended up angling his kicks to the left instead of going straight forward toward the line of scrimmage. IMO, that is the problem with the punting game.

I too can't stand our punt formation. I thought we saw the end of it last season. We didn't. Even with a young punter, we're dodging bullets using it. We dodged (and ate) bullets with it last year with a senior. Why the hell can't we line up in a typical formation? While I still think we would have lost this game in the end, our punting (block for a TD, shank to set up a TD) doomed any chance of us getting a win. Wisconsin has a great punter, but the thing I was most impressed with was the time he had to get the punt off and the protection he had in the process. If we continue to use this formation, which I think we will, we're going to continue to get our punts blocked no matter who we use back there.

When something doesn't work, you back up a few steps and try to make it simple. What's the simplest punt formation? Seven men TOGETHER on the line two wings, a guy in front of the punter and a P. Block your ass off and kick it away. I think they are way too concerned about covering the punt to not give up a big return, that they forget you have to be able to kick the ball first.

Rojas was probably scared to death kicking it that formation. And that lead him to always angleing his punt to left because the pressure was coming from the right. So that lead to shorter punts when he did get one off as well.

That's not a fair argument, as you're being far too logical.

We probably wouldn't have won anyway, but that formation cost us any chance at a victory.

It will cost us at least 2 more games this season. Our team isn't good enough to be giving points away, even to teams like Buffalo and Kent.

Warthog wrote:

Flipper wrote:I don't like the spread punt fomation either, butr Rojas seems to be struggling with consistency right now. I noticed that during the scrimmage from a week ago. He has a great leg and really booms it when he gets ahold of one, but he also has a tendency to shank a few too.

As I said, I think his 'shanks' are a result of avoiding the upcoming rush to his right. He always ended up angling his kicks to the left instead of going straight forward toward the line of scrimmage. IMO, that is the problem with the punting game.

I agree with Warthog. Plus, that goofy formation, which always allows for opponents to make contact with the 3 man "fence" or "gate" right in front him, must make Rojas nervous as hell.

I hate the formation too, but Rojas was hitting a number of punts off the side of his foot in the drills last week. His drop may be a bit off...

Whatever the case, I absolutely agree that we need to go with a more traditional formation if for no other reason than the aforementioned "distraction" factor. If I were punting behind that set up I'd be afraid I was going to kick one of those deep blockers in the ass with my follow through.