Ay-Ziggy-Zoomba.com

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dl ... /-1/SPORTS

Check out the title "Flaws in BG's punt protection surfacing" Shouldn't we have seen this headline three weeks ago? j/k Maureen

But it does distrub me how much Brandon keeps defending the formation. It is always missed assignments and such that are causing the problems. Well, that may be true. But if a formation is leading to poor execution, wouldn't think about switching to a formation that is easier for the players to execute?

Hey, but on the punts we do get off, we are giving up only 4.4 yards per return. So the formation does work when we do get the punt off. :duh:

I'm still not a fan of the "shield" formation. Week after week we run into more, and new, problems with it. As for our opponents low punt returns, that's great, but if that's our goal using this shield formation, I'd rather line up in the standard formation and aim for the sidelines and punt the ball out of bounds.

It is awfull by design.

Interesting that they picked bg and not UT for the article after we got two blocks run in for TDs. I never saw anyone using that formation before Tom Amstutz, although it may be that I only became aware of it then. It does provide great opportunities for 6'8", 358 pound offensive linemen to become your university's all time leader in yards per carry though.

Save 10 yards per return, give up how many blocks?

FWIW, I think the length/hang time of the punt has more to do with the opponents ability to return the kick than any kind of formation ever will. When your punter is only kicking it 37.9 yards, the coverage team has a better chance of covering the returner.

Warthog wrote:FWIW, I think the length/hang time of the punt has more to do with the opponents ability to return the kick than any kind of formation ever will. When your punter is only kicking it 37.9 yards, the coverage team has a better chance of covering the returner.

The Rugby punt seems to have something to do with it as well...it has a tendency to be low, short, but then roll a lot. Tough for a returner to get a bead on it too.

Good point Hammb. But it looks like the 4.4 number is only punts that are actually returned. This weeks media guide shows 48 return yards on 11 kicks. I don't think many of the 'rugby' kicks get returned. And we aren't seeing many of those this year since we are using this 'shield' formation. But fwiw, the block against OU that was returned for a TD appeared to be a 'rugby' style kick, iirc.

Warthog wrote:Good point Hammb. But it looks like the 4.4 number is only punts that are actually returned. This weeks media guide shows 48 return yards on 11 kicks. I don't think many of the 'rugby' kicks get returned. And we aren't seeing many of those this year since we are using this 'shield' formation. But fwiw, the block against OU that was returned for a TD appeared to be a 'rugby' style kick, iirc.

The blocked return was a rugby style kick, at least that was the consensus in my area of the stands.

However, I do believe the rugby style kicks are counting toward the return yards, and could be skewing them as well. I think the only way that the return would not count is if it is a fair catch, blocked punt, punt out of bounds, or one that is left completely alone by the returner.

I'm thinking that in the case of the rugby punts at some point the returner scoops it up to stop it from continuing its roll. I'd have to go rewatch, and they might just let them all go forever. However, if they do scoop them and then get brought down that would be a PR for 0 yards.

Either way I don't think that our goofy punt scheme is helping us cover kicks that much. We probably cover kicks well because all the people that are supposed to be blocking to set up the return are harrassing Fry.

hammb wrote:The blocked return was a rugby style kick, at least that was the consensus in my area of the stands.

I thought so too.

hammb wrote:However, I do believe the rugby style kicks are counting toward the return yards, and could be skewing them as well. I think the only way that the return would not count is if it is a fair catch, blocked punt, punt out of bounds, or one that is left completely alone by the returner.

I'm thinking that in the case of the rugby punts at some point the returner scoops it up to stop it from continuing its roll. I'd have to go rewatch, and they might just let them all go forever. However, if they do scoop them and then get brought down that would be a PR for 0 yards.

Again I agree. I just don't think that many of them get returned/picked up at all. Evidence: Fry has 25 punts but the opponents only have returned 11 punts. Whether it is a 'rugby' style or not, the opposition isn't retruning many of our punts. (Probably because they are always going for the block instead of the return )

hammb wrote:Either way I don't think that our goofy punt scheme is helping us cover kicks that much. We probably cover kicks well because all the people that are supposed to be blocking to set up the return are harrassing Fry.

Amen.

Other punting items that I am wondering about: the media notes show that we have 3 "TEAM" punts. Any idea what that is? The media notes also show Fry as having only 1 blocked punt. Of course the one OU returned for a TD is this one. The ones that have been partially blocked (OU, Boise) just go as very short kicks for statistical purposes. BUT, in the "TEAM" punt line, there is also 1 blocked. Again, any ideas as to what this is?