M going back to pro punt formation?

Submitted by reshp1 on

Buried in this article about general practice tidbits:

 Michigan doesn't have a rugby-style punter on its roster this year, and so far, it looks like Chris Partridge's plan is to go with a traditional NFL-style punt formation. That could change, of course. But Kenny Allen -- who may end up handling all kicking duties -- is a traditional pro-style punter.

http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2016/03/observations_from_mic…

Say it ain't so.

BornInA2

March 2nd, 2016 at 11:00 AM ^

Rugby style does, subjectively, seem better as it results in more long, rolling, bouncing punts with no return attempt.

That said, if we don't have a punter with that skill on the team, let us please not force a square peg into a round hole...let us not forget running the spread with Sheridan and Threet.

UMxWolverines

March 2nd, 2016 at 1:14 PM ^

Fuck...I forgot that we were over the 50 yard line...we totally should have just fake punted or hell even just gone for it. Even if we didn't get it it would have only left time for one more play. I will never be comfortable seeing a team punt down less than a touchdown at the end again. 

laxmangl29

March 2nd, 2016 at 11:25 AM ^

I'm just going to assume that the author made a mistake. Yeah. Thats it. I mean... they can't really be practicing full formation punting on the first day of spring ball right?

wahooverine

March 2nd, 2016 at 11:28 AM ^

Other that the singular bad thing that happened I liked having an Aussie punter.  Their kicking seems to be more adaptable to the situation and increase the chances of a covered punt or down inside the 20.

Eye of the Tiger

March 2nd, 2016 at 11:50 AM ^

It's possible our issues with punting in 2014 had less to do with scheme and more to do with the incompetence of the previous staff on special teams. But I preferred the scheme we employed last year--seems more dynamic and flexible.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Yeoman

March 2nd, 2016 at 5:26 PM ^

The question's still open how much of that is formation and how much of it is rollout punting. Both changes happened at the same time and there's no way, from the data published so far, to know how much of the effect resulted from each.

It ought to be possible to break it down by formation and punt-style, or at least sort the data into categories based on which formation each team generally used and whether they had an Aussie punter, but I don't think anyone's ever done it.

It'd be nice to see punt blocks sorted this way too. The new styles have been around long enough that we might have good statistics by now.

JFW

March 2nd, 2016 at 11:51 AM ^

the admittedly little I understand of this, it bugs me. I'll trust Harbaugh not to do anything stupid, but we punted so poorly under Hoke using the pro formation. 

 

And this has me worried for the special teams in general. Ugh. I liked having good special teams last year. 

Space Coyote

March 2nd, 2016 at 11:54 AM ^

Non-rugby style punter doesn't automatically change the style of punt you run. But having a non-rugby style punter absolutely does require you to have a tight punt formation, because you can't move the launch point (you should have a max protect either way, but you absolutely need more of a spread punt for down by the goal line when you have a traditional punter).

I'm on board with either style, as long as it's actually executed properly in terms of players releasing and protecting the kick. But this information doesn't give an indication either way.

Tuebor

March 2nd, 2016 at 12:32 PM ^

I like the spread punt more because four gunners is better than two.  But whatever formation we go with make sure the guys are coached up.

Durham Blue

March 2nd, 2016 at 1:00 PM ^

I like the rugby style better, especially the occasional crazy ass roller that ends up going 80 yards.  Rugby style gives you a better option to kick or run with it.  I think our traditional punter(s) should learn rugby style.

gord

March 2nd, 2016 at 1:04 PM ^

I don't think the Michigan State play happens if we had a pro style punter.  A normal punter would have just fallen on the ball.  Also remember when Blake tried to run the ball 16 yards?  I won't miss him to be honest.  Bring on a punter who just stands in one place and booms it as fast as they can and doesn't try to be a hero.  If it's a bad snap that's on the center, if a punt gets blocked that's on the line.  Why create more opportunities for something to go wrong? 

gord

March 2nd, 2016 at 1:20 PM ^

2009, Zoltan, 44.5 yards, 9th, no fuck ups I can remember

2015, Blake, 41.3 yards, 53rd, botched fake punt and the Michigan State play.

I say bring in pro-style punters.

Space Coyote

March 2nd, 2016 at 2:04 PM ^

Those numbers are misleading. Blake had a lot more punts downed close to the end zone than Zolton did. Zolton did have a stronger leg, but he also had one of the strongest legs in the nation.

Either can work. From a player safety standpoint I don't like the rugby style punt, and from a gray area of the rules I don't like it (remember the roughing the kicker Michigan had when the punter was clearly outside the tackle box?), but as long as it's within the rules, it can be utilized just as successfully as pro-style.

And, in fact, OSU has been one of the best special teams units in the country the last two years, and they use a rugby kicker.

gord

March 2nd, 2016 at 2:57 PM ^

OSU was 24th and Utah was up there too.  Both of those punters are 5'11", 195 lbs. so they must be athletic enough to hold on to the ball longer and get off a quick punt on the run with decent distance and maybe a lucky roll.

There's a reason the Aussie Rules guys come over here to punt, it's because they aren't that good at Aussie Rules football in Australia.  If we can get the guys who can hold on to the ball and kick on the run and still boom it then that would be the perfect punter.  Imagine a 6'6" 250 lb. guy taking the snap, holding the ball for a couple seconds, running away from defenders and booming a punt with great hang time 60 yards so that 2 or 3 gunners are surrounding the returner as soon as he catches it.  Those guys either don't exist or are playing pro Aussie Rules in Australia.

I just think you have a higher risk of bad plays with the Aussie guys that are willing to come here.

Here's a guy I found, Tony Lockett, 6'3", 247 lb.  He would be a ridiculous punter.

 

Squeezebox

March 2nd, 2016 at 10:24 PM ^

That had something to do with the average. 

You don't just aim for a touchback to pad stats.

Allen has a stronger leg, but not the touch.  This year will be a good test case to compare the two styles.  Also keep an eye on the return yardage given up.

micheal honcho

March 2nd, 2016 at 4:14 PM ^

Once again I question why the rules seem to be not enforced in regards to the rugby punt. We got burned this yr on roughing calls when the punter clearly stepped outside the box. IMO the rules need to be changed to encourage pro style punting as the norm. If your punter makes any motion resembling a "football play" that is not consistent with a punting motion he should become fair game. No roughing applies once you step sideways IMO.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

CoachBP6

March 2nd, 2016 at 5:32 PM ^

I've come to believe more in the Shield punt than the pro style. If the shield punt is executed correctly, 9 times out of 10 there will be no return at all.

I don't care which punt we use, as long as we don't go back to giving up huge returns like we did in the Hoke era



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad