No One Expects A Fake Punt Return
- Thread starter IdiotKicker
- Start date
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
so who was the real returner? was he the guy who was part of the doubleteam at the top of the sideline view? how did he get back in time to catch the ball?
where was the seattle kicker in all this? obviously he knew, i assume, which side the ball was going to.
and most importantly, what sort of motions did the faker employ to convince seattle that it was going there? did he have the usual escort? did he pretend to catch the ball and start running to his unprotected doom?
this is the kind of play Belichick would do if he thought of it and the situation presented itself. i love this. props to Jeff Fisher.
where was the seattle kicker in all this? obviously he knew, i assume, which side the ball was going to.
and most importantly, what sort of motions did the faker employ to convince seattle that it was going there? did he have the usual escort? did he pretend to catch the ball and start running to his unprotected doom?
this is the kind of play Belichick would do if he thought of it and the situation presented itself. i love this. props to Jeff Fisher.
Chuck, I was hoping you would cover this play. Of course, it was so damn embarrassing I wanted it buried forever as well. A great explanation and now I can fully understand what happened here. I was watching the game live at my local bar and saw the play happen and was so totally confused as to what happened.
I guess there isn't a standard system for tracking the actual ball flight during a punt? After this, I would think every team would have at least one guy checking to see where the ball actually went. Of course Ryan knew exactly where the ball went so it may not be practical to have one guy do this job. The fallout of this may end up being teams being less aggressive on punt coverage because they are going to need to account for where the ball really is. And what's to stop a team from putting two guys back to return, one on each side and have them BOTH "track" the ball to try and confuse the coverage and split the defenders up. This just opens up all kinds of possibilities.
Kudos to the Rams for pulling two totally out-of-the-box plays on one of the best special teams units in the business to beat them.
And thanks Chuck for breaking it down, even without complete game film.
I guess there isn't a standard system for tracking the actual ball flight during a punt? After this, I would think every team would have at least one guy checking to see where the ball actually went. Of course Ryan knew exactly where the ball went so it may not be practical to have one guy do this job. The fallout of this may end up being teams being less aggressive on punt coverage because they are going to need to account for where the ball really is. And what's to stop a team from putting two guys back to return, one on each side and have them BOTH "track" the ball to try and confuse the coverage and split the defenders up. This just opens up all kinds of possibilities.
Kudos to the Rams for pulling two totally out-of-the-box plays on one of the best special teams units in the business to beat them.
And thanks Chuck for breaking it down, even without complete game film.
How badly could this play have gone which would have caused the game to change dramtatically? The returnerfumbling the catch? Isn't that always a risk? I loved the column but that basic premise seems flimsy. The Rams going for it on 4th down was a risk with a clear downside. The fake punt return wasn't a risk b/c the downside was limited.
I'm on my phone so somewhat limited in my ability to go into depth here. But the real return man was the guy on the double team at the top who literally just sprinted straight back to catch the ball.MentalDisabldLst said:
The punter is supposed to be yelling the direction of the kick, but honestly, even in smaller stadiums, it can get hard to hear what is going on, especially on a play as chaotic as punt coverage. When I played in the Yale Bowl in 2007, they had around 25,000 people there and on big plays it was tough to hear just with that.
As far as the real returner, Pete Carroll had some questions as to whether or not he called for a fair catch, which would be illegal if he is not actually intending to catch the ball. However, there was no real fair catch signal, and the returner pretty much just fell down once he got to the spot where he was pretending the ball was going.
As I mentioned in my earlier reply, it is the punter's responsibility to call out where the kick is going. But in a loud stadium on a chaotic return, it's really easy for things to get mixed up. You may hear one thing, but if your eyes are telling you another on a play where fakes are incredibly rare, it's tough to overcome that instinct.DanoooME said:
Punts are tough enough to catch when you are standing still. Go try to catch an oblong ball coming down from 75 feet spinning unpredictably. It's hard. Trying to do that after running 35 yards and tracking the ball over your head in a domed stadium is even harder. The odds of Bailey muffing a catch like that are significantly higher than normal. And then you're in a situation where the Seahawks may either get the ball in Rams territory or can simply scoop and score on the fumble. You also have the potential that the Seahawks don't buy the fake and then you have an outnumbered, inexperienced returner with no blocking trying to pull this off. It's not an easy play to execute.johnmd20 said:
Chuck Z said:
Did you guys change up that call from time to time? We had a "Reagan/Kennedy" call for right/left. Which was funny when the science guys were slow to react...
MentalDisabldLst said:
Steadman Bailey - the gunner in the first frame - ends up as the "real" returner. Tavon Austin was set up deep. And yes, Bailey really worked his ass off to get back to field the punt. 4.4/40 is real, yo.
Chuck addressed the punter but allow me to elaborate: Punters Are People, Too: Weird, Weird People.
I'm not sure how to answer the "most importantly"...the images kinda tell the story. The Seahawks punt coverage didn't listen to, or hear, their punter; they took off to where the "deep man", Austin, was without checking the flight of the ball; Austin play-acted perfectly; Bailey made an incredible effort to get in position and get the ball.
And props to John Fassel. Head coaches get too much credit for all areas.
For context, Jeff Fisher was also the HC (Titans) for the Music City Miracle play against Buffalo.
You state "The Rams had studied Seattle’s tendencies before the game. After analyzing the landing area for their short-yardage punts, Rams special teams coach John Fassel determined that the Seahawks consistently punted to their left (the return team’s right) when trying to pin a team deep in their territory."
If the Seahawks consistently punt to their left, why would all the Seattle players go right? I still don't understand how the kicking team didn't know where the ball was going.
If the Seahawks consistently punt to their left, why would all the Seattle players go right? I still don't understand how the kicking team didn't know where the ball was going.
They weren't designed to go in a direction, it was more that the ball drifted left a high percentage of the time. In this case it drifts to just inside the numbers.DukeSox said:
When you are heading downfield on punt coverage, you are not looking for the ball. You are looking for landmarks on the field that indicate where the ball is going. The punt may be shanked to one side or the other, may be a low line drive, or may already be out of bounds. So the landmarks you look for are things like the returner, how blocks are set up, and so forth. There is no "knowing where the ball is going to be" because unfortunately kickers tend to mess up sometimes. I got into my first game in college because our starter was supposed to kick deep left and kicked deep right instead, which was then returned for a touchdown.DukeSox said:
By the way, these are all awesome questions. I tend to think of a lot of this as second nature because I'm used to it, but it's awesome to know what's confusing so that I can know what to make sure to add in for future pieces. Keep them coming.
I just figured punters had more control over their punts. I mean, the announcers freak out whenever there's a punt that lands deep and bounces out of bounds, or is really well placed in the corner - are those just random occurrences/luck? "Great punt" is then just acknowledgment of those 5% that happen to land in a certain area?Chuck Z said:
Punters can only control for distance (roughly) and not side to side placement? Just seems odd.
What would have happened if the ball had gone to the right? Would it have been a normal return? with 7 seahawks barreling towards him, I think Austin probably fair-catches it
So punters at this point typically very good at controlling distance. And in the last 20 years, they've gotten really good at side to side action as well. But I'll be doing a piece later on this year on punting technique that will get into why it's so hard to control that action, and why it is very unpredictable.DukeSox said:
Infield Infidel said:
More than likely, he fair-catches it or lets it bounce if it's past the 10-yard line. There was probably some kind of call he and Bailey would make during the return to let his teammates know that the play is off. Just like most returners typically yell some variation of "Peter" if a kick is short to let their guys know to watch out for a bouncing ball, it would probably be some other call to let them know what is going on.
Great breakdown but I still fall on the "less downside for the Rams" side of things. Even as hard as I agree catching the punt after tracking it and running 40 yds is, if things hadn't been set up pefectly, or if the Seahwaks hadn't bitten, Bailey could have simply gotten out of the way and let the ball bounce. Yes, maybe it pins them deep but that's still preferrable to losing posession. The biggest risk was that Bailey tries to do too much if the play isn't there and fumbles but he still had 100% control of that aspect
Awesome article Chuck.
The piece makes me wonder whether more teams should toy with using two deep men on returns as a base formation, especially in situations where you're not really fearing a fake punt and so you feel OK about having one less player near the LoS (ie, 4th and longish). While not achieving this level of trickeration, it seems like using two returners would allow you to (a) consistently make the coverage team more hesitant and take subpar angles to the returner as they try to figure out who is going to field the punt, often buying a crucial extra second for the returner and (b) occasionally create situations where the majority of the coverage team really does go the wrong way like in the Rams play, opening up more chance for a big return. The downside is that you lose one blocker but that doesn't seem like a big price to pay vis-a-vis the potential payoffs. And you also could toy with a variation where you don't completely split the returners to either side but just have them initially drift 15 yards apart, creating some uncertainty among the return team that screws with their angles in initial pursuit, and then having one of the guys step up and block at the last minute for the other. Am I just crazy here or do you think this kind of thing could work?
The piece makes me wonder whether more teams should toy with using two deep men on returns as a base formation, especially in situations where you're not really fearing a fake punt and so you feel OK about having one less player near the LoS (ie, 4th and longish). While not achieving this level of trickeration, it seems like using two returners would allow you to (a) consistently make the coverage team more hesitant and take subpar angles to the returner as they try to figure out who is going to field the punt, often buying a crucial extra second for the returner and (b) occasionally create situations where the majority of the coverage team really does go the wrong way like in the Rams play, opening up more chance for a big return. The downside is that you lose one blocker but that doesn't seem like a big price to pay vis-a-vis the potential payoffs. And you also could toy with a variation where you don't completely split the returners to either side but just have them initially drift 15 yards apart, creating some uncertainty among the return team that screws with their angles in initial pursuit, and then having one of the guys step up and block at the last minute for the other. Am I just crazy here or do you think this kind of thing could work?
Agreed; the return man should have the directive: if they don't buy the fake, let it bounce. The chances of the Rams getting a good return from a normal punt return play were fairly minimal anyway.steveluck7 said:
Even free throws, with a round ball, indoors, unguarded, aren't sure things. I'm not a punter, but it's common sense that any number of things could affect the accuracy if direction of the kick of a funny shaped ball - bad snap, wind/rain, the small but real danger of getting killed, etcDukeSox said:
Chuck Z said:
lexrageorge said:
I'm with Chuck, though. The point isn't that Bailey could have let it bounce if the Seahawks were converging, the point is that they weren't converging and so he sprinted back some 35+ yards to make a Willie Mays style over-the-head catch of a knuckling punt. I thought that was the most amazing part of the execution of this. It clangs off his hands and the Rams are in tough shape.
Way fun.
I don't want to spoil Chuck's upcoming articles but there is a great piece in this weeks SI about this exact topic. Austin Murphy in "The Nail in the Coffin" discusses the different punting styles including coffin corner punting and directional punting. One thing I found interesting was the 3 different grips used in punting.DukeSox said:
"The "basic" grip is used when a team is punting from its own end of the field and is not concerned with a touchback. The "Aussie drop" or rugby style kick is when the punter drops the nose of the ball until it is almost vertical and then kicks it near the point closest to the ground. This ensues that the ball has backspin and bounces back upfield away from the end zone and touchbacks. The third grip is a knuckleball that is very hard to master."
Both the articles by Chuck and the SI are very interesting and make good companion pieces.
As you mention, the downside to two return men is it does give you one less potential blocker, since you're taking a guy completely out of the play. So you could potentially set up all kinds of new angles for backside blocking, which I think would be really interesting, but it does potentially leave a guy more exposed as well. So that's one thing to weigh. The other is whether or not the NFL wants to open players up to that kind of block on a punt return, which is something that I have no idea about, but I would imagine they aren't huge fans of given what they've done on kickoffs in the last 5 years.Morgan said: