Billy Napier
- Thread starter Dawgg
- Start date
There's something in the water at Florida, or they sold their souls to win one with Urban. The coaching career trajectory there since Urban left is unbelievable.
He doesn't strike me as being a very intelligent fellow. I could be wrong, but people that smile all the time and talk real slow don't seem quite right
I wonder if there is a relationship between organizations with too much influence from upper management/money holders on day to day operations they don't understand.
I think its way too early to bury Napier. They went into UT as double digit underdogs and almost pulled it out, and Kentucky also beat them last year, too. No reason to think he eventually won’t 17 around and at least win the SEC East at a minimum….just like literally every Florida coach has done since the league split into divisions. May take a year or so to fully reset the culture though….likewise with Kelly at LSU.
Pro teams have to snap extra points from the 15 yard line, making a 32-33 yard field goal.
College teams snap from the 3, making a 20-21 yard field goal.
I think he'll do well if given enough time, but those 2 point attempts on Saturday make no sense.
Your question is moot for two reasons, the most obvious being it is in fact his first year at UF. This will be a more appropriate discussion after year 3. Secondly, Napier was never, ever going to come to MSU. He was successful enough in Louisiana to be able to afford to wait for the right job (for him) at the right time. Napier has the reputation as a relentless recruiter. He has been at the helm of UF for less than one year. Given time, I believe he will elevate UF back towards where UF used to be. Not saying they will surpass UGA anytime soon, if ever, but neither will they stay below UK and UT for very long either. Don't get me wrong, I am not at all a UF fan (although my wife is). With our luck, they will be back to the old UF about the time we have to play them again. Meh. . . .
Is Florida a natural national power program? Or was Spurrier just a damn good coach with a unique scheme at just the right time?
prior to Spurrier, wasn't Florida pretty much what they are now or post Spurrier? Galen Hall had some success but he got hammered by the ncaa.
prior to Spurrier, wasn't Florida pretty much what they are now or post Spurrier? Galen Hall had some success but he got hammered by the ncaa.
Saw it today. Google it. Analytics say go for 2. Common football sense says kick it though.
Exactly. Like I said. Debatable- sure. But not like he lost his mind.
https://www.gatorsports.com/story/f...nversion-tennessee-volunteers-sec/8121483001/
https://www.gatorsports.com/story/f...nversion-tennessee-volunteers-sec/8121483001/
You're implying that NFL coaches are going for 2 more often as part of some sort of analytics-driven strategy and that's just not the case. They're going for 2 more often because the XP line was moved to the 15. That's it. That is the only reason. If it was still on the 3, you would not have seen any sort of increase in NFL 2 point tries.
You can't sit there with any sort of intellectual honesty and say that Napier going for 2 was part of any sort of 'strategy' outside bad arithmetic.
7 + 7 + 3 = 17
8 + 8 =16
Going for 2 did nothing to eliminate the need for a 3rd score, but it did eliminate the field goal as an option for the end of the game.
This was the first time I've watched Florida all season, so I went back and looked at the stats in their other games this season to see if their kicking situation is similar to ours.
Their kicker is:
10/10 on XP's
3/4 on FG's missing a 50 yarder after making a 31, a 39, and a 50.
Going for 2 in that situation was stupid. Not debatably stupid. Functionally stupid. Like Cutcliffe passing in the 4th quarter of the '99 Egg Bowl stupid.
I can definitely say it. Here are his quotes.
https://www.gatorsports.com/story/f...nversion-tennessee-volunteers-sec/8121483001/
You need the FG regardless so those 3 are irrelevant. It’s about the remaining 14. And it just not uncommon in the road to
go for 2 the first TD down the stretch
https://www.gatorsports.com/story/f...nversion-tennessee-volunteers-sec/8121483001/
You need the FG regardless so those 3 are irrelevant. It’s about the remaining 14. And it just not uncommon in the road to
go for 2 the first TD down the stretch
Last edited by a moderator:
The thought process is if you add 8 points instead of 7 that puts you a field goal from a tie game. 3, 4 or 5 points behind is the choice. 3 allows you to tie with a field goal. 4 does not. 5 is no different. Fairly simple math.
oh yeah, good catch. How could I forget ? Oh.... I've erased 2004 to 2009 from memory.
I did. What article are you quoting and is it specific to college?
The ones I found reference this fivethirtyeight article about the NFL: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-to-go-for-2-for-real/
Where it clearly says: "The math would be more complicated if the NFL hadn’t moved the extra point back to the 15-yard line. But now going for 1 and going for 2 yield more or less the same number of points, on average, once you factor in how likely each is to succeed."
Not the second 2 point try when they were down 11. I'm talking about the first 2 point try when they were down 17.
They were down 17 and scored a touchdown bringing the gap to 11. From there, an extra point brings you within 10 (a TD+XP and a FG). Instead, they went for two, which would have brought the gap to 9, which still would have required a TD and a FG.
So I read those quotes. This sounds like some crazy dribble to explain away a really bad decision:
"There's two avenues, when you really dig into the numbers, about the approach there," Napier said. "First of all, you start talking about playing for a tie, right? When you're on the road, there's a slight advantage for the home team in overtime, and there's certainly a bigger advantage when you're a two-score favorite. I think it's around 63 percent advantage if you're the home team playing overtime, and you're a two score favorite. So that goes into your decision-making."
Yep. Clear as mud.
I have no idea how he’ll up faring at UF, but something about that guy has seemed off to me for years. Turning down a couple job offers that aren’t the right fit is one thing, but telling UT, OM, State, Ark, SC, and Auburn that you have no interest in their jobs while chilling in Lafayette, LA? That’s not normal
Combine that with the fact that he made a career out of squeaking by bad teams over and over again during the last two years, and he has been playing with absolute fire. Then you see this sideline outburst like a middle schooler getting called a name in front of his friends, and I don’t know… something about Napier has never felt right to me.
Combine that with the fact that he made a career out of squeaking by bad teams over and over again during the last two years, and he has been playing with absolute fire. Then you see this sideline outburst like a middle schooler getting called a name in front of his friends, and I don’t know… something about Napier has never felt right to me.
According to this research, his home team winning percentage is overstated by about 10%. It's 50.6%, not 63%. So the odds of making the 2-point conversion are less than the odds of winning in OT on the road. Stupid decision.
Frontiers | College Football Overtime Outcomes: Implications for In-Game Decision-Making (frontiersin.org)
Frontiers | College Football Overtime Outcomes: Implications for In-Game Decision-Making (frontiersin.org)
If you already know you would go for 2 to win it rather than take an extra point to take it into overtime, the math says you go for 2 early. If you get it, you can then go TD+extra point and field goal to win. If you don't get it, you know that you need TD+2pt conversion and a field goal to tie. If you take the extra point on the first TD, and then you go for 2 for the second TD and don't get it, you have to get another touchdown to win. So going for it early means you get a 2pt conversion attempt to give yourself a chance to put yourself on a path to a win with two more scores, and then if you are unsuccessful you still have another 2 pt conversion attempt to put you on the path to a tie with two scores. If you wait you lose that optionality. It's just get a 2pt conversion and only need a field goal, or miss it and need a TD.
The math, if you are assuming you're not going to have time for more than 2 additional scores, is pretty simple. What it ignores is emotional side of it and whether a team gets deflated missing the early 2 Pt conversion. And then just flukish stuff that can happen in a game where if you aren't in a position where you are about to have to score, and go for the onside again, there is still stuff that can happen that you need to take account for in your math.
It's dumb if you quote a statistic to back it up that is so obviously inflated, I thought that can't be right and pretty quickly find research showing that it's just ********. But, generally speaking, I don't have much of a problem with either going for it or kicking the point at the end.
Latest posts
-
Did I just get trolled? Kirby Smart to become NY Jets HC!
- Latest: Called3rdstrikedawg
-
Get unlimited access today.