I'm not inferring anything, just asking. So, given our personnel, what should our strategy be? Cover kicks better is not a strategy. Oh and condescension from you is to be expected. And since you failed to rebut my main point, I guess you concur.
Why do you do that? Why do you insist on putting words and opinions in my mouth? (As if I was going to suggest that cover kicks better is a strategy) That is an example of condescension.
There was no condescension in my post. You created a straw man by changing the topic to possibly having a different strategy and suggesting that I would rather sky kick and cover than go for touchbacks. Re-read your post. You didn't
just ask a question. You loaded the question to suggest my opinion on the topic of strategy that wasn't even under discussion. That's just a fact. That's what you did. When I pointed that out and say that you've done that in the past, that's not condescension. It's a fact and an expression of my frustration in trying to discuss things with you.
Let's just review so that I can try once more to clarify my position. It began with
@Dustman expressing his recollection that when we didn't get a touchback, we typically didn't hold the opponents inside the 25, typically 25-30 he said. I posted data to support his recollection, specifically our opposition KR ave was greater than 23. (as it turns out, this data actually makes the issue more complex than what he said).
Rather than letting stand that fact the data supported his recollection, you responded:
Eh, if it's under 25, I'm happy. If we had 100% touchbacks, the average would be even worse but I'd be more thrilled.
Now, my reply to this focused on the issue of your happiness if the KR average is under 25 by highlighting that it's really not that great considering that it may mean we give up too many big returns. I hadn't checked, but as it turns out, in our 19 opposition KR, we gave up a total of 8 over 30, including 5 over 50 (with 1 between 80-90 and 1 over 90). I guess we disagree, but I think that when 1/3 of your opponents' KR go for more than 40 yards, that's not good.
However, I should have considered the last part of your quote more closely. When you said, "If we had 100% touchbacks, the average would be even worse," it seems to me that you don't understand that a touchback doesn't get counted as a KR since 100% touchbacks would translate to 0 yards of KR, which is better. It also seems to me that you were thinking that a KR always starts at the goal line rather than from wherever the kick is caught. Now, of course, by saying, "seems to me" I'm emphasizing that these are my understandings of your words, not putting new words in your mouth.
Finally, your discussion of relative rankings between 80 and 50 is beside the point that I was making, as I hope my discussion of long returns makes clear.
