The coach says
If [the coach] has a fourth-and-8 at its own 5-yard line, Kelley said his explosive offense likely will convert a first down at least 50 percent of the time. If it fails to convert, statistical data from the college level shows that an opponent acquiring the ball inside the 10-yard line scores a touchdown 90 percent of the time. If Pulaski punts away (i.e., a 40-yard punt with a 10-yard return) the other team will start with the ball on the 38-yard line and score a touchdown 77 percent of the time. The difference is only 13 percent.
First of all, this is a big assumption that the net punt will only be 30 yards. What about for the Bears who have an elite punter and an elite special teams? I would imagine that most the the time, if you were opposing a team like the Chicago Bears that that 77% percent chance of scoring would go down because you wouldn't have as good of a field position as this coach was talking about.
Secondly, even if the net punt was only 30 yards, 13% is a huge amount. Why risk trying to convert when, if you fail, you essentially give your opponent an easier time to score- the last thing you'd ever want to do?
Here's another line that I don't agree with, at least on an NFL level
Kelley said his explosive offense likely will convert a first down at least 50 percent of the time
1) How many offensives are really "explosive"? Sure maybe the Saits, Colts, and Patriots might be able to pull off going for it on 4th down, but not most teams
2) This comment skews 50% as a good thing. Obviously, this means that half the time, you're not converting! Maybe I'm a cynic so I see this 50% is a bad thing, but it doesn't seem worth it to go for 4th down EVERY time, when you can only convert half the time.
I'm sure this strategy works great for high school football and maybe even for some college teams, but I think it's an awful idea for any NFL team