|
Post by dubber on Jun 28, 2008 21:50:01 GMT -6
I understand what ball control guys are saying. IF you control the T.O.P., THEN you control how much the opponent's offense is on the field, wear down the defense, etc.
However, when you say "Our goal is to control the clock", do you really mean it?
Certain offenses do lend themselves to longer drives than others, but is the goal really to control the clock, or score points?
I'm sure a coach out there will say, "I want to do both." However, if your RB breaks into the open field, do you coach him to slide after he garners a first down so you can milk more time off the clock?
The reason you don't do this is because you may not gain another first down. If you have to punt, you just forfeited possession, which is a prerequisite to score.
It seems that the only time you really want to control the clock and deny possession is the end of the game when you are up a score.....and even then, RARE is the situation you wouldn't take your running back rumbling to the end zone (unless you are ahead by 1)
I've been on full house, double tight teams. It was a great feeling going into halftime up 14-0 and they only had 12 offensive plays. But I imagine our coach would trade any of those experience for being up 28-7 at halftime with the other team having ran 30 offensive plays.
The greatest offense would be one that got an ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEED 2.5 yards a play.....not averaged, but 100% of the time gained 2.5 yards every snap. Their scoring would be inevitable everytime, AND they would dominate T.O.P.
However, despite some other's claims, such an offense does not exist. So, we take a break when we get it.
So my question is:
Is this something with which coaches have deceived themselves?
-OR-
Is this just an ATTITUDE that coaches try to instill in their team? (like how Air Raid coaches don't really expect to score every play, but they tell their guys that)
|
|
burn
Sophomore Member
Posts: 181
|
Post by burn on Jun 28, 2008 22:16:08 GMT -6
Coach,
Great points and I have argued this point with guys I have coached with but for ball control. Sure you most always want a touchdown on every play but that obviously is not going to happen. You nailed it on the head with an attitude you try to instill into your kids. In our program we try to control the things we think we can control. One of those is attitude and the physicality of the game. Many spread guys have asked are you trying to win the game or just out hit us. We want to win but in the process out hit you and make your kids want to quit. I run our offense but I played defense in HS and college. We take pride in limiting the number of points teams score and try to limit their number of plays on offense. We think that this attitude works for us on both sides of the ball and it is something we can hang our hat on.
|
|
|
Post by saintrad on Jun 28, 2008 22:38:52 GMT -6
ball control can take another angle as well: keep the defense on the field and not let them substitute - aka no huddle. The Air Raid guys like to go NASCAR and force the defense to have their personnel try to match up with the offensivce personel by pushing the TOP. Their idea is to create more possessions for themselves to score on versus the typical limit possessions philosophy. Both are valid in my opinion and any good coaching staff will use tempo changes to their advantage. There are times for both.
|
|
|
Post by poweriguy on Jun 29, 2008 0:30:44 GMT -6
One coach told me his definition of "ball control offense" was : "Making first downs till you score." and "If you can get 3.5 yards every play, you should score every possession".
Having run the Power I for a few years, it's more of an attitude of winning small battles. "We are going to win 1st/2nd/3rd/4th down!" Once we win the first battle, we fight the next one, and keep going, until we score. When I called plays, it all depended on what battles we were winning. If our FB could get 4 yards a pop on a dive, then I'm going to keep going there until it stops working. Same with a sweep, if we can get outside, I'm calling it.
Now If I can hit a bomb off play action, I'm going to call it. But I know that we can only do that a few times a game. I think that the guys who pass the ball have a tougher time, because of the multiple defenses and coverages that DC's can throw at them. In a double tight Power I, I pretty much know what we are going to see. But in the passing game, I think the defense has quite a few more options at defending a passing team.
Now I have seen double wing and wing t teams score 60+ points , and we've had a quite a few running backs have 200 yards+ games in our Power I. So really I wouldn't call that ball control per se.
But chicks dig the long ball, so I guess running the ball ain't too sexy.
|
|
|
Post by touchdownmaker on Jun 29, 2008 7:38:43 GMT -6
I get the concept of controlling the clock. If you do not have very good athletes on defense you want to shorten the game. If the other guys offense is built around big plays rather than long drives, you want to limit his number of posessions. A team can not defeat you if they can not score. By controlling the clock you are limiting scoring opportunity for the "inefficient" offenses (those that score points but perhaps it tends to come on broken plays and "adlibs" by creative players) Scoring points is not the only goal in my mind. I want to limit the other team in its chances of scoring.
|
|
|
Post by superpower on Jun 29, 2008 7:49:50 GMT -6
We lost a game last season because we scored too fast and gave their high-powered offense the ball back with too much time left. They scored to tie it at 20 with 4:00 remaing, and I figured that we would march down the field, eat up the clock, and score with little to no time remaining. They kicked-off into the end zone, so we had it on our own 20. First play we go 80 yards on a counter and then convert on the 2 pt. attempt to go up 28-20 with more than 3 and a half minutes to go. However, our defense wasn't able to stop them, and we eventually lost in double OT.
The lesson I learned from that situation is not to call our homerun counter play in that situation. What I needed to do was go back to our bread and butter Super Power (off-tackle Toss) at least for a couple of plays before giving it to our breakaway threat. I can't help thinking that my poor decision making cost us that game.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2008 8:04:15 GMT -6
Without knowing the complete circumstances of the game, coach, I would disagree with your blame a little bit. I don't think scoring a go ahead TD with four minutes to go isn't ever bad. And, if you had run superpower a couple more times, maybe the D would have expected a counter a little more? Just throwing that out there, not trying to be argumentative.
In answer to the original question, I'm a run-oriented coach, so if my offense is doing its job, we should naturally control time of possession. However, I don't feel it's absolutely essential unless we're tryingto run out the clock.
|
|
|
Post by superpower on Jun 29, 2008 8:08:37 GMT -6
Lesson #2 from that situation is to improve our pass defense!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2008 8:14:40 GMT -6
LOL!!
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jun 29, 2008 9:00:04 GMT -6
To me, scoring points and moving the ball is exponentially more important than "Ball Control," with a couple situational exceptions.
TOP is a meaningless statistic. If I run the triple option and my pitch man gets it for 5-6 yard gains every play and is knocked out of bounds, and another triple team gives it to the dive back for 5-6 yards, team #2 has a gigantic TOP while team #1 does not. Makes no sense, and has more to do with how the D is playing you than anything else.
To me, being "Ball Control" is a mental heuristic that keeps a playcaller or some kids from thinking that the real world is like a video game. You need patience to play football, and you can't force big plays and score every time. Even for good offensive teams, the game is about field position and advancing the ball. (Field position is also so much more important than TOP.) There are conditioning realities but I think they are overblown.
Now, Ball Control is obviously important in one very crucial circumstance: Fourth quarter leads and the last 4-5 minutes of a game. If you've reached that point with the lead, it's time to bleed the clock. You can also start bleeding it earlier, if you get a lead and you feel like the game will be a low scoring one, but you can gauge that. But just as much sense as it makes to shorten the game at the end when you have a lead, it also doesn't make much sense to me to shorten the game right off the bat when the score is 0-0 or if you're down 0-7 or 3-7 or what have you. You do it at the end when you are protecting a lead - get out of there with a win. The rest of the time it is overrated.
|
|
|
Post by saintrad on Jun 29, 2008 11:05:45 GMT -6
TOP is a meaningless statistic. I agree with you 100% pn this Chris. To me the most important stat to look at is turnover ratios.. if you or your opponent lose more turnovers than you gain you basically lose X numbers of possesions AND field position because of it. Too many people forget to look at 3rd down conversion rates. If a team is only converting on less than 30% of its 3rd downs then it needs to rethink its scheme/approach. Are the plays they have efficient in 3rd down territory? Another component of field position battle is directly tied to your punt game. Do you get great distance on your punts at the sacrifice of accuracy and/or hang time? To me hang time is the most important factor on a punt. If the returner can't return the ball then field position is in my favor. Accuracy comes next. I want the ball placed in a specific place for a specific reason. Maybe the returner is right-handed and can't go to his left very well, then we punt to our left to force him to run left. A punt is one fo the largest field position plays in the game and you will do it a lot more than a kick-off/return. Clock management is such a misunderstood area of football. A lot of coaches believe they understand clock management yet are always scrambling to find ways to find time to win the game at the end. Clock management is a game long issue and it affects the 4 quarter leads and 4 minute offensive situations. Love the analysis Chris.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Jun 29, 2008 11:25:58 GMT -6
Lesson #2 from that situation is to improve our pass defense! This may be lesson 1..... I will always take up 8 with under 4:00 to go and THEY have the ball over being tied under 4:00 with the ball that's me though. BTW, I agree with spreadattack's take
|
|
|
Post by kcbazooka on Jun 29, 2008 12:57:01 GMT -6
the most important stat is definately not TOP nor is it turnover ratio -- the only real stat is the scoreboard.
last year we "controlled" the ball 21 minutes out of the 24 in the first half -- we went in behind 21-14. Every play is designed to score isn't it? If the kids perfectly execute each play and then the RB/WR break one tackle there should be a score.
rambling - but was in one game where we won 52-50 -- a track meet - the game finished with us blocking a field goal. Been with other teams where we won 12-0 with a twelve minute drive in the second half. Both were very rewarding. and very exhausting...
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Jun 29, 2008 14:55:11 GMT -6
Number 1-- I want to score. If that takes one play and 10 ticks off the clock then que sera.
Number 2-- I want to control the clock.
I also think that clock control has to do with your defense getting the other team to go three and out. You cannot control the clock without having the ball in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by robinhood on Jun 29, 2008 15:28:19 GMT -6
Much depends on what you do when you don't / can't "control the ball". What do you do then?
2005 NCAA DIII: We had the ball 17 minutes; they had the ball 43 minutes. Final Score: Us = 69, Them = 62.
2006 NCAA DIII: We rushed for over 375 yards and controlled TOP easily; they scored without controlling the ball. Final Score: Us = 30, Them = 33 (OT).
Points are not awarded for TOP.
Scoring too soon, and being ahead with less than 4:00 to go is WAAAY better than not scoring, and the opponent having the ball with less than 4:00 to go!
|
|
|
Post by jgordon1 on Jun 29, 2008 19:16:31 GMT -6
I like speadattack's quote about patience. As a DC we always tell our guys that if the other team gets to play 7-8, they or their coach will make a mistake. this keeps our guys and our HC from panicking. It also allows me to decide when I want to blitz. Blitz is a scheme, a tool, not a weapon to be used when panicking or mad. Settle down, play your base
|
|
|
Post by lionhart on Jun 29, 2008 20:05:12 GMT -6
spreadattack and robinhood.. i agree 100%. the object of the game is to score more points than your opponent, period. you dont get any points on the scoreboard for t.o.p. im an offense guy, and i want to maximize the amount of plays i can run in a game. i think t.o.p is WAY more imprtant to the defensive guys (translates to alot of 3 and outs, and small battles won).. but to me, i want to score as quickly and as often as possible.
|
|
wccoach
Sophomore Member
Posts: 159
|
Post by wccoach on Jun 29, 2008 21:30:08 GMT -6
While understanding the obvious of outscoring your opponents, some games are lost by not managing the ball during offensive series that do not result in a score. There are situations in many games where your team can greatly increase the chance of a victory by being intelligent on how you control the ball during a series that has a low probability of resulting in a score. An example of this is when your team is backed up deep in your own territory and the use of plays that have a high probability of using the clock while making conservative gains versus a more aggressive play calling that may result in big plays but do not allow you to use the clock. During certain situations, I would consider a series that started backed up and ended with us punting the ball deep into the opponents territory after taking a significant amount of time off the clock as a very successful series. I have seen when this type of offensive series has been the difference between losing and winning a game. Just another opinion!
|
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 164
|
Post by tedseay on Jun 30, 2008 10:13:55 GMT -6
I'm sure a coach out there will say, "I want to do both." I want to be able to do both when the situation calls for it -- is that so bizarre? Mostly I want to score by the bucketload; but when the game is close and we're on top, I want to be able to crank out first downs with minimum risk until the final whistle blows...
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Jun 30, 2008 10:28:45 GMT -6
without getting into an in-depth discussion ...
what is the most critical aspect of controlling the clock? it's maintaining possession of the ball. and, what is the most critical aspect of maintaining the ball? it is gaining first downs. how does one gain first downs? well, call the most efficient play vs what the defense is doing (efficient - one the team can execute consistently and gives offense most advantageous angles/numbers/matchup etc.)
so, one can reason that in order to control the clock one must call good plays.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2008 10:49:26 GMT -6
Coach, great post, I'm one of those clock conscious coaches, I used to be the latter, but that changed..so much so that I'll even have my player take a safety,to kill off the clock if I need to.
We instill in our kids, the idea that we only need 1 more point than the other team to win,. That's not to say we dont attempt to score every possession. We follow John Reeds book pretty strictly, even down to the field position schedule. Given the blowouts are fewer, the win percentage is higher
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2008 10:58:53 GMT -6
without getting into an in-depth discussion ... what is the most critical aspect of controlling the clock? it's maintaining possession of the ball. and, what is the most critical aspect of maintaining the ball? it is gaining first downs. how does one gain first downs? well, call the most efficient play vs what the defense is doing (efficient - one the team can execute consistently and gives offense most advantageous angles/numbers/matchup etc.) so, one can reason that in order to control the clock one must call good plays. Not necessarily Coach, though that would be ideal, I think it depends on whether or not you already have a lead. If so then even a loss play can be advantageous IF, in the event eliminate a certain amount of time.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Jun 30, 2008 12:07:03 GMT -6
3 plays and a punt typically equals 2 minutes (if you never stopped the clock after snapping in on 1st down) generally get 10 to 12 possessions in a game. 12 x 2 = 24 minutes.... so, those advantageous losses allowed you to control the clock for half the game but you end up with no points ....
slice it however you want, but if you can't string together some first downs then an offense isn't going to drain a significant amount of time off the clock. so, it's not just "call a run play" ... it's call the most efficient play. there will be a tradeoff along the "risk/reward" equation ... but, sometimes you have to decide "i can burn 40 seconds if i run this play but lose yards OR i can run this other play which, may stop the clock but could lead to 3 more downs which will allow me to burn 2 more minutes" ... you are 'gambling' 40 seconds for 2 minutes. therein lies the big decisions.
|
|
wccoach
Sophomore Member
Posts: 159
|
Post by wccoach on Jun 30, 2008 13:14:46 GMT -6
Coach Huey's post is the essence of offensive coordination. The ability to find the defense's weakness at a critical time and making the right call is what determines an offensive coordinator. The difference between good and bad is in those 10 plays each game that really determine victory.
|
|
|
Post by saintrad on Jun 30, 2008 13:30:23 GMT -6
without getting into an in-depth discussion ... what is the most critical aspect of controlling the clock? it's maintaining possession of the ball. and, what is the most critical aspect of maintaining the ball? it is gaining first downs. how does one gain first downs? well, call the most efficient play vs what the defense is doing (efficient - one the team can execute consistently and gives offense most advantageous angles/numbers/matchup etc.) so, one can reason that in order to control the clock one must call good plays. nice quote, but you can call all the most efficient plays you wnat but it comes down to holding onto the ball and not fumbling.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Jun 30, 2008 16:50:41 GMT -6
I'm sure a coach out there will say, "I want to do both." I want to be able to do both when the situation calls for it -- is that so bizarre? Mostly I want to score by the bucketload; but when the game is close and we're on top, I want to be able to crank out first downs with minimum risk until the final whistle blows... This statement is not in reference to situational football. It is in reference to coaches who claim their goal is to control the clock.
|
|
|
Post by coachdawhip on Jul 1, 2008 8:34:59 GMT -6
Clock management is more important than ball control and there is a difference between the 2.
Ball control is only important when you can score
|
|
|
Post by ufpena on Jul 1, 2008 10:00:41 GMT -6
I believe that you play the game and plan for its different segments in practice. Call your offense run your defense and do what you have planned ahead of time. If in your game plan you installed a 4 minute offense concentrating on different facets of the game then you are ready. For example, if your plan has provided for a four minute offense when you are ahead, then you have the plays that will garner your premium yards and still keep the clock running. If you also made allotments for a segment of the game when you are behind and have planned accordingly, then your plans have included a more up tempo play calling scheme. That also goes for your two minute offense and so on. Bill Walsh in his book " The Winning Edge" clearly delineates these possibilities. This allows you to play youor style of football, yet it allows for necessary and timley adjustments
|
|
newb
Sophomore Member
Posts: 191
|
Post by newb on Jul 1, 2008 19:20:12 GMT -6
IMO, Football is a game of ball control. If you are "Controlling the Ball," to me that means that your offense is being successfull in gaining yards, not committing turnovers, and scoring points. Controlling the clock means nothing if you can't score points. Whats the point in having a 7 min drive if you don't get any points out of it? With that being said, I also believe every offense has the goal of "ball control" in mind. Every offense wants to gain yards, not commit turnovers, and score points.
Now, where T.O.P comes into play is with good clock management. If you deem your opponents offense to be alot better than your defense, than obviously you want to limit the number of possesions that their offense has by slowing down the tempo, therefore limiting the number of chances for them to score. On the other hand, if you deem your offense to be a lot better than your opponents defense, then you want to up the tempo of the game allowing yourself more possesions and more chances for your offense to score.
|
|
|
Post by robinhood on Jul 3, 2008 21:50:57 GMT -6
I want to control the ball long enough to score points. As long as we score, I don't care how much time it took - 3 seconds or 3 minutes.
If we can't score during a possession, the less time it takes to figure that out, the better. It makes no sense to use a lot of clock and not score.
The more talented your opponent is, the bolder your play calling must be if you want to win the game. Trying to control the ball in this situation, to me, is acknowledging a lose, but trying to keep the score respectable. That goes against my grain. If you step on the field, you try to win.
|
|