|
|
Post by Coach Bennett on Apr 22, 2009 7:08:35 GMT -6
We'd probably all agree that part of being a good coach is about doing your homework, identifying tendencies, watching film, etc. Likewise, part of being a good coach is about trusting your gut, inspiring your players, etc.
Given the above, as a coach, are you more intuition or data driven? For instance, have you broken down your opponent's defense to know that on 3rd and +7 they tend to run "x" defense so you'll run "y" play from your script or are you the coach "feels" the nature of the day's game and calls plays accordingly?
|
|
|
|
Post by coachbw on Apr 22, 2009 7:20:37 GMT -6
During the week, I am completely data based. I have my situational calls on my play card based off of percentages (We are likely to see this front & coverage in 2nd and short so I like these plays). Once we get to the game, the data pretty much goes out the window and I call the game based off of gut feel. When we actually get to that 2nd and short situation, I will looked at the play calls I liked during the week for that situations (based on data) and call the one that I feel gets the ball to our hottest athlete, is set up the best, fits most with what we are trying to do at that point of the game, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachweav88 on Apr 22, 2009 8:22:21 GMT -6
Right now, i am more intuition based. I have a feel for what they want to do by watching film. During the game, I'm constantly asking myself "What are they wanting to do by that alignment?" So rather than thinking, "They sure like to run on second and long." I'm asking, "Why do they like to run on second and long?" "How does that fit their philosophy?"
I run our scout teams too, so by calling their offense, I kind of get a feel for what they are wanting to set up.
Although i will say that I am learning to be more data driven. Our HC is data driven and I am picking up things from him.
|
|
|
|
Post by fatkicker on Apr 22, 2009 8:27:02 GMT -6
me too.....
during the week, i love data......how many times strong, weak, to their bench, away bench, etc......
finally get to friday.....it seems like i never look at my sheet..........
also, either we've got good coaches or i'm terrible at math......but there's only been a small handful of occasions where a true tendency really stuck out to the point that i could call the opponents plays to down and distance..........i'm talkin about specific not just "he's probably going off tackle on first down"
|
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Apr 22, 2009 8:31:25 GMT -6
This is one of the areas where the discussion about data and stats vs. intuition or just knowing gets confusing, and then people go "stats are for losers." I agree that playcalling is an art. Unless the other coach is himself a machine, I don't think you can get exact probabilities such that they would be all that useful. It's not even math when it's just a guess as to what some other human being is going to do.
Yet there's other areas where intuition should always bow to data. This is relevant to that stats thread, but I like this quote, which is from a website I frequent:
Who has the longest interception return ever? Which running back ran for the most yards in a single game? What team scored the most fourth quarter touchdowns in a season?
Answer: I don't care.
That's trivia, not statistics. What I'm interested in is analysis. What makes a winning team? Is it better to go for it or punt on 4th and short at the 50 yard line? How much does luck play a part in any game?
|
|
|
|
Post by jgordon1 on Apr 22, 2009 8:33:16 GMT -6
me too..... during the week, i love data......how many times strong, weak, to their bench, away bench, etc...... finally get to friday.....it seems like i never look at my sheet.......... also, either we've got good coaches or i'm terrible at math......but there's only been a small handful of occasions where a true tendency really stuck out to the point that i could call the opponents plays to down and distance..........i'm talkin about specific not just "he's probably going off tackle on first down" I find the better the team the less tendancies we can pick out. but..but .. sometimes the great teams tendancies kick your a$$ anyway |
|
|
|
Post by fbcoach74 on Apr 22, 2009 9:14:33 GMT -6
I would agree with a lot of the coaches on there. We prepare during the week based on data. We break down the tendencies and try to take away certain things, and prepare for what they do best. But on game day it is all based on what we feel.
|
|
|
|
Post by fatkicker on Apr 22, 2009 9:21:56 GMT -6
agree gordon....
i remember getting stats on a team a few years back.......very right handed......very strong handed........ran something like 2 out of 58 plays to the weak side......
we could have put all 11 on the defensive left and it would not have mattered.......slanted that way all night.....still beat us bout 35-0...........
|
|
|
|
Post by atalbert on Apr 22, 2009 10:42:10 GMT -6
I think you have be data driven at some point. If nothing else, its a great excuse to watch 6 hours of gamefilm each week. I think data works in the first part of games. After that its all about adjusting to their adjustments-which comes from the gut.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach Bennett on Apr 22, 2009 10:50:47 GMT -6
I think you have be data driven at some point. If nothing else, its a great excuse to watch 6 hours of gamefilm each week. I think data works in the first part of games. After that its all about adjusting to their adjustments-which comes from the gut. When you're watching film, are you constantly taking notes thus creating data or generally understanding the flow and rhythm of situations? On the analysis side of the ball, how many of you record down and distance and play for all of the film you have on a given opponent, and then feed it into a program that flushes out tendencies? |
|
|
|
Post by cqmiller on Apr 22, 2009 10:54:54 GMT -6
I agree with most of what is said above...
I do not do a ton of statistical analysis of the films we watch, because the sample size of plays that you get from trading 2 weeks of games is not big enough to really say that the other team has a 72% tendency to do _____. The +/- error is too large. But I do watch enough film to know what the other coach is trying to do, what he wants to do, and how he usually goes about doing it.
That is where a coach earns his money. Anybody with the $$$ to buy APEX or any of those film programs can look at a printout of the computer and say "I'm 72% sure that he's gonna do this". But good coaches KNOW what the other guy wants to do and counters him.
|
|
|
|
Post by atalbert on Apr 22, 2009 11:14:32 GMT -6
Analysis helps with D&D and how it relates to where they attack. If on 2nd & 4 or less, they run to Strong B or sweep Strong D 80 % of the time, I am going to try and take that away while still being as sound as possible everywhere else.
If on 3rd and 7 or more, they roll the QB to field side 80% off the hash or to his throwing arm from the middle of the field 95% of the time, I am going to have someone there waiting for him or making him run instead of roll. Or if on 3rd & 7, #85 is the intended WR 80% of the time, we'll try and kick his a$$ at the LOS to disrupt timing.
IMO, its almost impossible to guess what PLAY they run in certain situations. In small school, that changes yearly according to what position they have their stud at. I am basically trying to understand what they are good at and how I can make it tough for them to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach Bennett on Apr 22, 2009 12:44:16 GMT -6
Analysis helps with D&D and how it relates to where they attack. If on 2nd & 4 or less, they run to Strong B or sweep Strong D 80 % of the time, I am going to try and take that away while still being as sound as possible everywhere else. If on 3rd and 7 or more, they roll the QB to field side 80% off the hash or to his throwing arm from the middle of the field 95% of the time, I am going to have someone there waiting for him or making him run instead of roll. Or if on 3rd & 7, #85 is the intended WR 80% of the time, we'll try and kick his a$$ at the LOS to disrupt timing. IMO, its almost impossible to guess what PLAY they run in certain situations. In small school, that changes yearly according to what position they have their stud at. I am basically trying to understand what they are good at and how I can make it tough for them to do. atalbert: with the stats that you listed above, will you break down film to know that 80% they roll field side if 3rd and 7+ or, having watched film ad nauseum throughout the week, "know" that they roll to field "80%" ie. nearly all of the time? |
|
|
|
Post by calicoachh on Apr 22, 2009 12:55:16 GMT -6
it has to be a mix. if one of your guys is on fire that particular friday night, or there is an injury, then the numbers might not hold, but if you have done your homework in preparation, that is the launching point to make 'gut' adjustments in game.
|
|
|
|
Post by atalbert on Apr 22, 2009 13:56:22 GMT -6
atalbert: with the stats that you listed above, will you break down film to know that 80% they roll field side if 3rd and 7+ or, having watched film ad nauseum throughout the week, "know" that they roll to field "80%" ie. nearly all of the time? Some teams you have to see the stats chewed up and spit out and some teams, you just know. For example, in our conference, we have two teams who had new coaching staffs last year. One team we played Week 3 so I went purely by percentages spit out by tendency software. This year, we play a team I have never seen in Week 5. I may have 3 games total to go off of so its pure tendency charts until I can figure out by halftime what they're trying to do to us. Another team we play has a HC and OC that have been running the Wing T for over 25 years. I could probably blow the dust off my old scouting report from HS 15 years ago and it wouldn't read much different than mine does this year. I have a great gut feeling on what they do....stopping it is a different story. |
|
|
|
Post by husky44 on Apr 22, 2009 16:32:46 GMT -6
We as coaches need to prepare for the opponent by breaking down the statistical tendencies but that does not mean that this should dictate how we call a game. At the beginning of a game you may rely more on the tendencies but as the game progresses and you have a feel for what the opponent is doing you will need to get away from this as your opponent adjusts.
|
|
|
|
Post by morris on Apr 23, 2009 6:26:27 GMT -6
I need to go back and look ado a self scout on this. I know in games the I have other coaches often remind me of down and distances. I know that sounds stupid and I do have a general idea but I call off of flow. I use data to let me know in general what to expect like a certain coverages. Its flow of the game for me.
When I scout I do record data to be used during the week. I look more for things like changes of splits, depths of RBs, foot steps and so on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach Bennett on Apr 23, 2009 6:31:15 GMT -6
Thanks coaches. One of the reasons I asked the question is because I'm looking at different software for editing film and, as you know, potentially using programs that accompany it for breaking down stats.
One of the biggest questions I'm struggling with right now is simply watching film 5-10 times in a given week or watching less film by dedicating time to inputing stats.
In a perfect world, I would do both but I'm trying not to kid myself here..."Denial" just ain't a river in Egypt!
|
|
|
|
Post by atalbert on Apr 23, 2009 6:46:17 GMT -6
I'm not smart enough to be able to watch a film once and see everything I need to. There is too much stuff going on in any given play to catch it all the first time. Its like trying to memorize all of the funny lines from a movie so you can quote them on here - it doesn't happen after you watch it once.
|
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Apr 23, 2009 6:52:04 GMT -6
Thanks coaches. One of the reasons I asked the question is because I'm looking at different software for editing film and, as you know, potentially using programs that accompany it for breaking down stats. One of the biggest questions I'm struggling with right now is simply watching film 5-10 times in a given week or watching less film by dedicating time to inputing stats. In a perfect world, I would do both but I'm trying not to kid myself here..."Denial" just ain't a river in Egypt! We have the software and I like it but I don't really like the charts. I prefer to get the breakdowns and watch cutups. Personally, for me I feel that that's more helpful. What do they run on the hash? What do they do by D&D? Personal preference but it makes more sense to me when I see it on video. |
|
|
|
Post by jpdaley25 on Apr 23, 2009 7:29:34 GMT -6
Coach=1 syllable Statistical Analysis=8 sylllables 22xInfinity+The Uncertainty Principal > 9 syllables Those who know - don't know. Those who don't know - know.  |
|
|
|
Post by gre3nday on Apr 23, 2009 7:42:49 GMT -6
For those that have said that they do all the analysis mid week then come game day it all goes out of the window and they call on feel. Why bother doing the analysis in the first place if you aren't going to use it? Seems like wasted time to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by fatkicker on Apr 23, 2009 8:02:41 GMT -6
not a waste of time....
one of the times that analysis worked for me...
3rd round playoff game.....played big time, undefeated, passing team.....with one GLARING tendency.....
they broke every route on 1st and 2nd down within 5 yards (slants, hitches, bubbles, outs)........only route breaks over 5 were 3rd and long (posts, arrows, flags)
we hugged the corners early and bailed 'em late......their oc never adjusted......we killed 'em....
because of that....i don't miss a film session......just in case........
|
|
|
|
Post by gre3nday on Apr 23, 2009 8:06:18 GMT -6
Fatkicker - in your example you used the analysis to aid you, so my question isn't really aimed at you. I'm trying to understand why people would spend time doing the analysis then not use it.
|
|
|
|
Post by jpdaley25 on Apr 23, 2009 8:22:29 GMT -6
Not using every means at your disposal to help your team is irresponsible in my view. Data, however, can be faulty and incomplete. Intuition and experience are also needed to fill in the gaps and to adapt to changing circumstances.
|
|
|
|
Post by fatkicker on Apr 23, 2009 8:48:03 GMT -6
i don't know.............most of the time my analysis goes unused......i have scouted 10 hours worth of film and had nothing to report to my header.......other than "this guy's pretty even"........if that's the case, i don't look at my stats again.......
|
|
|
|
Post by mattharris75 on Apr 23, 2009 9:02:26 GMT -6
For those that have said that they do all the analysis mid week then come game day it all goes out of the window and they call on feel. Why bother doing the analysis in the first place if you aren't going to use it? Seems like wasted time to me. I think that what most of them are saying is that they don't live and die by charts and graphs. I believe it's important to do film study and chart tendencies, regardless of whether you call strictly off a play sheet. The reason is that it 'informs' your intuition. It gives you a context and understanding of the other team that works at a subconscious level. And ultimately, whether or not you have any charts or graphs on the sidelines on Friday night, your brain uses that data. And that's a big part of what your 'gut' or 'intuition' is. |
|
|
|
Post by PIGSKIN11 on Apr 23, 2009 9:16:27 GMT -6
I am very much an intuition guy... I have been running one-back stuff forever (before everyone called it "spread") and we get a different D every week... a team will normally be 4-4 then come out in 4-3 cover 2&4, or go to 3 dl. They change to defend us, so we always wait to see what they are going to run...
I try to work against every d every week... Mondays work against a 4-4, tuesdays a 4-3, and wednedays vs 50 and 30 stack...
Never fails to see something they have never run before...
makes it fun... So I have my stuff ready vs a certain d and then call the game based on that... I hate D&D call sheets...
|
|
|
|
Post by gre3nday on Apr 23, 2009 9:18:02 GMT -6
Mattharris - I didn't say you should call directly off a play sheet. Obviously if your Studley Doright has been torching the other team all night just call a play to put the ball in his hands.
I'm not sure I buy you brain using the information you have charted becomes your 'intuition' or 'gut' feeling. If this was the case wouldn't you gut call be very similar to your charted calls?
What does interest me however is how on one hand you hear coaches saying they won't spen a minute practicing somehting if it is going to be used in a game. But they are quite happy spending hours gathering information that they won't use in a game.
|
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Apr 23, 2009 9:28:04 GMT -6
This brings up somethings Brophy started a thread on a couple of weeks back.
Pattern recognition.
Like what dcohio said, sometimes you just get a feel for a guy. That doesn't come from plotting and diagramming every play, but from merely watching the play caller work. Just watch the game.
I know one DC who watches one film of the upcoming opponent after practice everyday. Doesn't take notes, just looks at the flow of the game.
The flip side is Data. It is not enough to feel an opposing coordinator out. You gotta put numbers to the gut to get you the best possible calls.
As a general rule, you are analytical in your gameplanning......this is what we do on 3rd down, etc........but to be a good coordinator, you must have the ability to "figure it out" during the course of the game.
The plan is diligent anaylsis.
The adjustments are pattern recognitions.
|
|
