Post by dubber on Sept 30, 2012 22:08:50 GMT -6
In his book, Developing an Offensive Game Plan, Brian Billick statistically identified, among other things, how first down yardage correlates with offensive success.
Basically, your chances of converting on 3rd and short are better than on 3rd and long. The more +4 first downs you have, the more 3rd and shorts you will face.
An interesting note, there is not a big difference between good teams and bad one when it comes to 3rd down conversions. Most teams will convert about 80% of their third and short situations, regardless of there offensive prowess.
The reason good teams are good, is they put themselves into MORE of those 3rd and short situations. Bad teams, meanwhile, tend to face a ton of 3rd and long.
Also, keeping more of the playbook available to call allows an offense to keep the defense off balance, take shots, etc.
Here is the raw data:
New York Giants
+4 opportunities:
Attempts: 12
Conversions: 10
-4 opportunities:
Attempts: 14
Conversions: 9
Philadelphia Eagles
+4 opportunities:
Attempts: 13
Conversions: 13
-4 opportunities:
Attempts: 16
Conversions: 12
A few thoughts:
1.) Obviously, the Eagles going 13 for 13 speaks volumes. On the Giant's 2 failed +4 conversions, one ended with a FG, and the other had a holding penalty that set up third and long.
2.) Eagles completed 100% of their +4 situations, compared to 75% of their -4 situations. New York completed 64% of their -4 situations, though they need two 4th down conversions to do it. Had they failed on those 4th downs, they would have been sitting at 50%.
3.) The offense picked up in the second half, and correlated with that was a pick up in +4 opportunities. In fact, the Eagles only had 2 +4 opportunities in the first half, both coming on their only scoring drive at the end of the 2nd quarter.
In the second half, the two teams combined for 16 +4 situations (compared to 9 in the first half).
4.) The reason, I believe, the score wasn't higher was red zone efficiency.
In short, it is easy to get bogged down in statistical overload in this sport, and by focusing on first down efficiency, a coach can garner an edge in play calling and practice focus.
Some applications:
Notice your first down play calls. Are you overly weighted toward a particular play?
Notice the times when you are -4......try to understand why.
Notice the times you are +4, ESPECIALLY versus those teams you consider better than you.
Thanks ahead for a good discussion.
Basically, your chances of converting on 3rd and short are better than on 3rd and long. The more +4 first downs you have, the more 3rd and shorts you will face.
An interesting note, there is not a big difference between good teams and bad one when it comes to 3rd down conversions. Most teams will convert about 80% of their third and short situations, regardless of there offensive prowess.
The reason good teams are good, is they put themselves into MORE of those 3rd and short situations. Bad teams, meanwhile, tend to face a ton of 3rd and long.
Also, keeping more of the playbook available to call allows an offense to keep the defense off balance, take shots, etc.
Here is the raw data:
New York Giants
+4 opportunities:
Attempts: 12
Conversions: 10
-4 opportunities:
Attempts: 14
Conversions: 9
Philadelphia Eagles
+4 opportunities:
Attempts: 13
Conversions: 13
-4 opportunities:
Attempts: 16
Conversions: 12
A few thoughts:
1.) Obviously, the Eagles going 13 for 13 speaks volumes. On the Giant's 2 failed +4 conversions, one ended with a FG, and the other had a holding penalty that set up third and long.
2.) Eagles completed 100% of their +4 situations, compared to 75% of their -4 situations. New York completed 64% of their -4 situations, though they need two 4th down conversions to do it. Had they failed on those 4th downs, they would have been sitting at 50%.
3.) The offense picked up in the second half, and correlated with that was a pick up in +4 opportunities. In fact, the Eagles only had 2 +4 opportunities in the first half, both coming on their only scoring drive at the end of the 2nd quarter.
In the second half, the two teams combined for 16 +4 situations (compared to 9 in the first half).
4.) The reason, I believe, the score wasn't higher was red zone efficiency.
In short, it is easy to get bogged down in statistical overload in this sport, and by focusing on first down efficiency, a coach can garner an edge in play calling and practice focus.
Some applications:
Notice your first down play calls. Are you overly weighted toward a particular play?
Notice the times when you are -4......try to understand why.
Notice the times you are +4, ESPECIALLY versus those teams you consider better than you.
Thanks ahead for a good discussion.