|
Post by cqmiller on Jan 24, 2014 17:51:35 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 24, 2014 17:58:08 GMT -6
I think the key is the question "Is a coach/team manufacturing the statistics and therefor winning..OR are the stats just a natural result of what happens when a better team plays a less skilled team?" Is someone winning 82% of their games because they are brilliantly designing explosive plays and calling them at the precise moment... or are teams that are better and are 8 out 10 times more likely to win a game just ending up having more explosive plays.
|
|
|
Post by eaglemountie on Jan 24, 2014 18:07:15 GMT -6
Soooo…
1.) Have more big plays 2.) Don't lose yardage 3.) Start closer to the goal line 4.) Score touchdowns 5.) Hold onto the ball
Yep, sounds like a winner!
|
|
|
Post by coachb0 on Jan 24, 2014 18:08:46 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Jan 24, 2014 18:12:08 GMT -6
I think the key is the question "Is a coach/team manufacturing the statistics and therefor winning..OR are the stats just a natural result of what happens when a better team plays a less skilled team?" Is someone winning 82% of their games because they are brilliantly designing explosive plays and calling them at the precise moment... or are teams that are better and are 8 out 10 times more likely to win a game just ending up having more explosive plays. Exactly! Thank you!
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 24, 2014 18:38:47 GMT -6
"These Meaningful Stats should be given serious consideration when putting together your strategic formula for winning." Last line of the above article. My question to the author would be "How exactly?" Not to sound trite, but How does one design a plan to "Score 25+points" or to hold an opponent to "16 or less". More to the point, how would these plans differ from other plans ?
|
|
|
Post by cqmiller on Jan 24, 2014 19:13:16 GMT -6
I more use these to gauge what our offensive goals should be for each game... I know a lot of people who use a lot of various things, but I have over the years kind of trimmed it down to just a few:
Offensive Goals (game) 1) No turnovers 2) No 3 & Outs 3) 75% or more on 3rd down 4) 50% or more on 4th down 5) No negative plays (sacks, dropped balls, TFL) 6) Score 6 or more points each quarter (2 FG or 1 TD)
Looking at the statistics from these studies I look at our goals and the odds of us losing if we get these goals is basically 0. Unless the defense allows their offense to be better at these items.
Defensive Goals 1) Win turnover battle (+1 over offense) 2) 75% red zone efficiency (no TD's 75% of the time) 3) 50% or less 3rd down % (win 3rd down) 4) No 15 yd runs or 20 yd passes (no big plays) 5) 6 or less points each quarter (all FG's or 1 TD one quarter and no more than 1 FG the next)
Should win all those things if we meet goals
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jan 24, 2014 19:19:58 GMT -6
"These Meaningful Stats should be given serious consideration when putting together your strategic formula for winning." Last line of the above article. My question to the author would be "How exactly?" Not to sound trite, but How does one design a plan to "Score 25+points" or to hold an opponent to "16 or less". More to the point, how would these plans differ from other plans ? We stopped keeping statistical goals years ago when we realized that it was waste of time. It's bad to give up plays of over 25 yards? No {censored}?
|
|
jmg999
Junior Member
Posts: 263
|
Post by jmg999 on Jan 24, 2014 19:33:19 GMT -6
He's not providing any statistical analyses. He's just looking at averages and making broad assumptions.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 24, 2014 20:51:30 GMT -6
I more use these to gauge what our offensive goals should be for each game... I know a lot of people who use a lot of various things, but I have over the years kind of trimmed it down to just a few: Offensive Goals (game) 1) No turnovers 2) No 3 & Outs 3) 75% or more on 3rd down 4) 50% or more on 4th down 5) No negative plays (sacks, dropped balls, TFL) 6) Score 6 or more points each quarter (2 FG or 1 TD) Looking at the statistics from these studies I look at our goals and the odds of us losing if we get these goals is basically 0. Unless the defense allows their offense to be better at these items. Defensive Goals 1) Win turnover battle (+1 over offense) 2) 75% red zone efficiency (no TD's 75% of the time) 3) 50% or less 3rd down % (win 3rd down) 4) No 15 yd runs or 20 yd passes (no big plays) 5) 6 or less points each quarter (all FG's or 1 TD one quarter and no more than 1 FG the next) Should win all those things if we meet goals cqmiller Makes for very pretty goal boards..BUT in reality, does any of that change anything that you do? About the only thing I could see that could benefit a team would be a focus on ball security and a turnover circuit. Not saying that such things guarantee success, BUT at the HS level, I would state that working on those two things will generally lead to better results than NOT working on them, particularly creating fumbles and fumbling. All of the other things--do again they are probably results of a combination of being bigger/stronger/faster, better pad level, blocking better, better block destruction, and better tackling.
|
|
|
Post by ItalianStallion on Jan 24, 2014 21:59:24 GMT -6
Having a goal board isn't going to win you games, but the kids enjoy it, it's not a major time consumer, and if you have some legit goals then it's good for staff and players to see how achieving/not achieving those goals correlates to winning football games. I'm a fan.
|
|
|
Post by cqmiller on Jan 24, 2014 22:57:36 GMT -6
coachd5085I agree that it doesn't change anything I do, but kids seeing those goals and understanding that the reason we teach/coach/emphasize what we do is because it will help us win games by completing those goals... use it more as a "get kids to buy into the little things" aid more than a "we have to meet this goal or else" kinda deal. Kid these days (around here at least) are all about "swag"... which drives me nuts, but we worked those goals into what the kids get their stickers for on their helmets. Anyone who played on offense that week gets a sticker if we meet any of those goals. If we hit all 6, everyone who played on offense gets 6 paws for their helmet (we are huskies). Everyone who played got one if we win the game, so we tried to turn it into a reward to boost morale and get the kids to focus on the little things like doing my job on 3rd & 3 so we can get off the field (and meet the 75% mark to get our stickers... if that is what motivates the kid). Being able to show them that the teams they love on Saturdays win because they do those "goals" gets them to buy-in just a little bit more. I am still gonna try to move the chains, teach tackling over and over again, and run the football because I know that is what I wanna do and if we do those 3 things our chances of winning go WAY up. Obviously if we get 50 yard chunk plays we are gonna win games, but trying to get kids to focus on little things like not sacrificing a fumble just to get 1 or 2 more yards to pad my receiving stats, or getting my QB to tuck it rather than force a bad play are well worth me tracking those stats because those stats are all being calculated anyway with drive-charts (easy to see 3 and outs), basic 3rd down stats that EVERYONE does, and the box-scores handle almost all of it.
|
|
|
Post by mrjvi on Jan 25, 2014 6:37:06 GMT -6
To be honest, in 32 years of coaching we have had years when we used goal charts, stickers, etc. and we have lately not used anything like that (except giving chocolate milk to the top group each week . It really has made no difference. I wish there was some "secret" but the basic stuff everyone here knows is still the ticket. Getting kids to be accountable to each other is still my best "stat".
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jan 25, 2014 8:24:27 GMT -6
at the end of the day, these benchmarks may correlate to wins, but are not grounds for causation. These make for great articles/reading material but none of it matter until you can demonstrate how you apply it. Considering the source is not a coach, it ultimately is a "just run more touchdown plays" type of assertion www.sbnation.com/authors/bill-connellyRespectfully, anyone could throw ncaa stats into a table and aggregate off of it (a computer can do this all on its own). The real story/work would just be to examine WHY a team lead a such-and-such stat category.
|
|
|
Post by CS on Jan 25, 2014 8:32:50 GMT -6
All I really got out of the article was that the team that is better is going to win and the guy found a round about way to say that
|
|
|
Post by coachkb14 on Jan 25, 2014 13:10:07 GMT -6
I have 1 stat that matters. WIN! If it helps the kids to see a goal they need to reach I'll throw some up. If we don't score a certain amount of points or force a certain amount of turnovers I could care less as long we WIN.
|
|
|
Post by windigo on Jan 27, 2014 10:38:29 GMT -6
If you are blocking well and tackling well those "stats" are usually very good.
Stats are just a reflection of your execution.
|
|
|
Post by coachiminime on Jan 27, 2014 12:18:25 GMT -6
Rush for more yards than the opponent win the turnover battle be good on 1st and third down and not allow the other team to be good win the field position game
|
|
|
Post by windigo on Jan 27, 2014 12:52:09 GMT -6
I saw that in college football the best predictive stat of the kind of season a team would have is the cumulative starts of the offensive line.
All that stat represents is how well your team blocks.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jan 27, 2014 19:05:36 GMT -6
I saw that in college football the best predictive stat of the kind of season a team would have is the cumulative starts of the offensive line. All that stat represents is how well your team blocks. I agree with that but it only helps if you're betting. As coaches it doesn't help us at all.
|
|
|
Post by syphrit7 on Jan 27, 2014 19:33:06 GMT -6
Turnovers and 3rd downs have always been the two most important stats to me. They basically take care of most other stats that could take place during a game (i.e. Time of possession and starting field position).
|
|
|
Post by coachb0 on Jan 28, 2014 5:54:04 GMT -6
I think those stats can be a reminder for coaches to practice things that directly affect these stats. Those articles that were about the most important stats in football helped me at my last stop to convince the OC to practice 1st-down and 3rd-down situations.
Another thing could be to reflect on how you practice ballsecurity/strips with your team. You could also think about your philosophy on playcalling: do you go for the 4 yards at a time or do you look for the bigplay almost any snap (like baylor does)? Field position is important - how can we work on our specialteams?
I think these stats can be an impetus to reflect on what you're doing and how you can get better. But of course, if you're perfect by now, these stats don't really help.
|
|
|
Post by windigo on Jan 28, 2014 10:27:50 GMT -6
I think those stats can be a reminder for coaches to practice things that directly affect these stats. The things that directly effect those stats are blocking and tackling. You can look at each of those 11 points and equate them fundamentally to the blocking and tackling of each team.
|
|
|
Post by joelee on Jan 28, 2014 10:45:32 GMT -6
I think those stats can be a reminder for coaches to practice things that directly affect these stats. Those articles that were about the most important stats in football helped me at my last stop to convince the OC to practice 1st-down and 3rd-down situations. Another thing could be to reflect on how you practice ballsecurity/strips with your team. You could also think about your philosophy on playcalling: do you go for the 4 yards at a time or do you look for the bigplay almost any snap (like baylor does)? Field position is important - how can we work on our specialteams? I think these stats can be an impetus to reflect on what you're doing and how you can get better. But of course, if you're perfect by now, these stats don't really help. I respect a lot of the posters in this thread, but I agree with this guy on the statistical analysis. Some stats are important to me. Some stats make me examine my practice and my playcalling. It puzzles me the aversion to statistics from some guys that I agree with often. The speech James Franklin gave last year at Glazier alluded to the big play idea and so does Brian Billicks game planning book.
|
|
|
Post by cqmiller on Jan 28, 2014 11:21:34 GMT -6
I know that some things are a "NO $H!T" thing, like getting 50 yard run plays = wins, but being able to show your kids that what you are teaching them applies to NCAA and NFL games as well as high school may get them to focus just a little more, or understand why their technique is so important...
If LB's understand that we can give up 3-4 yards on Iso all night long as long as we don't get super-lazy with our technique and let one of them get 40... that 40 is what kills us, not the 5 yard average.
I have noticed a ton with NCAA stats, like Oregon has had some RB's average about 10 ypc the last few years... they are NOT gaining 10 every time they touch the ball, but they get a 90 or an 80 (or 2 of them) in a game and it makes those ypc numbers be wrong... When they play Stanford, they don't give up the 80 or 90 yard big-run, and it makes a HUGE difference. The ypc may only be 5 or 6 vs. stanford due to that. Not seeming like a big difference between 6 or 8, but it is HOW the 6 got up to 8 that kills you.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 28, 2014 12:01:29 GMT -6
I know that some things are a "NO $H!T" thing, like getting 50 yard run plays = wins, but being able to show your kids that what you are teaching them applies to NCAA and NFL games as well as high school may get them to focus just a little more, or understand why their technique is so important... If LB's understand that we can give up 3-4 yards on Iso all night long as long as we don't get super-lazy with our technique and let one of them get 40... that 40 is what kills us, not the 5 yard average. I have noticed a ton with NCAA stats, like Oregon has had some RB's average about 10 ypc the last few years... they are NOT gaining 10 every time they touch the ball, but they get a 90 or an 80 (or 2 of them) in a game and it makes those ypc numbers be wrong... When they play Stanford, they don't give up the 80 or 90 yard big-run, and it makes a HUGE difference. The ypc may only be 5 or 6 vs. stanford due to that. Not seeming like a big difference between 6 or 8, but it is HOW the 6 got up to 8 that kills you. Arithmetic means (averages) are notoriously poor statistics for measuring many things. The Mode or Median values would give a much greater indication of what is truly occurring.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 28, 2014 12:56:55 GMT -6
I think those stats can be a reminder for coaches to practice things that directly affect these stats. Those articles that were about the most important stats in football helped me at my last stop to convince the OC to practice 1st-down and 3rd-down situations. Another thing could be to reflect on how you practice ballsecurity/strips with your team. You could also think about your philosophy on playcalling: do you go for the 4 yards at a time or do you look for the bigplay almost any snap (like baylor does)? Field position is important - how can we work on our specialteams? I think these stats can be an impetus to reflect on what you're doing and how you can get better. But of course, if you're perfect by now, these stats don't really help. I respect a lot of the posters in this thread, but I agree with this guy on the statistical analysis. Some stats are important to me. Some stats make me examine my practice and my playcalling. It puzzles me the aversion to statistics from some guys that I agree with often. The speech James Franklin gave last year at Glazier alluded to the big play idea and so does Brian Billicks game planning book. Again though coach, the issue is that more than likely, the stats are simply showing that a dominant team (ie, team that wins) ends up with more explosive plays? I would bet, particularly in HS, that many of the "explosive" plays are simple base runs, or 3 step routes or screens that "break". I don't know of any coaches that have 2 versions of power. The 4 yard one, and then the "explosive" power that gets them 18 yards... But, I guess there is nothing wrong with thinking about football...
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jan 28, 2014 15:58:06 GMT -6
I respect a lot of the posters in this thread, but I agree with this guy on the statistical analysis. Some stats are important to me. Some stats make me examine my practice and my playcalling. It puzzles me the aversion to statistics from some guys that I agree with often. The speech James Franklin gave last year at Glazier alluded to the big play idea and so does Brian Billicks game planning book. Again though coach, the issue is that more than likely, the stats are simply showing that a dominant team (ie, team that wins) ends up with more explosive plays? I would bet, particularly in HS, that many of the "explosive" plays are simple base runs, or 3 step routes or screens that "break". I don't know of any coaches that have 2 versions of power. The 4 yard one, and then the "explosive" power that gets them 18 yards... But, I guess there is nothing wrong with thinking about football... I do agree that these stats don't really have much practical application for veteran coaches. I do think that it has some value for younger coaches who are developing their philosophy and on programs that are building and whose players are just learning how to play the game right. The "explosive play" idea has affected my thinking somewhat. There's often talk here about offensive systems that are "equalizers", that can allow offenses with below average talent move the ball. I think that an option based offense can be an equalizer. I agree that you need to make explosive plays to play good offensive football because it's hard to score points by moving the ball four yards at a time. The odds are that sooner or later something will throw the offense off schedule (defensively, we count on that). You need to make explosives every now and then. That's hard if you have below average speed. Option football, though, forces the defense to play assignment football and if the defense loses discipline a defensive breakdown allows you to get long runs from that 4.9 tailback.
|
|
|
Post by cqmiller on Jan 28, 2014 16:08:37 GMT -6
I see both sides... I just know that I have been to a hell of a lot of college (all levels) football facilities and there are a lot more of them that have some goal-chart for each week than those who don't. There are a lot of guys making millions of $ that see merit in it, so I don't think it can hurt to have one unless you let it become ALL that you do.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 28, 2014 16:55:13 GMT -6
Again though coach, the issue is that more than likely, the stats are simply showing that a dominant team (ie, team that wins) ends up with more explosive plays? I would bet, particularly in HS, that many of the "explosive" plays are simple base runs, or 3 step routes or screens that "break". I don't know of any coaches that have 2 versions of power. The 4 yard one, and then the "explosive" power that gets them 18 yards... But, I guess there is nothing wrong with thinking about football... I do agree that these stats don't really have much practical application for veteran coaches. I do think that it has some value for younger coaches who are developing their philosophy and on programs that are building and whose players are just learning how to play the game right. The "explosive play" idea has affected my thinking somewhat. There's often talk here about offensive systems that are "equalizers", that can allow offenses with below average talent move the ball. I think that an option based offense can be an equalizer. I agree that you need to make explosive plays to play good offensive football because it's hard to score points by moving the ball four yards at a time. The odds are that sooner or later something will throw the offense off schedule (defensively, we count on that). You need to make explosives every now and then. That's hard if you have below average speed. Option football, though, forces the defense to play assignment football and if the defense loses discipline a defensive breakdown allows you to get long runs from that 4.9 tailback. fantom I guess I am more of a pessimist than you are. I actually see this type of analysis as potentially detrimental for young coaches without the guidance of wise coaches (or without a solid understanding of statistical measures). I could see them thinking "I need to come up with 'explosive plays'" not realizing that those statistics probably reflect a lot more powers, counters, iso's, bellys, slants, hitches etc. than they do cleverly orchestrated schematic wizardry designed to gain 15+ yards.
|
|