|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 28, 2014 16:56:15 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. $$$$$ = dog and pony show. Been there, done that.. have the bags under my eyes (but sadly, not the $$$$$) |
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Jan 28, 2014 18:56:57 GMT -6
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. 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. Just to piggy back on what you are saying, explosive plays means explosive players more times than not. We have been wing t a few years. Once had a dang good FB who was 6'3 230, tough, and ran a 4.9. He was really good and we moved the ball and won, but he did not produce explosive plays. The next year we had a 6' 235 badass who ran a 4.4 who is signing with Nebraska next week. For some reason belly and trap were really explosive plays. Lol. |
|
|
|
Post by coachb0 on Jan 29, 2014 4:45:22 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. but you don't only practice blocking and tackling. so these stats can give you some idea on what to do once the fundamentals are established. |
|
jmg999
Junior Member
Posts: 263
|
Post by jmg999 on Jan 29, 2014 13:17:41 GMT -6
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. As you touched upon, statistics, well, useful statistics, are always context dependent. I've seen some self-scouts that indicate the number of times a play was run, the average yards gained per play, the number of explosive plays, etc., but they don't mention when, where, how, or why the play was run. It's almost as if these plays exist in a vacuum. In words, the information gleaned from these reports is specious, at best. The great thing about the science of stats is that all independent variables can be accounted for, even the ones we can't control for. Maths don't lie. |
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jan 29, 2014 13:26:36 GMT -6
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. As you touched upon, statistics, well, useful statistics, are always context dependent. I've seen some self-scouts that indicate the number of times a play was run, the average yards gained per play, the number of explosive plays, etc., but they don't mention when, where, how, or why the play was run. It's almost as if these plays exist in a vacuum. In words, the information gleaned from these reports is specious, at best. The great thing about the science of stats is that all independent variables can be accounted for, even the ones we can't control for. Maths don't lie. If you look at your self-scout and see that you ran Fullback Dive 5 times for 12 yards that sounds like an inefficient play unless you understand that it's a short yardage play, designed to gain 1 or 2 yards. |
|
|
|
Post by windigo on Jan 29, 2014 13:27:40 GMT -6
Well lets look at the explosive play.
Take a game our team had against a very good T formation team.
This teams explosive play was trap. Our defensive game plan was to stop anything off tackle and give them trap. Was this carzy? No because the as is usually the case with misdirection running teams the reason trap is such an explosive play is because the off tackle stuff has been hurting you so your players over play off tackle and trap catches them inside. By shutting down the off tackle game through alignment and forcing them to run trap the trap never surprised us and it never broke for big yards.
Now if you looked at everything by stats you would go in like most teams do thinking 'we have to stop trap we have to stop trap'. You play to stop the big play, they eat you up off tackle, and when your players over adjust to the off tackle game boom trap breaks for 60.
|
|
jmg999
Junior Member
Posts: 263
|
Post by jmg999 on Jan 29, 2014 14:51:47 GMT -6
As you touched upon, statistics, well, useful statistics, are always context dependent. I've seen some self-scouts that indicate the number of times a play was run, the average yards gained per play, the number of explosive plays, etc., but they don't mention when, where, how, or why the play was run. It's almost as if these plays exist in a vacuum. In words, the information gleaned from these reports is specious, at best. The great thing about the science of stats is that all independent variables can be accounted for, even the ones we can't control for. Maths don't lie. If you look at your self-scout and see that you ran Fullback Dive 5 times for 12 yards that sounds like an inefficient play unless you understand that it's a short yardage play, designed to gain 1 or 2 yards. Exactly, it's context-dependent. You have to realize what these plays are designed to do, what situation they were run in, which front you ran it against, etc. to begin to understand where the statistical significance, if any, exists. |
|
|
|
Post by coachb0 on Jan 31, 2014 14:27:04 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Mar 2, 2014 14:24:01 GMT -6
Here's an article on factors that influence a game: www.footballstudyhall.com/2014/1/24/5337968/college-football-five-factorsThis is why I'm not a member of the "Never Punt, Onside Kick Every Time" club. If field position is so important why would I intentionally give it up? We all know that turnovers are a huge factor. To me, a failed 4th down conversion in your own end is a turnover. It may not be called one in the box score but it is. I agree with the author that turnover margin isn't always in our control but this one is. I'm not talking about sub-varsity or youth football. You may not have a kicker. I understand going for it on 4th down on the +35 (too long for a FG, too close to punt). I'm putting this here instead of the Kicking section because the article talks about five factors and not all involve the kicking game. Some guys may want to discuss them. |
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Mar 2, 2014 14:32:02 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Mar 2, 2014 14:34:29 GMT -6
Yeah, but I just noticed that part. |
|
|
|
Post by wingtol on Mar 3, 2014 8:47:18 GMT -6
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
|
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Mar 3, 2014 11:08:56 GMT -6
The use of the data is in the diagnostic sense.
It goes from "we suck on offense/Don't have good players" to "we are not very good on first down".
Which moves it from a WHAT statement (we suck) to a WHY inquiry (why do we suck).
Once you know why you suck on offense (you face a ton of third and longs), then you can develop a plan to improve your first down success rate.
Now, I will agree, typically those stats that correlate with winning tend to be dominated by teams with better players, etc.
I like to think every season you can break your season down into 3 phases: games you should win, games you shouldn't win, and games that are too close to call.
You obviously want to hold serve against the teams you should win, and to see if you can pull the upset against teams to whom you should lose.
It is in those games where the talent and expectations are equal where your paying attention to the important stats and working to win those battles.
This all seems like common sense stuff, but it is easy to get caught up in the ancillary.
This rings true not only when it comes to game planning, but also program planning. Make sure you are focused on the important things in your off-season and in-season development.
Basicaly, we know that turnovers can win or lose the game, NOW what are you as a coach going to do ensure your team works to win that battle?
|
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Mar 3, 2014 11:15:53 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.
No one disagrees.
However, the question is:
If we do not win, how do we fix it for the next game?
The biggest things with the stats is they can tell you where you are failing.
For most coaches, the answer is to just work harder.
The truth is, there is a LIMIT on the time you have, and ultimately, a LIMIT on the amount of work you can get it.
At some point, we need to focus and work smarter to get results.
|
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Mar 3, 2014 11:18:49 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.
I very much agree with this.
Which is why I like Brian Billick's study better. He was concerned with the number of explosive plays, not the average yardage......and the number of successful first downs, not the average yardage.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigm0073 on Mar 3, 2014 11:38:23 GMT -6
Run the ball
stop the run
win turnover battle
that will win you a ton of high school football games. Look at the stats from Friday night. You see a team have 35 carries for 85 yds while the other team had 45 carries for over 250 yds.. Guess who wins that game 9 out of 10 times... Throw in the turnover margin and you are set.. Final stat is 16 pts per game on defense. I did an analysis of this years ago..
run the ball
stop the run
do not turn it over
play sound defense(stop the run)... Make them one dimensional
this will win you a lot of games.
|
|
|
|
Post by jgordon1 on Mar 3, 2014 11:54:30 GMT -6
the one thong I like about the report was the definition of what an explosive play was. I never understood why for many teams a 21 yard run was an explosive play but a 21 yard pass wasn't
|
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Mar 3, 2014 12:12:18 GMT -6
the one thong I like about the report was the definition of what an explosive play was. I never understood why for many teams a 21 yard run was an explosive play but a 25 yard pass wasn't For the same reason that some people think that passing for 300 yards is exciting but running for 300 is boring? |
|
|
|
Post by windigo on Mar 3, 2014 13:28:45 GMT -6
Just to piggy back on what you are saying, explosive plays means explosive players more times than not. We have been wing t a few years. Once had a dang good FB who was 6'3 230, tough, and ran a 4.9. He was really good and we moved the ball and won, but he did not produce explosive plays. The next year we had a 6' 235 badass who ran a 4.4 who is signing with Nebraska next week. For some reason belly and trap were really explosive plays. Lol. Yes I've found the exact same thing with our explosive plays. It seems to me to be a combination of two factors. #1 How much of a bad ass our guy carrying the ball is. #2 How bad at tackling the other team is. I'm working hard at how to coach these two points and so far coming up empty. |
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Mar 3, 2014 13:46:07 GMT -6
Run the ball stop the run win turnover battle that will win you a ton of high school football games. Look at the stats from Friday night. You see a team have 35 carries for 85 yds while the other team had 45 carries for over 250 yds.. Guess who wins that game 9 out of 10 times... Throw in the turnover margin and you are set.. Final stat is 16 pts per game on defense. I did an analysis of this years ago.. run the ball stop the run do not turn it over play sound defense(stop the run)... Make them one dimensional this will win you a lot of games.
This helps to illustrate my point.
Coach, I am going to pick on you a little here, it is not personal, it is merely to prove a point.
We often make claims, like what I've highlighted in green, and then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
When you see a game where this rings true (the team that out rushes the other by a wide margin wins), then it reinforces your belief.
When you see a game where that DOES NOT ring true, then we use justifications ("well, that team just has a great QB", etc.).
That is why we use statistics, because they OBECTIVELY prove correlation.
Running the ball and stopping the run may be your way/method of achieving the universal, but it is not the universal.
|
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Mar 3, 2014 13:50:21 GMT -6
Just to piggy back on what you are saying, explosive plays means explosive players more times than not. We have been wing t a few years. Once had a dang good FB who was 6'3 230, tough, and ran a 4.9. He was really good and we moved the ball and won, but he did not produce explosive plays. The next year we had a 6' 235 badass who ran a 4.4 who is signing with Nebraska next week. For some reason belly and trap were really explosive plays. Lol. Yes I've found the exact same thing with our explosive plays. It seems to me to be a combination of two factors. #1 How much of a bad ass our guy carrying the ball is. #2 How bad at tackling the other team is. I'm working hard at how to coach these two points and so far coming up empty. That is the biggest thing.
The next biggest thing is the cohesion of your offense (IE, do you create conflict).
The last one is the variance with which you call the offense.
For example, if you ALWAYS do X on first down, then your explosive plays will go down.
|
|
|
|
Post by PIGSKIN11 on Mar 3, 2014 14:16:22 GMT -6
“99 percent of all statistics only tell 49 percent of the story.”
I can prove anything by statistics except the truth.
Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures.
88% of statistics are right 45% of the time....
|
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Mar 3, 2014 20:08:17 GMT -6
“99 percent of all statistics only tell 49 percent of the story.” I can prove anything by statistics except the truth. Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures. 88% of statistics are right 45% of the time.... So what's the basis for your decision making?
I mean, I am all for questioning statistics......especially when I consider the source and bias.
But eventually you need some reliable basis, something more than imperfect experience, to build your philosophy (the WHY we do what we do).
Bottom line, most people dismiss the data that challenges their beliefs, and cling to the data that reinforces their current position.
We can all rationalize the parts of this away we don't like, but that doesn't change the veracity.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigm0073 on Mar 3, 2014 22:10:24 GMT -6
Hey I do not know your team or know you as a head coach and the success you have had. I am going off of my experiences as a coach going back to 1996 as a young college coach. I have been a head coach for 10 years and the past 3 we have one double digit wins and played in the State semifinals at the 5a level in Virginia. Over the past 3 years I have coached 40 games .. This past season I coached against 4 coaches who have 10 state championship rings amongst them. Over the past 3 years I have played reigning state champions or state semifinalist 7 times.. 20 percent of my opponents over 3 years are at the highest level.. At least 2 of them were ranked in the USA today top 20 over the past 3 years.
All due respect dubber my stats are dead on and they are by no means a hypothesis for my program. This is not up for debate .. It is something my program and the continued best in our State produce year in and year out .
So though you may have a different take., that is fine and you are welcome to your thoughts . I am not here to argue that . I am here to tell you that
Running the ball
Stopping the run
Winning the turnover battle
And hollering teams to under 16 PTs will win you a ton of high school football games.. A ton .. The stats are what they are .. I stand by them and will not waiver.
Are there other ways? Of course but this method rings true.
|
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Mar 3, 2014 23:02:42 GMT -6
Run the ball stop the run win turnover battle that will win you a ton of high school football games. Look at the stats from Friday night. You see a team have 35 carries for 85 yds while the other team had 45 carries for over 250 yds.. Guess who wins that game 9 out of 10 times... Throw in the turnover margin and you are set.. Final stat is 16 pts per game on defense. I did an analysis of this years ago.. run the ball stop the run do not turn it over play sound defense(stop the run)... Make them one dimensional this will win you a lot of games.
This helps to illustrate my point.
Coach, I am going to pick on you a little here, it is not personal, it is merely to prove a point.
We often make claims, like what I've highlighted in green, and then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
When you see a game where this rings true (the team that out rushes the other by a wide margin wins), then it reinforces your belief.
When you see a game where that DOES NOT ring true, then we use justifications ("well, that team just has a great QB", etc.).
That is why we use statistics, because they OBECTIVELY prove correlation.
Running the ball and stopping the run may be your way/method of achieving the universal, but it is not the universal.
OK. This is relatively small sample but it's a start. I looked at all of the bowl games and 1AA playoffs. What I like about that is that just about every team here is pretty good and evenly matched. No Homecoming opponents here. In the bowl games the team with more rushing yards won 29 times and lost 6. In 1 AA the better rushing team was 23-4. Between the two, then, the teams that ran the ball better were 52-10. It's a small sample but it does look like the better rushing team is the way to bet. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 4, 2014 9:20:13 GMT -6
This helps to illustrate my point.
Coach, I am going to pick on you a little here, it is not personal, it is merely to prove a point.
We often make claims, like what I've highlighted in green, and then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
When you see a game where this rings true (the team that out rushes the other by a wide margin wins), then it reinforces your belief.
When you see a game where that DOES NOT ring true, then we use justifications ("well, that team just has a great QB", etc.).
That is why we use statistics, because they OBECTIVELY prove correlation.
Running the ball and stopping the run may be your way/method of achieving the universal, but it is not the universal.
OK. This is relatively small sample but it's a start. I looked at all of the bowl games and 1AA playoffs. What I like about that is that just about every team here is pretty good and evenly matched. No Homecoming opponents here. In the bowl games the team with more rushing yards won 29 times and lost 6. In 1 AA the better rushing team was 23-4. Between the two, then, the teams that ran the ball better were 52-10. It's a small sample but it does look like the better rushing team is the way to bet. I am sure some will point out that when dealing with stats, you have to look at causation vs correlation--and I think that probably applies more to the NCAA stats than the HS ones. At the HS level, I would argue (supported only by my experience--no data) that the team with greater rushing yardage accomplished that feat through superior physicality. They were able to physically move their opponent against their will, and were able to keep their opponent from doing the same. At the HS level, there is often a bigger differential in being bigger/stronger/faster than at higher levels, and this differential probably results in the success. |
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Mar 4, 2014 10:26:59 GMT -6
OK. This is relatively small sample but it's a start. I looked at all of the bowl games and 1AA playoffs. What I like about that is that just about every team here is pretty good and evenly matched. No Homecoming opponents here. In the bowl games the team with more rushing yards won 29 times and lost 6. In 1 AA the better rushing team was 23-4. Between the two, then, the teams that ran the ball better were 52-10. It's a small sample but it does look like the better rushing team is the way to bet. I am sure some will point out that when dealing with stats, you have to look at causation vs correlation--and I think that probably applies more to the NCAA stats than the HS ones. At the HS level, I would argue (supported only by my experience--no data) that the team with greater rushing yardage accomplished that feat through superior physicality. They were able to physically move their opponent against their will, and were able to keep their opponent from doing the same. At the HS level, there is often a bigger differential in being bigger/stronger/faster than at higher levels, and this differential probably results in the success. Probably true but it's also true in a lot of regular season college games. It's also true in HS that you can have a game sometimes when you can gain yards because the other guy doesn't know what he's doing, doesn't have a force or something like that. That happens in college too but not nearly as often. I think that outrushing the other team goes together with the need for explosive plays. It's hard to run for a lot of yards five yards at a time. |
|
|
|
Post by PIGSKIN11 on Mar 4, 2014 10:39:04 GMT -6
“99 percent of all statistics only tell 49 percent of the story.” I can prove anything by statistics except the truth. Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures. 88% of statistics are right 45% of the time.... So what's the basis for your decision making?
I mean, I am all for questioning statistics......especially when I consider the source and bias.
But eventually you need some reliable basis, something more than imperfect experience, to build your philosophy (the WHY we do what we do).
Bottom line, most people dismiss the data that challenges their beliefs, and cling to the data that reinforces their current position.
We can all rationalize the parts of this away we don't like, but that doesn't change the veracity.
I was just having some fun is all - We use percentages when we look for tendencies of other teams offenses... However, I only care about them if it is 75% or higher (and it depends on the sample size)... to me that is a significant tendency... anything lower sucks you in for a slow death... Other than that - I do not spend too much time worrying about %%% |
|
|
|
Post by coachb0 on Mar 4, 2014 16:29:52 GMT -6
Bottom line, most people dismiss the data that challenges their beliefs, and cling to the data that reinforces their current position. funny thing is, where do beliefs really come from? we have some idea (that we mostly got from other people) and reassure it based upon supporting experiences. some of them were personal experiences, some are experiences we get told of or read about. some experiences are not supportive of our ideas, but we have explanations for them or count them as exceptions. but what we're essentially doing, is statistics - altough in a very subjective way. there is no fundamental difference between personal experiences and statistics, but the latter is more objective and (even if it has a bad name) thus more trustworthy (i think i dont need to argue that our mind is playing tricks on us, do i?). That is why we use statistics, because they OBECTIVELY prove correlation. we still have to interpret the correlations that are shown by statistics and that is what legitimate discussions should focus on. |
|
|
|
Post by CS on Mar 4, 2014 17:00:31 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. I agree with you that colleges everywhere still have them. The college I played at used one and the HC was a veteran who coached with frank broyles and lou holtz. point being we as coaches know that it's a bunch of bull$hit but the kids don't. It plants a seed in there head about things that you find important and then all of your players all of a sudden find them important. i do disagree though that those coaches see merit in it as anything other than a motivator. |
|
