jmg999
Junior Member
Posts: 263
|
Post by jmg999 on Mar 5, 2014 0:05:23 GMT -6
Goals, whether you write them on a chart, a post-it note, or simply remember them, we all have them. We need them. We have to have something to strive for. I don't think that they're pointless or that they only mean something to the players. In fact, it's the entire point of human existence.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 5, 2014 0:08:17 GMT -6
Goals, whether you write them on a chart, a post-it note, or simply remember them, we all have them. We need them. We have to have something to strive for. I don't think that they're pointless or that they only mean something to the players. In fact, it's the entire point of human existence. Correct-- however in the context of this thread, wouldn't the goal be to "win the game".
|
|
jmg999
Junior Member
Posts: 263
|
Post by jmg999 on Mar 5, 2014 3:35:33 GMT -6
Yes, but in order to win the game, you have to accomplish certain tasks in order to formulate a victory. I think that setting forth goals in the form of these tasks is appropriate for both players and coaches. It lets everyone know what the intended goals are, and it allows everyone to work as a team to accomplish them.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 5, 2014 8:21:04 GMT -6
Yes, but in order to win the game, you have to accomplish certain tasks in order to formulate a victory. I think that setting forth goals in the form of these tasks is appropriate for both players and coaches. It lets everyone know what the intended goals are, and it allows everyone to work as a team to accomplish them. Coach, as has been discussed many times here -- No you don't. The ONLY "certain task" you need to accomplish to obtain victory is have more points at the end of the game than the opponent. All of the other "goals" would be "false goals", and due to the ebb and due to constantly changing game situations trying to achieve some of those false goals can be counter productive to the goal of winning. For example--having a goal of passing or rushing for ____ yards. But that has been discussed many times regarding goals--this is about stats.
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Mar 5, 2014 9:12:00 GMT -6
My issue with this is that these are not stats..they are more like talking points for a NFL fan. "Oh they won because they were more explosive!" WTF DOES THAT EVEN MEAN? I want quantifiable stats..not random statements.. This is like going to a bunch of baseball stats guys and saying "they won because they hit the ball hard" Sent from my VS980 4G using proboards
|
|
|
Post by cqmiller on Mar 5, 2014 9:15:11 GMT -6
I completely agree... being a math minor, I have not seen a lot of 'meaningful' statistics being used. I was more trying to get some people to help explain HOW they use that data and if they do collect data that is "meaningful".
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Mar 5, 2014 9:31:39 GMT -6
I completely agree... being a math minor, I have not seen a lot of 'meaningful' statistics being used. I was more trying to get some people to help explain HOW they use that data and if they do collect data that is "meaningful". The only meaningful stats I've ever been able to apply to my teams victories are these. Time of possession: if we have the ball 60% of the game, we win 3/4 times TOP has a dependency on 3rd down conversions. Which we track heavily. That's the down we focus on most. Sent from my VS980 4G using proboards
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 5, 2014 9:33:17 GMT -6
I completely agree... being a math minor, I have not seen a lot of 'meaningful' statistics being used. I was more trying to get some people to help explain HOW they use that data and if they do collect data that is "meaningful". I like how you use the word meaningful. That sums up my position on these types of things nicely. I view part of meaningful being things YOU can control.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Mar 5, 2014 9:57:39 GMT -6
I completely agree... being a math minor, I have not seen a lot of 'meaningful' statistics being used. I was more trying to get some people to help explain HOW they use that data and if they do collect data that is "meaningful". When I first saw this thread I also thought it was just another thread about stats and goals. When I read it later, when I had more time, a few things hit me: 1. The "never punt" and "onside kick" crowd often say that field position doesn't matter but it does. It's harder to drive 80 yards than 60 and it's harder to drive 60 than 40. So, if you want to risk going for it on 4th and 4 on your 30, knock yourself out. I'm punting the ball and making you work for points. 2. As a DC, I hope that a lot of guys misunderstand the part about explosive plays. I count on their impatience. If you don't have an explosive player, though, an OC has to be patient and be ready to punish the defense when they lose their own patience and make a mistake. The importance of explosive plays has made me a patient, cautious DC. It's why all of our blitz game is zone blitz and have eliminated man blitzes.
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Mar 5, 2014 10:24:18 GMT -6
I completely agree... being a math minor, I have not seen a lot of 'meaningful' statistics being used. I was more trying to get some people to help explain HOW they use that data and if they do collect data that is "meaningful". When I first saw this thread I also thought it was just another thread about stats and goals. When I read it later, when I had more time, a few things hit me: 1. The "never punt" and "onside kick" crowd often say that field position doesn't matter but it does. It's harder to drive 80 yards than 60 and it's harder to drive 60 than 40. So, if you want to risk going for it on 4th and 4 on your 30, knock yourself out. I'm punting the ball and making you work for points. 2. As a DC, I hope that a lot of guys misunderstand the part about explosive plays. I count on their impatience. If you don't have an explosive player, though, an OC has to be patient and be ready to punish the defense when they lose their own patience and make a mistake. The importance of explosive plays has made me a patient, cautious DC. It's why all of our blitz game is zone blitz and have eliminated man blitzes. depends on the philsophy coach. as i said above. TOP is way more important to us then high score. if we win 7-0 im stoked because that means we hit our TOP goal. with that being the case, id rather have 80 yards to drive and chew clock, then 60, then 40.
|
|
|
Post by coachb0 on Mar 5, 2014 10:31:25 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 5, 2014 10:35:23 GMT -6
I completely agree... being a math minor, I have not seen a lot of 'meaningful' statistics being used. I was more trying to get some people to help explain HOW they use that data and if they do collect data that is "meaningful". When I first saw this thread I also thought it was just another thread about stats and goals. When I read it later, when I had more time, a few things hit me: 1. The "never punt" and "onside kick" crowd often say that field position doesn't matter but it does. It's harder to drive 80 yards than 60 and it's harder to drive 60 than 40. So, if you want to risk going for it on 4th and 4 on your 30, knock yourself out. I'm punting the ball and making you work for points. 2. As a DC, I hope that a lot of guys misunderstand the part about explosive plays. I count on their impatience. If you don't have an explosive player, though, an OC has to be patient and be ready to punish the defense when they lose their own patience and make a mistake. The importance of explosive plays has made me a patient, cautious DC. It's why all of our blitz game is zone blitz and have eliminated man blitzes. Yes.. one very "dangerous" aspect about trying to use statistics such as these to drive any type of thinking is that often these statistics are cumulative in nature. (I am not sure I am expressing this properly). In football, the objective is to win THAT game. Period. The "percentages" from such studies/reports usually represent overarching numbers---but the actual probabilities change from game to game. Games are FINITE--the probabilities/percentages don't necessarily recognize that fact. It is similar to ring/cash poker vs tournament poker. You see MUCH MORE conservative play and playing by the percentages in cash games because they theoretically don't end. Tournaments have a time structure (increasing blinds) and a finite end point which changes the percentages.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Mar 5, 2014 10:41:18 GMT -6
When I first saw this thread I also thought it was just another thread about stats and goals. When I read it later, when I had more time, a few things hit me: 1. The "never punt" and "onside kick" crowd often say that field position doesn't matter but it does. It's harder to drive 80 yards than 60 and it's harder to drive 60 than 40. So, if you want to risk going for it on 4th and 4 on your 30, knock yourself out. I'm punting the ball and making you work for points. 2. As a DC, I hope that a lot of guys misunderstand the part about explosive plays. I count on their impatience. If you don't have an explosive player, though, an OC has to be patient and be ready to punish the defense when they lose their own patience and make a mistake. The importance of explosive plays has made me a patient, cautious DC. It's why all of our blitz game is zone blitz and have eliminated man blitzes. Yes.. one very "dangerous" aspect about trying to use statistics such as these to drive any type of thinking is that often these statistics are cumulative in nature. (I am not sure I am expressing this properly). In football, the objective is to win THAT game. Period. The "percentages" from such studies/reports usually represent overarching numbers---but the actual probabilities change from game to game. Games are FINITE--the probabilities/percentages don't necessarily recognize that fact. It is similar to ring/cash poker vs tournament poker. You see MUCH MORE conservative play and playing by the percentages in cash games because they theoretically don't end. Tournaments have a time structure (increasing blinds) and a finite end point which changes the percentages. Yeah, the math teacher who did the probability study that said you should always go for it on 4th down was studying thousands of situations, not THIS play in THIS game during THIS season.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 5, 2014 10:42:59 GMT -6
depends on the philsophy coach. as i said above. TOP is way more important to us then high score. if we win 7-0 im stoked because that means we hit our TOP goal. with that being the case, id rather have 80 yards to drive and chew clock, then 60, then 40. How can you say that? Winning 7-0 is zero indication of any Time of Possession. Regarding field position.. I think that is just a poor way of thinking of it. Again, the goal is to win the game. If you are playing a game with the metaphorical "live depending on it", I know I would MUCH rather start all my possession on the +40 than the -20...
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Mar 5, 2014 10:47:46 GMT -6
When I first saw this thread I also thought it was just another thread about stats and goals. When I read it later, when I had more time, a few things hit me: 1. The "never punt" and "onside kick" crowd often say that field position doesn't matter but it does. It's harder to drive 80 yards than 60 and it's harder to drive 60 than 40. So, if you want to risk going for it on 4th and 4 on your 30, knock yourself out. I'm punting the ball and making you work for points. 2. As a DC, I hope that a lot of guys misunderstand the part about explosive plays. I count on their impatience. If you don't have an explosive player, though, an OC has to be patient and be ready to punish the defense when they lose their own patience and make a mistake. The importance of explosive plays has made me a patient, cautious DC. It's why all of our blitz game is zone blitz and have eliminated man blitzes. depends on the philsophy coach. as i said above. TOP is way more important to us then high score. if we win 7-0 im stoked because that means we hit our TOP goal. with that being the case, id rather have 80 yards to drive and chew clock, then 60, then 40. That is a valid school of thought. In fact it was the one that I played under in HS and we were very successful with it. It only works if you can hold the other guy to 0 though.
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Mar 5, 2014 10:50:29 GMT -6
depends on the philsophy coach. as i said above. TOP is way more important to us then high score. if we win 7-0 im stoked because that means we hit our TOP goal. with that being the case, id rather have 80 yards to drive and chew clock, then 60, then 40. How can you say that? Winning 7-0 is zero indication of any Time of Possession. Regarding field position.. I think that is just a poor way of thinking of it. Again, the goal is to win the game. If you are playing a game with the metaphorical "live depending on it", I know I would MUCH rather start all my possession on the +40 than the -20... because i know our stats.. if we hold the ball 60% of the game we win 3/4 games. of the 1/4 times we lose with a high TOP, 95% of the time was in a high score game (we define high scoring as 35+ points between both teams). so, low scoring game, with a victory has a very high probability that we hit our TOP target.
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Mar 5, 2014 10:54:50 GMT -6
depends on the philsophy coach. as i said above. TOP is way more important to us then high score. if we win 7-0 im stoked because that means we hit our TOP goal. with that being the case, id rather have 80 yards to drive and chew clock, then 60, then 40. That is a valid school of thought. In fact it was the one that I played under in HS and we were very successful with it. It only works if you can hold the other guy to 0 though. thats our primary focus, we want to hold opponents at or under 14 points a game assuming we hold the ball at our 'magic' 60% mark. if they score 14 points with only 40% of the game on offense, we should be able to score we should be able to score 21 with 60% of the time... now obviously this is over simplified, but it gives us something to shoot for
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Mar 5, 2014 10:57:10 GMT -6
Yes.. one very "dangerous" aspect about trying to use statistics such as these to drive any type of thinking is that often these statistics are cumulative in nature. (I am not sure I am expressing this properly). In football, the objective is to win THAT game. Period. The "percentages" from such studies/reports usually represent overarching numbers---but the actual probabilities change from game to game. Games are FINITE--the probabilities/percentages don't necessarily recognize that fact. It is similar to ring/cash poker vs tournament poker. You see MUCH MORE conservative play and playing by the percentages in cash games because they theoretically don't end. Tournaments have a time structure (increasing blinds) and a finite end point which changes the percentages. Yeah, the math teacher who did the probability study that said you should always go for it on 4th down was studying thousands of situations, not THIS play in THIS game during THIS season. this is why we only look at our past game film for analysis, not what other teams do. but what our opponents in our conference do
|
|
|
Post by coachb0 on Mar 5, 2014 11:13:35 GMT -6
Yes, but in order to win the game, you have to accomplish certain tasks in order to formulate a victory. I think that setting forth goals in the form of these tasks is appropriate for both players and coaches. It lets everyone know what the intended goals are, and it allows everyone to work as a team to accomplish them. Coach, as has been discussed many times here -- No you don't. The ONLY "certain task" you need to accomplish to obtain victory is have more points at the end of the game than the opponent. All of the other "goals" would be "false goals", and due to the ebb and due to constantly changing game situations trying to achieve some of those false goals can be counter productive to the goal of winning. For example--having a goal of passing or rushing for ____ yards. But that has been discussed many times regarding goals--this is about stats. how do you make priorities without dividing the goal of winning into smaller parts that are reachable without playing a game? or another way to say it: how do you decide to practice what? do you simply go to the practice field and yell "lets practice winning" and the kids (especially those who are there for the first time) understand what to do? to reach the goal of winning, you have to have a way of getting there. and nobody understands how to get there by simply saying "get there" or "lets win". in your case, you can only distinguish the "true goal", namely winning, from the "false goals", because you already have a good grasp of what you have to do to win. if you knew nothing (or little) about footballgames and somebody tells you in "order to win, you have to win" you have nothing learned as there is nothing to learn from this triviality. think of kids or players as those that have not yet learned what to do to win. you have to tell them, show them and put them through practice to reach goals to get them way you need them to play to win a game. practicing winning is practicing ballsecurity, blocking, tackling, running, (insert everything you believe you can win footballgames with). to reach "good ballsecurity" is a goal, even if its not spelled out at a motivational poster or powerpoint, so if you practice ballsecurity, you follow a goal, that you think helps your team win.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 5, 2014 11:14:07 GMT -6
How can you say that? Winning 7-0 is zero indication of any Time of Possession. Regarding field position.. I think that is just a poor way of thinking of it. Again, the goal is to win the game. If you are playing a game with the metaphorical "live depending on it", I know I would MUCH rather start all my possession on the +40 than the -20... because i know our stats.. if we hold the ball 60% of the game we win 3/4 games. of the 1/4 times we lose with a high TOP, 95% of the time was in a high score game (we define high scoring as 35+ points between both teams). so, low scoring game, with a victory has a very high probability that we hit our TOP target. Well, you do that coach. I know that over my 20 year career, we have won 100%--thats right -- 100% of the games in which we scored more than the opponent. 100% > 75% So scoring is equal with limiting the opponents chances to score in terms of importance. These are exactly the kind of statements that lead me to believe that having "goals" or trying to achieve "stats" can be counter productive to winning. Yes, if you are playing Middle School ball, and the opponent has the next Adrian Peterson (either one..lol) You certainly want to limit their opportunities with the ball. The talent level discrepancies are magnified the younger the age--so players like that will probably score in 2-3 plays. This phenomenon is probably why your stats look like you reported... high scoring game where you dominated TOP = you drive and score, they run a play or two and score. This ABSOLUTELY should dictate your tempo and other game decisions, but I think it is plum foolish to state "i would rather start on the -20 and chew clock than on the +40"
|
|
|
Post by coachb0 on Mar 5, 2014 11:17:40 GMT -6
I know that over my 20 year career, we have won 100%--thats right -- 100% of the games in which we scored more than the opponent. that is plain circularity and explains nothing. if you know, that by the rules you win a game, if you score more points than the opponent, you just stated the definition of what winning is, but not HOW to win a game.
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Mar 5, 2014 11:19:03 GMT -6
because i know our stats.. if we hold the ball 60% of the game we win 3/4 games. of the 1/4 times we lose with a high TOP, 95% of the time was in a high score game (we define high scoring as 35+ points between both teams). so, low scoring game, with a victory has a very high probability that we hit our TOP target. Well, you do that coach. I know that over my 20 year career, we have won 100%--thats right -- 100% of the games in which we scored more than the opponent. 100% > 75% So scoring is equal with limiting the opponents chances to score in terms of importance. These are exactly the kind of statements that lead me to believe that having "goals" or trying to achieve "stats" can be counter productive to winning. Yes, if you are playing Middle School ball, and the opponent has the next Adrian Peterson (either one..lol) You certainly want to limit their opportunities with the ball. The talent level discrepancies are magnified the younger the age--so players like that will probably score in 2-3 plays. This phenomenon is probably why your stats look like you reported... high scoring game where you dominated TOP = you drive and score, they run a play or two and score. This ABSOLUTELY should dictate your tempo and other game decisions, but I think it is plum foolish to state "i would rather start on the -20 and chew clock than on the +40" I never said scoring wasn't important, I'm saying there are ways to increase opportunity to win outside of scoring. sure if i score 500 and you score 1 guess what? i won. but what about those perfectly even matches? we see alot of these every year around here, and we depend on statistics and understand the "meta game" of football to give us the W. thats how we feel, thats how we look at the game, and we have been quite successful with it. i know this is something that the madden guys dont wanna hear or understand, but we arnt always looking for the home run every play. we want 3.34 yards per play, and to convert on 3rd down. thats our goal. if we do that more often then not, we win.
|
|
|
Post by coachb0 on Mar 5, 2014 11:24:46 GMT -6
being the first one reaching the finishline in a race isn't a goal you can work on, because it's the definition of winning the race - it simply can't be decided if you accomplished it / won it before the race has taken place. running faster than all the others can be a goal that you can work on if you think it helps you being the first one reaching the finishline. you can practice it without running the race.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Mar 5, 2014 11:26:13 GMT -6
Well, you do that coach. I know that over my 20 year career, we have won 100%--thats right -- 100% of the games in which we scored more than the opponent. 100% > 75% So scoring is equal with limiting the opponents chances to score in terms of importance. These are exactly the kind of statements that lead me to believe that having "goals" or trying to achieve "stats" can be counter productive to winning. Yes, if you are playing Middle School ball, and the opponent has the next Adrian Peterson (either one..lol) You certainly want to limit their opportunities with the ball. The talent level discrepancies are magnified the younger the age--so players like that will probably score in 2-3 plays. This phenomenon is probably why your stats look like you reported... high scoring game where you dominated TOP = you drive and score, they run a play or two and score. This ABSOLUTELY should dictate your tempo and other game decisions, but I think it is plum foolish to state "i would rather start on the -20 and chew clock than on the +40" I never said scoring wasn't important, I'm saying there are ways to increase opportunity to win outside of scoring. sure if i score 500 and you score 1 guess what? i won. but what about those perfectly even matches? we see alot of these every year around here, and we depend on statistics and understand the "meta game" of football to give us the W. thats how we feel, thats how we look at the game, and we have been quite successful with it. i know this is something that the madden guys dont wanna hear or understand, but we arnt always looking for the home run every play. we want 3.34 yards per play, and to convert on 3rd down. thats our goal. if we do that more often then not, we win. And if you get a penalty and it's 1st and 20?
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 5, 2014 11:27:25 GMT -6
I know that over my 20 year career, we have won 100%--thats right -- 100% of the games in which we scored more than the opponent. that is plain circularity and explains nothing. if you know, that by the rules you win a game, if you score more points than the opponent, you just stated the definition of what winning is, but not HOW to win a game. My point was to shed light on the meaningless of a statement that says we win the game 75% of the time when we have a 60% time of possession You win football games by : Aligning correctly, not missing assignments, maintaining body control/balance, maintaining low pad level and leverage, getting off the football first, making the proper reads, violent block destruction, crisp tackling, maintaining run fits, keeping in phase on pass coveage... etc. NOT by : rushing for 300 yards, Passing for 300 yards, Having _____ time of possession.. etc.
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Mar 5, 2014 11:29:00 GMT -6
being the first one reaching the finishline in a race isn't a goal you can work on, because it's the definition of winning the race - it simply can't be decided if you accomplished it / won it before the race has taken place. running faster than all the others can be a goal that you can work on if you think it helps you being the first one reaching the finishline. you can practice it without running the race. EXACTLY! our goals and stats give us something to work on. we can look at our goals and say ok offensively: Time of Pocession requires: -Ball handling Control (Drill it) -Perfect Exicution of blocks verse all sorts of fronts (Drill It) -Converting under pressure (3rd down drill...Drill it) -Perfect Exicution of our quick passing game (Drill it) -conditioning (Drill it) if we go out and say "OK we are going to score on every play..." how do you drill that? and what happens when you dont in game?
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 5, 2014 11:29:30 GMT -6
being the first one reaching the finishline in a race isn't a goal you can work on, because it's the definition of winning the race - it simply can't be decided if you accomplished it / won it before the race has taken place. running faster than all the others can be a goal that you can work on if you think it helps you being the first one reaching the finishline. you can practice it without running the race. Running/racing for the most part is a "closed" sport with static variables. Football is an open sport with dynamic variables.
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Mar 5, 2014 11:29:58 GMT -6
I never said scoring wasn't important, I'm saying there are ways to increase opportunity to win outside of scoring. sure if i score 500 and you score 1 guess what? i won. but what about those perfectly even matches? we see alot of these every year around here, and we depend on statistics and understand the "meta game" of football to give us the W. thats how we feel, thats how we look at the game, and we have been quite successful with it. i know this is something that the madden guys dont wanna hear or understand, but we arnt always looking for the home run every play. we want 3.34 yards per play, and to convert on 3rd down. thats our goal. if we do that more often then not, we win. And if you get a penalty and it's 1st and 20? we work on that, we practice and drill and preach not to make mistakes, and yes its going to happen but it doesnt invalidate the philosophy. we have the potential to convert long downs...but we would prefer not to.
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Mar 5, 2014 11:31:01 GMT -6
being the first one reaching the finishline in a race isn't a goal you can work on, because it's the definition of winning the race - it simply can't be decided if you accomplished it / won it before the race has taken place. running faster than all the others can be a goal that you can work on if you think it helps you being the first one reaching the finishline. you can practice it without running the race. Running/racing for the most part is a "closed" sport with static variables. Football is an open sport with dynamic variables. were you a runner? saying that track or cross country is a closed system is invalid. TONS of variables: wind, humidity, hydration, track conditions, shoe conditions.....i could go on and on and on
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 5, 2014 11:33:07 GMT -6
EXACTLY! our goals and stats give us something to work on. we can look at our goals and say ok offensively: Time of Pocession requires: -Ball handling Control (Drill it) -Perfect Exicution of blocks verse all sorts of fronts (Drill It) -Converting under pressure (3rd down drill...Drill it) -Perfect Exicution of our quick passing game (Drill it) -conditioning (Drill it) if we go out and say "OK we are going to score on every play..." how do you drill that? and what happens when you dont in game? Couldn't your exact statements and points of emphasis be applicable to a team that ABHORS TOP and hopes to score as fast as possible. Wouldn't a hurry up spot the ball and snap it team also Drill ball security Drill execution of blocks (really dude? ) Drill converting 3rd downs Drill the quick game and have to be conditioned? Forrest for the trees boys. You guys and your arguments are only proving my point that false goals can skewer thinking, and unfortunately that may influence the performance in a negative way.
|
|