Making Big Plays on Offense

he must not study the wishbone and full house.

I know teams that are efficient that never have more than a 5 yard pop.

Because those stats are not feasible, and even if they were they are meaningless because if you get 7 first downs passing you score more also, or get the ball on the same yardline after a turnover.

The issue is that football is like a game of craps: you get incremental gains but once it's over (4th down, or a turnover) you are wiped out and have to start over on trying to score.

Big plays equal scores because no team gets 5 yards a pop efficiently enough to drive 80 yards with great regularity. The thing is that even if you're fantastic at getting 5 yards every play, you still have to do it 2 out of 3 times 7 or 8 times to drive the length of the field. If you got a first down every time you had a first down (the rate that you turn one 1st and 10 into another one) was say 85%, an amazing rate, you still only have a 27% chance of driving 80 yards (.85 to the 8th power). If you get a first down at a more normal but still great rate, like say 65%, the chance of driving 80 yards drops to 3%!!

The issue is you just have to get very lucky to string together enough successes, even if you're the most efficient team ever. It's exactly like flipping a coin 7 or 8 times and hoping to get heads every single time, because as soon as you get one tails (punt or turnover) you have to start over. (Even a team that gets a first down 95% of the time they have 1st and 10 still only drives 80 yards ~60% of the time).

This is why big plays help, because they eat up chunks of field position. No matter how efficient you are you give yourself too many chances to fail or have something go wrong if you can't get big plays (which I consider to be runs of 12+ and passes over 20+).

This is just about scoring points mind you. Obviously once you get a lead then you need to burn the clock of course.

That's the translation from NFL down to the pop warner level. Speed kills. If a wishbone team has speed they can make big plays. If you're a spread team with speed you can make big plays. Heck, and Iso can turn into a big play if you hit it right and the back has wheels. We think of manufacturing big plays and it is true at times we all have to. I think one of the scarriest plays is the midline when the QB runs 4.5. One missed tackle and the kid gets 25 yards.

But it makes perfect sense that if you can get two plays and move the ball 50+ yards on those two plays your chances of scoring go way up. Figure if you get the ball on your 25 and you go 25 on on the 1st play now you are on the 50. Get another and your on the other 25. I like my odds.

In response to your second question: Maybe, insofar as it might be easier to get the big plays. Football does evolve and is a cat and mouse game (or game theory?).

To the first, not necessarily. The key is to try to get the ball back as quick as possible, through turnovers or on downs. A bend but don't break could work, in that if you give up 3 yards or less consistently they will have to punt, but attacking D's tend to figure that one sack or two incompletions or an incompletion and a stuff effectively reduces the probability of converting to a neglible amount.

So an attacking defense may figure that it will give up 10+ on a given play--it'll accept the mulligan but figure that the next 3 plays will be stuff, stuff, incompletion, or something like that. The drawback is one "hit" is a first down (or touchdown?) but it hopes to stuff frequently enough to force 4th down. This is one reason that aggressive defenses need defensive backs who can really tackle, because you can live with giving up some 10-20 yard plays, but if every time they complete a pass vs. man or break the line it is a TD, you're screwed.

That said, a "bend but don't break" which does give up incremental first downs is obviously no better. Also, while I think TOP is almost entirely meaningless, actually having the ball--the number of plays you run--is often not meaningless. Average yards per play matters more, but the problem with a bend but don't break is often that it gives the offense more opportunities to break a big play.

Put differently, a bend but don't break may give up "big plays" at a lower rate per play than an aggressive defense (say 1 out of 12 plays) but may give up more over the course of the whole game because it lets the offense keep the ball longer and have more opportunities to strike.

Football games are usually decided by five or six big plays, not all of them offensive. They could include a blocked kick, a 4th and one stop on defense, etc.

In one game out of five, perhaps, is one team physically dominant enough to consistently march the ball into the end zone without being stopped, or stopping themselves, without the aid of a "big play."

As Homer Smith asserts, time of possession is overrated, almost meaningless. The object of the game is to score more points than the other team, not play "keep away."

If you hold the ball 10-12 plays, for four or five minutes but don't score, you have availed yourself nothing. This is particularly true in the modern game where a typical scoring "drive" lasts about 1:30 of game time.

We can have a this type of theoretical conversation all day, but it all comes down to one simple question-"What wins games?"

We have all seen the same thing- coaches have won (and lost) football games and championships with a myriad of offensive attacks.

Three years ago, I watched a splitback veer team lose to a 5-wide pass heavy squad 43-42. The next year, I watched the same schools play and the veer team won 38-35.

what?



I think it is much easier to just take what the defense gives you, if it is that 3.334 yard pop every time, TAKE IT. If they give you the outside, take that too... but how often do veer/midline teams think of it like that? Most of them i know, don't ever try to take it to the outside... they just do it if that is what is given to them.