|
Post by blb on Dec 4, 2006 17:27:10 GMT -6
We have talked about this before, but I thought I would throw out some statistics that I think are interesting:
This year we were 9-1 and averaged 36.7 points, 368 yards per game. In only two of the ten games did we have more TOP than our opponents.
We also put new meaning into the phrase "Three and Out." 26 of our scoring "drives" were three plays or less.
This would seem to indicate that making big plays and getting the ball into the end zone are more important than controlling the clock.
|
|
|
Post by fbdoc on Dec 4, 2006 17:32:43 GMT -6
TOP is an important stat - as the saying goes, "If WE have the ball, then THEY can't score!"
Having said that, I've always felt that EOP, or EFFICIENCY of possessions also made a lot of sense. If you're scoring on most of your possessions, you are putting a lot of pressure on you opponent to do the same.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Dec 4, 2006 17:47:30 GMT -6
The old saying isn't necessarily true, either, doc - we scored three touchdowns on defense this year, too!
|
|
|
Post by airman on Dec 4, 2006 17:53:40 GMT -6
the grest homer smith has proved top is a myth. as he says, TOP is for newpaper men.
it is the number of plays you run, not how long you have the ball. if you do not believe me, go check how many plays you have run this year. check winning seasons vs losing seasons.
I do not care what offense you run. it is the number of plays.
|
|
|
Post by fbdoc on Dec 4, 2006 20:39:06 GMT -6
Guess I should have said, If we HAVE the ball, you can't score. Those defensive scores came when the other team lost the ball!
I don't know, but I would think that the number of plays you run would be highly correlated to time of possession.
Once again, if the final play of every drive/possession results in a score (for your team!) the chances are good that you will win more than you lose.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Dec 4, 2006 21:20:38 GMT -6
TOP is meaningless in a tightly contested game. I agree that "milking the clock" once you have a lead is valuable, but that doesn't always translate to having a high TOP. I agree with Airman (and Homer Smith).
What corresponds with winning? Turnovers, Red zone percentage, and explosive plays (runs over 12, passes over 20), then to a lesser extent 3rd down percentage and average yards per play.
There's no such thing as "if we have it they can't score" considering that barring a turnover, both teams always alternate possessions. If the other team scores, and then you control the ball for 10 minutes, and then fail to score, you've gained nothing. If the other team scores quickly, and then you take 10 minutes to score, what have you gained? If the other team fails to score, and then you take 10 minutes to score, you've gained something, but how much more have you gained than if the other team failed to score, and then you scored in two plays?
Again, I'm all for getting a lead and then trying to keep the clock moving and controlling the ball, but TOP, by itself, is meaningless. It is certainly meaningless in a tight game with several lead changes, and most meaningless of all where you lost but you say "yeah, but we controlled the clock."
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Dec 4, 2006 21:29:23 GMT -6
i agree with what spread has said (an the others along that line of thinking) ... even those teams that need to "limit" the opponent's touches needs to string a series of plays together. so, that means they must increase their own number of plays. to adequately take sufficient time off the clock, a team needs to run at least 7 plays (this includes a punt). another thing to consider when you are trying to limit opponent snaps (i.e. scoring chances) is field position. to adequately get the most out of your "time of possession" you need to run sufficent plays (at least 7 or more) to change the field position to help your defense --- i.e. make opponent have further to go for a score.
so many things can change a game. yes, sometimes, the fact that you "held the ball" allowed you to win. however, i think that in the long run, there are other indicators of success
|
|
|
Post by utchuckd on Dec 4, 2006 21:50:53 GMT -6
Is it a mental thing? If you control the ball for the better part of a quarter and score, does it put more pressure on the opposition to put points on the board because they're not sure how many chances they're gonna get? I could see that being a factor. Although as you said if you're not scoring it doesn't matter how long you have the ball!
|
|
|
Post by saintrad on Dec 4, 2006 23:25:18 GMT -6
never have been a fan of TOP...this year we had greater TOP in 3 of our 6 games...the 3 games we lost.
I like how Leach looks at TOP: it is there to give his team more opportunities to score.
|
|
|
Post by wingtol on Dec 5, 2006 7:25:08 GMT -6
I think the most important stat is who has the most points at the end of the game
|
|
|
Post by blb on Dec 5, 2006 7:32:10 GMT -6
Amen to that. In high school, if you can score 21+ or hold your opponents under 14, you're going to win the vast majority of your games - however you do it. I feel football is a game of big plays and critical situations.
Sometimes I think TOP as critical consideration is something left over from the two-way days in college and when the NFL had 33-man rosters. Or maybe it's just something for the talking heads on TV to pontificate about.
|
|
|
Post by gldnglv165 on Dec 5, 2006 8:10:41 GMT -6
I agree with Coach Huey's explanation. I think TOP is just a by-product of offensive efficiency. Offensive efficiency is measured by a lot of different things such as TOP, number of plays, number of points, avg yards on 1st down. These are all just by-products of efficiency.
In some offenses, TOP is a part of the philosophy (not by itself). In other words, no one states at the beginning of the season that they want to lead the league in TOP, but part of how I call plays and run my offense, I want to eat up the clock and grind my opponents down with running the football. That doesn't mean that a quick score is a bad thing, it's just that I want to control the ball as much as I can and limit the opponents offensive plays. Part of this equation is that when I have the ball, I need to be efficient with it and pick up at least 4 yards a play.
Don't forget that defense is a factor in TOP. Just like I want to move the ball efficiently, I want to limit the amount of time they have the ball. Again, I don't go into a game with the goal of winning the TOP battle, just that I want to control the ball and be more efficient with it and limit my opponents offensive efficiency.
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Dec 5, 2006 8:12:38 GMT -6
IN YOUR LOSS, did the other guys have more top? were they able to keep the ball away from your explosive offense? I THINK that is the point of top.
|
|
|
Post by fbdoc on Dec 5, 2006 8:24:23 GMT -6
blb made the point in his initial post when he said -
"This would seem to indicate that making big plays and getting the ball into the end zone are more important than controlling the clock." In other words, scoring on most of your possessions was more important than simple clock control.
I was basically in agreement with him when I responded that Effieciency of Possession was more important than TOP, meaning if you're scoring on most of your possessions, you're putting pressure on your opponent to do the same.
The expression if we have the ball, they can't score is very meaningful as it directly relates to possession (no turnovers), continued possession (First Downs), and unltimate possesion (a TD or FG).
Scoring fast or scoring slow does not matter - scoring more than the other team (Efficiency of Possession) is far more important.
|
|
|
Post by tog on Dec 5, 2006 8:39:56 GMT -6
there is nothing like a 12 play drive that eats up most of the quarter to keep the other offenses mojo down though, plus the whole team just being demoralized by getting it rammed down their throats
|
|
|
Post by blb on Dec 5, 2006 8:41:27 GMT -6
In our loss our opponents TOP was 24:50 to our 23:10. They ran 56 plays to our 52 (including last possession when they were killing the clock). So TOP was not a big difference.
The major factors were their forcing a fumble on our first play from scrimmage, their scoring two plays later, our muffing the kickoff to our one-yard line, and their blocking the ensuing punt for a TD. So, we were behind 14-0 less than six minutes into the game (we did battle back to tie at 21 midway thru third quarter but couldn't finish).
Our scoring drives were nine, three, and six plays. If you have an explosive offense it doesn't matter how long the other team keeps the ball, Steve. You're going to get it back eventually, and if you score quickly, it is demoralizing to the other team who maybe had to run twice as many plays, work twice as hard, just to punt the ball to you (or worse yet, turn it over), or even if they score - you're right back in it right now.
|
|
|
Post by gunslinger on Dec 5, 2006 8:46:09 GMT -6
American Football Monthly did an article in their July 2005 issue about the Top 10 High Impact Stats.
They were:
1. Scoring D 2. Rushing D 3. Scoring O 4. Total D 5. Pass Efficiency D (keeping the opponent out of the end zone) 6. Passes Intercepted 7. Passing Efficiency 8. Total O 9. Turnover's gained 10. Turnover margin
No mention of TOP. Obviously some of the stats above will impact your TOP but TOP in and of itself apparently isn't much of a factor.
P.S. I don't know if they studied any special teams stats or not.
|
|
|
Post by pantherpride91 on Dec 5, 2006 8:47:24 GMT -6
Amen to that. In high school, if you can score 21+ or hold your opponents under 14, you're going to win the vast majority of your games - however you do it. I feel football is a game of big plays and critical situations. Sometimes I think TOP as critical consideration is something left over from the two-way days in college and when the NFL had 33-man rosters. Or maybe it's just something for the talking heads on TV to pontificate about. I agree with blb....time of possession is something that people on tv like to bring up but in the overall scheme of the game I do not see it as top on the list of essential things needed in your favor. As long as you are putting points on the board and not turning the ball over in critcal instances than you will be ok.....In msot high schools especially small school ball alot of the kids are playing both ways. So you do not have to worry about keeping the offense on the field to rest the defense because they are all the same players.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Dec 5, 2006 8:53:26 GMT -6
Respectfully disagree, tog. We had four TDs over 90 yards this year (two coming on third downs). There is nothing like a looooong run or pass to fire people up. It's a beautiful thing.
And talk about demoralizing - those teams that had us, third down inside our own five - and their next call is "Extra Point Block"?! Another one was first play of second half - so much for opponents' emotion coming out of the lockerroom!
We don't feel many teams (especially in high school) can drive the length of the field, 12 plays as you suggest or even fewer, without us forcing a lost-yardage play, turnover or their committing an error - certainly not three or more times in a game, enough to beat us.
|
|
|
Post by superpower on Dec 5, 2006 9:03:38 GMT -6
We have talked about this before, but I thought I would throw out some statistics that I think are interesting: This year we were 9-1 and averaged 36.7 points, 368 yards per game. In only two of the ten games did we have more TOP than our opponents. We also put new meaning into the phrase "Three and Out." 26 of our scoring "drives" were three plays or less. This would seem to indicate that making big plays and getting the ball into the end zone are more important than controlling the clock. To me it would also indicate that you had some great talent which you coached up very well.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Dec 5, 2006 9:26:37 GMT -6
If you look at the great offensive teams right now, to use College Ball as an example--West Virginia, Louisville, Hawaii, Boise St, Texas Tech, (and of course Ohio St, Florida, USC, etc but I was using some diverse teams) they thrive on the "explosive play."
Read Brian Billick's book on gameplanning, he goes on at length how many studies have found that "explosive plays"--runs over 12 and passes over 20--are one of the key factors. I think if you can generate these explosive plays you'll get big plays (a well thrown 25 yard pass or a run where the runner breaks for 12-15 yards are likely to break for a 30-50 yard play very often, but at that point it is usually an issue of a missed tackle or a player's natural speed).
Also, though, a big reason explosive plays are so important is because of field position. TOP and grind it out guys claim field position, but how huge is it to go from being on your own 20 yard line to being on the 50 in one play? Even if you don't move the ball after that the field position battle has gone long in your favor.
Anyway, inevitably discussions about TOP turn into ones about big plays versus grind it out offenses. Obviously, the best offensive teams generate positive yardage (And anyone who tells you 3.5 or 4 yards a play is satisfactory suffers from some seriously low expectations), get manageable third down distances, can run the ball and score when they get into the red zone, and know how to get "explosive" passes and runs. TOP doesn't really factor in.
The other reason, not yet mentioned, of why TOP is meaningless is because the way the stat is recorded doesn't make any sense. I can complete two passes and run a QB draw and run something around 2 minutes off the clock (if not more), but then a team that runs the triple option and two power sweeps for the same distance--but the runner gets pushed or tackled out of bounds--has run under 30 seconds off the clock. Does that make any sense? Does this tell me anything meaningful about my team, or the other, or how the game is going? Is there any difference that indicates that the team with two completions and a QB draw is more "ball-control" than the one that ran power sweeps?
|
|
|
Post by blb on Dec 5, 2006 9:31:17 GMT -6
Thanks, superpower. No question we have some good players (I've never seen a jockey carry the horse across the finish line in first place yet).
However, we lost 29 lettermen from '05, had only three starters back on offense. We were predicted to finish fourth (out of eleven) in our league. We won our league outright, but there were two schools who had more first team all-league selections, and one as many, as us.
My point is it was our ability to make big plays (we were also +14 in turnovers, blocked three kicks, scored three times on defense) that allowed us to be successful this year.
|
|
|
Post by superpower on Dec 5, 2006 9:47:50 GMT -6
While I do believe that TOP is important, I think at the high school level (and probably at the college level) the teams that are winning consistently are the ones making more big plays in all three phases - offense, defense, and special teams.
|
|
|
Post by airitout616 on Dec 6, 2006 1:31:57 GMT -6
TOP dosent matter if you score more then the other team. I am a big Leach and Mumme fan the more plays you have the better chance you have to win. Like they say the more times you shoot the more you will score. But i hate ball controling teams i just like to air it out allthough i do bealive you have to run the football at the end of a game to speed the clock up.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Dec 6, 2006 7:51:44 GMT -6
there is nothing like a 12 play drive that eats up most of the quarter to keep the other offenses mojo down though, plus the whole team just being demoralized by getting it rammed down their throats nah, today's kids view it as "takes them forever to score" and "we can score in 6 or less" or whatever ... at least that's how we spin it to 'em ... lol
|
|
|
Post by tog on Dec 6, 2006 7:58:17 GMT -6
4 yards is a good play
i will take an explosive play though
to me it all boils down to
1. can we score 2. can we keep moving the chains to acheive #1?
|
|
|
Post by blb on Dec 6, 2006 8:19:17 GMT -6
Part of the answer to this may lie in the coach's personality.
I am by nature a "big-play" kinda guy, so I'm always looking for that opportunity, or to set one up. I have two close friends who run a similar offensive scheme but are more conservative by nature and their teams tend to be more ball-control, sustained drive-type squads.
|
|
|
Post by tog on Dec 6, 2006 8:25:51 GMT -6
good point blb, i think it also boils down to what you have the worse the talent the more i want to execute and hold onto the ball to flip the field position/score
well, let's put it this way, the more likely that that will be the case, as the explosive plays won't be coming very often anyhow
at least run some time off the clock and keep the undertalented defense off the field so they don't get drove in the 4th quarter
|
|
|
Post by fbdoc on Dec 6, 2006 11:18:19 GMT -6
As long as this is still going, I'll say it again, Efficiency of Possession = Important. Time of Possession = not so important.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Dec 6, 2006 16:39:04 GMT -6
Agreed. All I'm saying is I want positive yards on first and second, few third downs, and I want all my third downs to be convertible distances. If you do that you can win a lot of games. What I meant about the 4 yard thing is, that at the end of the day I don't want to average 4 yards a play, or certainly not 4 yards a play on 1st down. A given 4 yard gain, I'm fine with, and the kids should be too.
|
|