vtjapes
Sophomore Member
Posts: 173
|
Post by vtjapes on Oct 3, 2006 10:08:28 GMT -6
It seams like it took me so long to post my response that there were more post already made. time of possession DOES NOT win games. moving the ball (gaining 1st downs & ultimately points) wins games --- offensively speaking here. time of possession is a BYPRODUCT of moving the ball. because, if you can't move the ball (3 & out), just how much time are you really milking from the clock??? while i don't think time of possesion is a completely worthless stat, its importance is much lower on the radar than moving the chains. keeping the ball means MOVING the ball, not how much time runs off the clock. a team with a high time of possession is also a team that has the ability to get first downs in succession. also, take a deep look at time of possession & how it relates to your opponents starting field position and how it relates to your own I agree if you drive 85 yard down the field and funble on you goal line and I go 3 and out and you fumble the punt return I score 1 play later from the 20 yeah you have a huge advantage in TOP but I have the advantage on the score board. To steal a line from hockey..."All that fancy stuff means squat unless you can put the biscuit in the basket" This discussion reminds me of the self fullfilling prophecy of the NFL and Rushing Offense. They always say the team that runs for more yards wins...is that because they truely ran for more yards or was it b/c the had more running plays in the 4th to run out the clock while the trailing team had to throw the ball and run less to try to WIN. To put it a different way than someone else said earlier. The only time stats are really important is if something is wrong AKA you lost the game.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Oct 3, 2006 10:12:30 GMT -6
It is a misconception that only "speed and athleticism" allows you to make big plays. And big plays are not just plays in which you "take it to the house."
Effort and execution allow players to make plays, whether it's a trap block by a 5-9 guard that pops a FB who runs a 5.2 40 into the secondary where he flattens a FS who runs 4.6; or a MLB who wills himself into the backfield to block a PAT or FG. It doesn't take speed or athleticism to strip tackle and cause a turnover. Wide receivers don't have to be fast for stalk blocks that create longer runs by backs who don't win track medals. For example.
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Oct 3, 2006 11:22:33 GMT -6
Its pretty obvious that a passing team with little TOP and few offensive plays that scores lots of points is not making a lot of 5 yard gains, they have lots of big 20 yard plus plays by playmaker athletes.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Oct 3, 2006 11:27:53 GMT -6
That would be true. Not sure who if anyone in particular you are referring to, but just to reassure you:
I am a RUNNING coach and we are a RUNNING team. We have thrown 62 passes in six games. In five of those the other team has had more TOP, twice by more than 20 minutes.
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Oct 3, 2006 12:34:05 GMT -6
Many running teams with top athletes have many 20 yard + plays and very short drives due to 60 yard runs and often get lots of turnovers due to extreme speed on defense and punt, INT and KO returns for TDs. They often get short fields etc.
The net is if a team is not blessed with numbers, athletes, size or gamebreaker ( IE Big Play) kids, one must limit possessions and run the clock to have a chance.
Ive seen many games where there were no big earthchanging moments, but one team methodically executing 5-7 yards down the field with good execution and disciplined play, dominating from the opening snap. Its not always a Kick Return INT return or 60 yard run or pass play. Just like in baseball its not always the three run homer that wins games, the weaker teams do it with scrappy disciplined play.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Oct 3, 2006 12:58:52 GMT -6
Many running teams with top athletes have many 20 yard + plays and very short drives due to 60 yard runs and often get lots of turnovers due to extreme speed on defense and punt, INT and KO returns for TDs. They often get short fields etc. The net is if a team is not blessed with numbers, athletes, size or gamebreaker ( IE Big Play) kids, one must limit possessions and run the clock to have a chance. Ive seen many games where there were no big earthchanging moments, but one team methodically executing 5-7 yards down the field with good execution and disciplined play, dominating from the opening snap. Its not always a Kick Return INT return or 60 yard run or pass play. Just like in baseball its not always the three run homer that wins games, the weaker teams do it with scrappy disciplined play. you are correct ... and it makes my point.... time of possession is the byproduct of those teams being able to execute and move the ball down the field 5-7 yds at a time. so, a team that has the ability to be patient, take what the defense gives you, execute blocking assignments should be able to move the ball --- which means they will control time of possession. likewise, those teams that can move the ball consistently in that fashion will usually win more games --- NOT soley because they "controlled the clock" but because those teams that can consistently move the ball usually score points. so, scoring those points while moving the ball at a "slow" pace keeps the other team off the field. again, my point was that time of possession is merely one small part of why a team wins or loses. the bigger issue (involving time of possession) is why you have the ball so long --- i.e., you are able to move the ball bit by bit without having to punt so quickly. we don't look at our time of possession ... we look at our 3 & outs, our number of 1st downs in succession, and the number of plays each series ... (i.e. are we moving the ball without punting so quickly) these are more indicative of whether or not you have the ability to "keep the other guy off the field"
|
|
|
Post by blb on Oct 3, 2006 13:07:26 GMT -6
How can you move the ball down the field 5-7 yards at a clip without being "physically superior" to the other team? Most people consider a four-yard gain a good play.
Seems like everybody on here is small, slow, and out-manned.
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Oct 3, 2006 13:24:24 GMT -6
Im not implying my team is, this year we arent but in years past we have been the smallest, youngest and with just average or below speed. And we were not physically superior in any way. In those years we overwhelmed at the POA in numbers lots of double teams, unbalanced stuff, traps, caught them leaning with misdirection and non tendancy down and distance plays. We kept em off balance with odd snap counts, kept the ball for the entire 25 tics plus, lots of third and short and fourth and short, lots of good onside kicks. Won lots of real close ballgames that way. Very very few 20 yard " big plays" got caught from behind on every 'breakaway". Had a lot of em shaking their heads that they would be so much bigger and faster but still lose. Now this year got some ponies and winning em all by name the score. The physically superior teams score at will, short 2-3-5- play dirves, the teams that have the ponies cant do that. They have to "settle" for 5 yards a clip or sometimes even 3.
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Oct 3, 2006 13:26:08 GMT -6
Im not implying my team is, this year we arent but in years past we have been the smallest, youngest and with just average or below speed. And we were not physically superior in any way. In those years we overwhelmed at the POA in numbers lots of double teams, unbalanced stuff, traps, caught them leaning with misdirection and non tendancy down and distance plays. We kept em off balance with odd snap counts, kept the ball for the entire 25 tics plus, lots of third and short and fourth and short, lots of good onside kicks. Won lots of real close ballgames that way. Very very few 20 yard " big plays" got caught from behind on every 'breakaway". Had a lot of em shaking their heads that they would be so much bigger and faster but still lose. Now this year got some ponies and winning em all by name the score. The physically superior teams score at will, short 2-3-5- play dirves, the teams that do not have the ponies cant do that. They have to "settle" for 5 yards a clip or sometimes even 3.
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Oct 3, 2006 13:32:27 GMT -6
Coach Huey, 3 and out with 3 passes would eat up zip time. Whereas 3 short runs at least eat up 4 minutes of time if using the entire playclock up. The next time out maybe I get my 14 play dirve and take up the entrie quarter. We have done that, onside kicked , scored again and left the other team with just a handful of offensive snaps in the first half. It gets real frustrating as an OC or offensive player on the other side of the ball, add in an INT and now we got a chance.
|
|
vtjapes
Sophomore Member
Posts: 173
|
Post by vtjapes on Oct 3, 2006 14:22:26 GMT -6
Seems like everybody on here is small, slow, and out-manned. If you are bigger, faster and deeper then how much coaching do you really need it doesn't matter what system you run. If it seems like everybody on here is small, slow, and out-manned as you put it perhaps there is a reason...most of us are. Therefore we come here to trade ideas and get insight to help give us any advantage we can find. Not saying everyone here is in that situation, those that have the talent and depth come here to find or share info to help make best use of that talent. If you know how to look you can get info that helps your system regardless of who said it. I've been here (this message board) for a year now and I have found as much benefit in post by Coach C and other DW and other "running" guys as I have with the spread guys. It's good to know the principals of many offensive systems not just the one you want to run. I look at it in a Sun Tzu sort of way... If your stronger...run over them If your faster...run away from them If they are stronger and faster...deceive them. if you are stronger and faster...does it even matter what you do. the average HS team in the course of a season will run into all these situations and though it is not logical to run spread against one team and then the DW the next week the principals and philosophies are sound. A lot of people look down their nose at systems like Air Force, Navy, and Georgia Southern while singing the praises of such inovators as Urban Meyer but when you boil it down to there principals aren't they both based upon a triple option attack that forces the D to be disciplined.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Oct 3, 2006 15:00:31 GMT -6
Coach Huey, 3 and out with 3 passes would eat up zip time. Whereas 3 short runs at least eat up 4 minutes of time if using the entire playclock up. The next time out maybe I get my 14 play dirve and take up the entrie quarter. We have done that, onside kicked , scored again and left the other team with just a handful of offensive snaps in the first half. It gets real frustrating as an OC or offensive player on the other side of the ball, add in an INT and now we got a chance. i'm not sure what you are implying by mentioning my name or anything .... but i was not argueing with you. time of possession means just that ... the length of time you had possession of the ball. that time is directly related to your ability to move the ball. 1 run play = 45 seconds (at the most extreme) ... you can't get the full 45 seconds on 1st down since clock is not started until the snap ... how did you come to the 4 minute conclusion? i don't really care how a team goes about "winning" the time of possession ... it boils down to getting plays run in succession without punting, which means you must gain some yardage and at least 1 first down (we need about 8 plays to significantly "milk" the clock in the best manner) ... it's not always about simply getting the first down either ... 12 yd run on 1st down then 3 no-gains & a punt (5 plays) then you haven't milked the "full" potential you can (i.e. the 8 plays) 3 runs & a punt = approx 2:30 off the clock. run, incomplete, run for 1st down, 3 runs = approx 3:50 (or more) does it matter how you maintained possession?
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Oct 3, 2006 15:28:18 GMT -6
Im replying to your post on TOP, was too lazy to copy/paste etc. easier to just post your name, no arguement intended. Stating premises and logic etc. Yes the goal is to maintain possession and keep the other teams offense off the field when outmanned. But I do that better the more time I take off the clock and I can take more time off the clock by running than I can by passing by the sheer weight of incomplete passes stopping the clock. If Im running SW or DW Im going to get a bunch of small gains and with tight splits etc rarely a negative yardage play. At the same token if Im low in numbers and athleticism, probably not alot of 12-20 yard runs either. Ok three passes and out is zip off the clock, less than a minute 3 runs and no first down is at least 2;30 the way I would coach it. If Im numbers constrained I want my defense on the field as little as possible and those minutes off the clock help me do that. If I can squeeze out a first down or two and play good special teams, Ive got a chance. Onthe other hand if I score a TD in one play, no time off the clock and give it right back to the other team and they score in one play and now about 1 minute has come off the clock, Ive accomplished little. If Im outmanned, no way I can trade scores all night in that fashion.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Oct 3, 2006 17:44:46 GMT -6
A lot of people look down their nose at systems like Air Force, Navy, and Georgia Southern while singing the praises of such inovators as Urban Meyer but when you boil it down to there principals aren't they both based upon a triple option attack that forces the D to be disciplined. great point ... all offensive schemes are designed to create angles on a defender(s) or put a defender(s) in a bind with 2 options. some choose to option the DE -- others choose to "option" the flat defender.
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Oct 3, 2006 19:10:57 GMT -6
How can you move the ball down the field 5-7 yards at a clip without being "physically superior" to the other team? Most people consider a four-yard gain a good play. Seems like everybody on here is small, slow, and out-manned. ill send you film of my 17 kids at kutztown doing a NINETEEN PLAY DRIVE against a team from a AAAA school that had 60 on their sideline. not one of my kids would have started for that other team. how did we do it? blocking angles, double teams, numbers advantages at the poa...conflict...not physical superiority...i cant believe you even asked that question. sometimes blb i wonder if you just like to provoke and arguement. i dunno.
|
|
|
Post by tog on Oct 3, 2006 19:12:59 GMT -6
How can you move the ball down the field 5-7 yards at a clip without being "physically superior" to the other team? Most people consider a four-yard gain a good play. Seems like everybody on here is small, slow, and out-manned. ill send you film of my 17 kids at kutztown doing a NINETEEN PLAY DRIVE against a team from a AAAA school that had 60 on their sideline. not one of my kids would have started for that other team. how did we do it? blocking angles, double teams, numbers advantages at the poa...conflict...not physical superiority...i cant believe you even asked that question. sometimes blb i wonder if you just like to provoke and arguement. i dunno. easy guys
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Oct 3, 2006 19:15:28 GMT -6
sorry tog... we get along....just like to bang heads. its all good.
|
|
|
Post by saintrad on Oct 3, 2006 21:01:15 GMT -6
all I know about TOP is that the FB (Eckels)from Navy is stillrunning with the ball from that bowl game last year
|
|
|
Post by tog on Oct 4, 2006 5:34:18 GMT -6
all I know about TOP is that the FB (Eckels)from Navy is stillrunning with the ball from that bowl game last year now that was awesome
|
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on Oct 4, 2006 9:05:28 GMT -6
I am not a big fan of the "delay" tatic to win games, but that is just me. I can see why other people think they have to. Being a fan of football, I guess I don't like to see just how short we can make the game.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Oct 4, 2006 20:03:29 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by rathernot on Oct 5, 2006 8:28:59 GMT -6
Played a true DW team Tuesday night. The only thing they didn't do was they didn't have a sniffer FB (he was at 4 yards. Hurt us with super power and counter. Luckily we came out and jumped all over them because once they got going we had trouble getting stops. We scored on our first 3 possesions on 3 plays, 3 plays, and 1 play. We are a Hybrid Wing T team and rarely throw the ball. This may have been the shortest football game in history. We were able to stop them on their 1st two possessions but on their 3rd they went 11 plays and most of the 2nd Quarter for a TD. To start the 2nd Half they held the ball for the entire 3rd quarter and 1 minute of the 4th for a TD to make the game 20-12. Onside kick, off my kids hands, they recover. They start to drive again but we come up with a huge play, 10 yard loss that one of their kids tried to do too much after being spun around. That left them with a 2nd and 22. We were able to stop them on downs and mashed the ball for the last 4 minutes to kill the clock. Notes- We were physically superior to them. I did a poor job adjusting to the DW. We ran 18 offensive plays. They ran 46 offensive plays. I do not have TOP but I bet it was easily 3-1 in their favor. I was impressed with their ability to hold on to the ball. It was an impressive equalizer.
|
|
|
Post by rathernot on Oct 5, 2006 8:53:33 GMT -6
sorry double post
|
|
|
Post by rathernot on Oct 5, 2006 9:00:22 GMT -6
In my above post we were vastly physically superior to the DW team we played but they did a good job for most of the game of controlling the possesions and gave themselves a chance with an onside kick. We scored 20 points in the first 4 minutes and 7 plays of the game but didn't score again! They controlled the pace of the game. How can you move the ball down the field 5-7 yards at a clip without being "physically superior" to the other team? Most people consider a four-yard gain a good play. Seems like everybody on here is small, slow, and out-manned.
|
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 164
|
Post by tedseay on Oct 5, 2006 12:09:43 GMT -6
|
|
vtjapes
Sophomore Member
Posts: 173
|
Post by vtjapes on Oct 5, 2006 12:26:24 GMT -6
That is great brophy. Ted - The game theory artical that he wrote is a good one. I also like the Sharpe Ratio series he did. But I guess being an Engineer always make me fascinated with new way of looking at stats.
|
|
|
Post by major222 on Oct 5, 2006 19:28:08 GMT -6
WOW, my point from the last page was that my goal was to be patient on defense vs DW and with high school kids, there is a very high probability that during a 12 to 16 play drive, one of them will draw a flag and force them to the air. And their passing game does not get alot of attention during practice.
|
|