|
Post by dubber on Mar 28, 2008 0:39:04 GMT -6
In my very young opinion I believe that MOST offensive scoring drives are the result of a big play at some point in the series. To consistently gain minimum yardage for the first down is unrealistic. The consistent conversion of 3rd and 4th down, the complete avoidance of penalties, and the complete avoidance of 1 or less gains on 13 + play drives is extremely difficult for even the best executing teams. I propose that consistent offensive performance (scoring) is the result of big plays which set up Touchdowns. Doesn't mean running 90% of the time is obsolete, it just means that even these teams need to have big plays in order to score consistently. I would be very interested in the statistics of a team that consistently scored more on 5 yards at a time drives than they did on drives that included a big play. Big plays are needed to score. If a defense can hold you to 3-5 yard gains and never give up the big play, then you are eventually doomed to shoot yourself in the foot Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by phatac18 on Mar 28, 2008 0:45:22 GMT -6
coach, in my also young opinion i totally agree with you. this goes back to the field position theory, by getting good chunks of yards you will be in good field position thus creating a shorter field for the rest of the drive. if you only gain 3-5 yards (defense bends but doesn't break) you will have to go longer distances to score and leaves the defense an opportunity to create a mistake.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Mar 28, 2008 1:10:25 GMT -6
No matter the offense, you are not going to win a ton of 3rd and 7+
That requires consistent gains on 1st and 2nd down. If one of those downs is "normal" (ie 3-4 yards), and the other is not (penalty or gain of 1 or less), then you are in a 3rd and long situation.
The more plays involved in a drive, the longer such a situation can present itself.
I truly believe offensive football's equalizer is about taking your personnel and finding the safest, most consistent way to get 10+ on runs and 15+ on passes.
If your goal is 3 and eventually move the chains, you will, IMO, find yourself on the losing end.
Or, you will find you are actually having your scoring drives set up by those gains in which you break them to +10.
|
|
|
Post by tiger46 on Mar 28, 2008 5:28:02 GMT -6
I'm not offering an argument here. But, would what holds true for the offense not also hold true for the defense? Would it be harder for a defense to stop an offense that consistently hits them for short gains as opposed to stopping an offense that is always looking for the homerun? Which offense is more likely to pull a three-and-out?
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Mar 28, 2008 5:44:21 GMT -6
I agree with the premise. However I don't think it matter HOW you get the big play as long as you get a few. In our offense we can catch the defense with counters, and quick misdirection off ball fakes. These plays have a higher tendency for making the big run. Don't get me wrong we throw the ball and use tons of playaction b/c of our run game we often see 9 man fronts. TE Dump is awesome when you are running the ball well.
|
|
billyn
Sophomore Member
Posts: 231
|
Post by billyn on Mar 28, 2008 6:04:55 GMT -6
I don't think anyone is always trying to hit the homerun. It just is a lot harder to score if you are a running oriented team and you don't have a back who can take it the distance from time to time. The way to beat a running team is to win the field postition battle and to not give up long runs or the deep ball. Why is the passing game considered an equalizer? It was a great equalizer when football in general was more run dominated. It gave teams without exceptional speed a way to gain yardage in chunks by finding holes in zones or voids left when teams blitzed. Defenses adapted to the spread and began to keep receivers underneath and make tackles. So, big receivers who could body defenders became more important, and teams started trying to find qbs who could run. I like to play anyone who I don't think can generate big plays against us, because I know that if I get a lead it is much more difficult for them to get back in the game.
|
|
|
Post by tiger46 on Mar 28, 2008 6:55:24 GMT -6
I don't think anyone is trying to hit a homerun always, either. Just as I don't believe that groundpounders won't take a big chunk out of a defense with a counter or, reverse, when the opportunity presents itself.
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Mar 28, 2008 7:57:15 GMT -6
First and foremost... I'm being argumentative, because its my nature, and please don't take offense...
However, you guys are talking in circles...
Every play I call, is the explosive play... its the play I believe we should score with...
I'm shocked to death, when we only get 3 yards, and more so, if something went wrong and we received negative yards.
I don't have "double secret home run plays"... I have plays... when a team shows this... I do that... if they do this, to stop that, I then do this...
Each play I call is supposed to be a td... which is why I think this quantifying and qualifying of explosive plays is ridiculuos....
What down are you calling the explosive play on? Which quarter? How many times do you call the explosive play? Could you diagram a few of the explosive plays for me?
Does my offense score everytime... no... was it because I didn't call the explosive play? Or was it because the defense out executed my offense?
Teams that sustain drives are good... Teams that score in 1 play... may or may not be good, but they definitely out executed the defense on that play.
If I can sustain drives, I will win... that's how it works...
And of course you win if you can sustain big plays...
But again... my big plays are the same as my what? Small plays... I'm not getting the logic here.
|
|
|
Post by morris on Mar 28, 2008 8:23:11 GMT -6
I am going to try this again since last time my post got screwed up.
Brian Billick goes into great detail over this stuff in his book Developing an Offnesive Game Plan. The team that has more explsoive plays in a game has a higher winning percentage. I do not have the book with me so I can not tell you the eaxct numbers. Explosive plays in 2nd to turnover margin in increasing percentage of chance to win.
The explosive play is defined as a run over 12 I beleive and I think a completion of 18 or over. You call plays to score and if you do it correctly and with some luck you are going break some runs and complete some passes that net you those types of gains.
Billick states that you want to have an explosive play at least once every 7 plays or so. If you are nto getting them then you need to call a play that might generate such a gain. A wheel route combination, reverse, some type of PA and this depends on your style of offense and your opponent. These plays are often plays that are good 1-3 times a game before they drop in production.
When you look at the T highlight thread that started this and watch the highlight you will see explosive plays by the T team. They would break runs of 9-12 yds.
Billick goes into a ton of factors from first down efficency (4+ on 1sts), field position, number of plays, explosive plays, down and distance and a number of other things. He backs it up with stats and even if they are of NFL teams they translate well all the way down to the MS level.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Mar 28, 2008 8:48:44 GMT -6
I agree that most TD drives have an "explosive" play in them. Or the drive started with a turnover.
But, trying to manufacture explosive plays can be dangerous. If I am running the ball down your throat for 4-5 yards a pop and then check some chart and realize that I haven't had an explosive play in the last 7 plays and call a deep pass, that can be counter-productive. If that pass is incomplete, then all of the sudden it is 2nd & 10 or 3rd & 5 and now my chances are not as good that I will continue my drive.
Now, if I realize that you loaded up to stop my runs off-tackle, then calling a play-action pass or counter or whatever would be an approprite call. But don't just call a play because you haven't had an explosive play recently. That is nonsense.
The reasons most plays become explosive is because you either executed them well, or somebody made a great play, or the defense over comitted to trying to stop some other facet of your game.
This applies to run and pass. They overcommit to stop your pass - screen or draw. They overcommit to stop a sweep - boot or reverse.
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Mar 28, 2008 8:56:35 GMT -6
I am going to try this again since last time my post got screwed up. Brian Billick goes into great detail over this stuff in his book Developing an Offnesive Game Plan. The team that has more explsoive plays in a game has a higher winning percentage. Really? So if a team makes more big plays then the other team, they usually win? Is that what I'm hearing... interesting. I do not have the book with me so I can not tell you the eaxct numbers. Explosive plays in 2nd to turnover margin in increasing percentage of chance to win. Ok... not going to argue with you there... more than likely is true! The explosive play is defined as a run over 12 I beleive and I think a completion of 18 or over. ok again.... if that's what you want to call an explosive play... then fine, we can define it as such... I'm still with you. You call plays to score and if you do it correctly and with some luck you are going break some runs and complete some passes that net you those types of gains. I'm starting to wonder where we disagree? Billick states that you want to have an explosive play at least once every 7 plays or so. Now we are getting to the nonsense... I want all my plays to be explosive plays? Why would I want to wait till the 7th play? This is where the lunacy begins my friend... this is coach speak, and book selling at its worst! If you are nto getting them then you need to call a play that might generate such a gain. A wheel route combination, reverse, some type of PA and this depends on your style of offense and your opponent. These plays are often plays that are good 1-3 times a game before they drop in production. So, if I understand you correctly, if I'm unable to move the ball consistently, I need to call the wheel route? The reverse? Play action... the defense always falls for the playaction... especially when my non-explosive run plays aren't working... Furthermore... I should reach into my bag of plays... and start going to the plays that work 1/3 of the time... instead of the plays that normally work 75% of the time... now I see... Hog Wash I say! When you look at the T highlight thread that started this and watch the highlight you will see explosive plays by the T team. They would break runs of 9-12 yds. No I didn't... those weren't double reverses, wheel routes... heck, they weren't even PA passes... you know what though... when you run as well as they do... and teams have to committ more to stopping that run, then yeah... that PA pass is a mother. The only reason 9-12 yd gains are considered explosive plays... is because you defined explosive play as such... but the reality is... for that T team... that's their bread and butter... that's their every down play... Coach didn't reach deep to find something else to do... he executed what he always done... The defense pinches down, he goes outside... not explosive, just good play calling. It might get him 4 yds... it might get him 20 yds... it might get a td... but its still the same play. Billick goes into a ton of factors from first down efficency (4+ on 1sts), field position, number of plays, explosive plays, down and distance and a number of other things. He backs it up with stats and even if they are of NFL teams they translate well all the way down to the MS level. No disrespect to Brian Billichic... superbowl winning coach... ran one of the most explosive offenses, if only for a year... But I have to believe, the rhetoric he was spewing, HOG WASH... And I say that in the most respectful way possible. Besides that explosive Vikings offense... what happend in Baltimore? He was the epitome of the nonexplosive offense. What? He didn't want explosive plays at Baltimore? You don't call the explosive play... the explosive play just happens... its that good play that you know gets you 3 to 4 yds when executed properly, and because of your talent, or the defenses lack of talent, can blossom into an explosive play, by your definition of course, if they miss a tackle, or neglect a read. I'm just sayin... to act like you can call the explosive play is ridiculous... what happens when I call the wheel route, and its incomplete? Is it still an explosive play, or just a wasted down?
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Mar 28, 2008 9:06:44 GMT -6
First and foremost... I'm being argumentative, because its my nature, and please don't take offense... However, you guys are talking in circles... Every play I call, is the explosive play... its the play I believe we should score with... I'm shocked to death, when we only get 3 yards, and more so, if something went wrong and we received negative yards. I don't have "double secret home run plays"... I have plays... when a team shows this... I do that... if they do this, to stop that, I then do this... Each play I call is supposed to be a td... which is why I think this quantifying and qualifying of explosive plays is ridiculuos.... What down are you calling the explosive play on? Which quarter? How many times do you call the explosive play? Could you diagram a few of the explosive plays for me? Does my offense score everytime... no... was it because I didn't call the explosive play? Or was it because the defense out executed my offense? Teams that sustain drives are good... Teams that score in 1 play... may or may not be good, but they definitely out executed the defense on that play. If I can sustain drives, I will win... that's how it works... And of course you win if you can sustain big plays... But again... my big plays are the same as my what? Small plays... I'm not getting the logic here. I think it is great to be argumentative, so long as we refrain from calling one another a retard. We really are on different wave lengths here......I'm not communicating well. I did NOT say: *explosives come from "special" plays *offense need to score right now because no one can sustain drives *Big plays aren't necessary what you call. I don't call "small" plays then go to by big plays. *Big Plays do not have to come from high risk playcalling. (Talk to a Flexbone option team) What I AM saying: *All things even for the O and D, consistent short yardage gains that culminate into TDs are RARE. *Good offense avoid 3 and outs, AND they find ways to get the explosive plays THEY NEED in order to score. For a ground and pound team, those explosive plays may come in the form of finally breaking open one of their low risk plays. (DW team that keeps running power, power, power, and then finally breaks it open) That team is fooling themselves, however, if they think that they do not need explosive plays to be a consistently good football team. BTW, those teams that are considered more "explosive" do not rely ANY less on execution than a more conservative offense does.............that is another misnomer The ways in which you get your explosive plays can be different, and they can (in fact, I'd bet more often than not they are) come in the natural progression of the offense. But you still NEED them.......and if you are not getting them (in a game, season, or career), especially versus even or better opponents, you need to find a way to do that. To think that you can consistently execute 13+ play drives to get your points is going to set you up to fail.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Mar 28, 2008 9:16:18 GMT -6
You don't call the explosive play... the explosive play just happens... its that good play that you know gets you 3 to 4 yds when executed properly, and because of your talent, or the defenses lack of talent, can blossom into an explosive play, by your definition of course, if they miss a tackle, or neglect a read. Yeah, they often "just happen". If they are not happening, however, you need to do something to help them happen, because if you think that 3-4 yards EVERY time will get the job done, you are mistaken. The probability for penalty, fumbled snap, missed assignment........really, the brunt of execution is on the offense. A defensive guy who blew his assignment for one play can be covered up by the efforts of the other 10........An offensive player who misses his assignment screws the whole play, especially at the POA. (13 play drive x 11 players executing =143 consecutive executions.....not probably versus even money) The numbers show these long drives are not common place......to rely on something that is not common place is not good. BTW, perhaps you should read Billick's book before offering criticism of it. He learned under the father of modern football thought: Bill Walsh. I think he has somethings to say of value; not mere "hog wash".
|
|
|
Post by gunslinger on Mar 28, 2008 9:26:28 GMT -6
Anyone an online subsciber to American Football Monthly?
They did a study/article printed in July 2005 that addressed the 10 Most Important Impact Stats for Winning Football games.
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
I can not put my hands on the article now but I believe that "explosive plays" were a factor in one of the above offensive categories.
It would be interesting for someone to read that article and tell us what it says about explosive plays.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 28, 2008 9:50:08 GMT -6
Every play I call, is the explosive play... its the play I believe we should score with... I'm shocked to death, when we only get 3 yards, and more so, if something went wrong and we received negative yards. To explore another vein....are you more successful at getting 4-5 yards a play, and being able to sustain that drive if you DON'T design/expect each play to be explosive. A dbl wing friend of mine has been talking to me about this philosophy. The plays are designed to get 4-5 yards thats it. No TD blocks downfield, just concentrate the blocking to get 5 yards...
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Mar 28, 2008 10:32:20 GMT -6
Every play I call, is the explosive play... its the play I believe we should score with... I'm shocked to death, when we only get 3 yards, and more so, if something went wrong and we received negative yards. To explore another vein....are you more successful at getting 4-5 yards a play, and being able to sustain that drive if you DON'T design/expect each play to be explosive. A dbl wing friend of mine has been talking to me about this philosophy. The plays are designed to get 4-5 yards thats it. No TD blocks downfield, just concentrate the blocking to get 5 yards... That would be the dichotomy of which I have made it clear which side I am on. Let me talk about his philsophy too. As an IZ team, we implore the same type of blocing philosophy. That is, we NEVER want to lose yards on a run, always fall forward. Tell the RB to read it and cram it, don't try to make nothing out of something. Very conservative, high yield approach. HOWEVER, A majority of our scoring drives still rely on explosive plays. Either we break off an IZ run (missed tackle, one guy out of position, etc.), or our IZ sets up the potential for a big play (Naked Boot). I would say that your DW friend has a time proven approach to the game, one that groundchuck talked about. Have safe consistent runs, and work big plays off that, or break one of those safe runs. HOWEVER, if you get to the point were you are not getting explosive plays, your drives will stall. When a defense can limit you to just those 3-5 yards and nothing more, you will eventually mess up a play, put yourself "off schedule", and have to punt. To reiterate: Getting explosives is not necessarily the function of aggressive playcalling (though it can be). It can also come from conservative approaches. One thing I believe, is that whatever way you do it, THEY MUST COME........when you notice their absence, you will understand why your offense is being unproductive.
|
|
|
Post by morris on Mar 28, 2008 10:38:34 GMT -6
We defined explosive plays as a Run over a certain distance and a Pass over a certain distance. So in those highlights of the T team you did see explosive plays. Run plays that gained over a certain amount of yardage.
Yes you are hearing a team that produces more explosive plays has a higher percentage of winning. He is not just making crap up. Go through your film and chart both your plays and the opponents using his criteria. Can you win a game turning the ball over 6 times and getting no turnovers? Yes but how likely is it.
Do not get caught up in wheel, reverse, PA, counter , and etc…or the concept of generating explosive plays. Many times as dubber said the explosive plays happen in the normal course of play calling.
Billick (not Billichic that is the Hoodie) feels that if he has not broken an explosive play in 7 or so plays he wants to take a shot in some form. You can do that a ton of different ways. It is not about a magic number. Look at what your average scoring drive was last year? How many drives did you score on and ran more than 7 plays or so? In the natural play calling of a game you will often break an explosive play some where in that 7 play range. Look at any level and see what is the average scoring drive play length. No one is saying it is play 7 we must run the super explosive atomic bomb play.
If you are not moving the ball consistently then yeah you might want to try something different. No the D is not always going fall for the PA that is lunacy but I am sure as heck going to make them execute. If my plays work 75% of the time then I am moving the ball consistently. Also just because 1 team only has a 1/3 success rate does not mean all teams will on a certain play or type of play. Counter criss cross is not reaching into a bag of plays. Running KY Mesh with a wheel is not reaching into a bag of tricks. Going NASCAR/INDY is not reaching into some bag of plays. It is practiced and has a purpose.
Billick had more than 1 year of explosive offense as an OC. He learned from BYU and from Walsh. He got explosive plays in Baltimore just not as many and fewer of them scored. Again you get caught up with the play (wheel) instead of the concept. What happens if it is incomplete? You play the next play. What happens if you pull it off you get a big play. An example would be KY Mesh with the wheel tag. You are going to run Mesh and read it. The difference is you are putting a player into a position that if the play is there we can get a big play. That’s it. Plays you are trying to take a shot with do not have to be double reverse option flea flicker. They just might be 4 verts, switch, shallow, or any number of other plays. You call FB dive 30 times you are going to have different chances.
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Mar 28, 2008 10:41:59 GMT -6
Hill Larry us! And stop putting words in my mouth... I already talk too much, and don't need anything extra coming out of my mouth! I think it is great to be argumentative, so long as we refrain from calling one another a retard. Never called you a retard... never called anyone that disagreed with me a retard... I said this theory on "making big plays" is ludicriouis... not because you don't want big plays to happen... but because some of you are acting as if you can conjure a big play at will. And if that's not your argument... then we can both agree, that big plays are good, and leave it at that... If that's not your point, and you want to put anymore empahsis on the big play... then I diametrically disagree! What I AM saying: *All things even for the O and D, consistent short yardage gains that culminate into TDs are RARE. All things are never even... everything is different... you are trying to create this fictional scenerio, and it just doesn't exist. Teams are different... players are different, schemes are different... its the coaches job to identify these differences and exploit them... for dare I say... "Big Plays".For a ground and pound team, those explosive plays may come in the form of finally breaking open one of their low risk plays. (DW team that keeps running power, power, power, and then finally breaks it open) That team is fooling themselves, however, if they think that they do not need explosive plays to be a consistently good football team. Huh? You can't define your premise, with your premise... Good football teams get explosive plays... teams are fooling themselves if they think they can be good without explosive plays. That's the circular reasoning I was talking about. You are trying to define good teams by the amount of big plays, when its already been conceded that good teams make big plays... However, how about this... when is a good team, no longer good? When another team stops them from making big plays? Or did they just happen to run into a better team? Is that good team, that was making all those big plays... no longer good? And what if those big plays were coming against bad teams... and now against good teams, they don't make the big plays? Are they a bad team now? BTW, those teams that are considered more "explosive" do not rely ANY less on execution than a more conservative offense does.............that is another misnomer Huh? All I know is that you are taking something that's nebulous... the big play, and putting cause and effect to it. I don't believe that is sound. What's the analysis when a team has more big plays than another team, but still loses? I hear your point, it rarely happens, because the team that makes more big plays will usually win... Again... can't argue that... but in my minds eye, that's similar to saying the team that scores more points will always win. But you still NEED them.......and if you are not getting them (in a game, season, or career), especially versus even or better opponents, you need to find a way to do that. I don't know what to say to this... If I'm winning a game, and have not had a carry break for more than 9+... I should be looking for it... If I'm not winning games, I should look to my offense, and figure out why I'm not getting big plays? What about my defense... maybe why I'm giving up so many big plays? To think that you can consistently execute 13+ play drives to get your points is going to set you up to fail. I'll take the 13+ drive... I'll take the 3 play drive... but the essence of the game is to scorre more than my opponent. And If I can hold them to 0 pts... my big plays become irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Mar 28, 2008 10:45:31 GMT -6
Every play I call, is the explosive play... its the play I believe we should score with... I'm shocked to death, when we only get 3 yards, and more so, if something went wrong and we received negative yards. To explore another vein....are you more successful at getting 4-5 yards a play, and being able to sustain that drive if you DON'T design/expect each play to be explosive. A dbl wing friend of mine has been talking to me about this philosophy. The plays are designed to get 4-5 yards thats it. No TD blocks downfield, just concentrate the blocking to get 5 yards... I like that question... It seems to be asking if you should be focused on first downs or touchdowns... I firmly believe in first downs... and maybe those that believe in the big play, are saying it should be touchdowns. And not being a double winger, I can't speak to their blocking schemes (yes I could, but lets act like I can't )... but every blocking scheme I draw up, implicitly creates an alley for my player to run through... if he runs correctly, he should get 4 to 5 yards... if he runs great... he should get a td... and if he runs poorly, he should get 3 yds... I'm just sayin' ;D
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Mar 28, 2008 10:55:24 GMT -6
The retard thing was an allusion to previous threads were members get mad and start personal attacks.....I never ment you were calling me a retard or vica-versa.
That is also a perfect illustration of our inability to communicate.
Here's my reasoning:
1.) Scoring is good 2.) Most scoring happens because of an explosive play 3.) If I am not scoring as much as I should, I need to examine my offense. 4.) If I find we are not doing something that is essential to scoring (namely, getting explosive plays), I need to address that issue, because of point # 1.
All I am trying to do is identify those things which contribute to a successful drive.....that way, when things stop working, I can check and see what we are missing.
|
|
bigcroz
Junior Member
Go STAGS!!
Posts: 356
|
Post by bigcroz on Mar 28, 2008 11:18:54 GMT -6
I have read all of this and concede that big plays are a good thing, and that scoring is good! But if a team can't get that "explosive" play out of there regularly called offense it is more than likely that the Jimmies and Joes on the opposite side of the ball are just better. In this case trying to "manufacture" one of these so called "explosive" plays will only worsen the position the team with lesser athletes was in in the first place. I believe that the FACT that big plays and scoring are good is just a side effect of good execution, which comes from excellent preperation on the part of the athletes and coaches. This thread is starting to sound as if it should go into the paralysis by analysis thread. Just my .02
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Mar 28, 2008 11:19:27 GMT -6
I don't want to get into the heat of this debate, but some brief thoughts of mine: I've written extensively about run/pass balance, and specifically the need for high yards per play on the primary downs (1st and 10, 2nd and 5, etc). Billick has made the point too about explosive plays, and dubber's point that it is too hard to just drive the length of the field only getting four yards every time is true. You can do it, but one penalty, one bad play, etc and you're taken out of your deal. smartfootball.blogspot.com/2006/07/runpass-balance-response-to-comments.htmlsmartfootball.blogspot.com/2006_07_01_archive.htmlWhy this might counsel for having a decent pass game is that, it's true you can design run plays to go for touchdowns (but I actually agree with Homer Smith that you can't actually do this), but you can design pass plays that get chunks of yardage. This doesn't mean you chuck bombs, but if you run play action off a nice ball fake and bring a guy on a corner route, or a deep cross, or a scissors, skinny post, seam, etc you can get a quick 30 yards which, if nothing else, quickly changes field position. Even wing-T and option teams know the value of catching them ganging up on you sometimes. But anyway none of that is all that controversial. In my view Dan Henning summed all this up pretty well: " Football, in any classification is a percentage game. A Quarterback who goes against percentages too often will fail. He'll have to be extremely lucky. No one figures to be that lucky due to so many extenuating circumstances involved in a 22 man game. The following rules for play calling have been established for the Panthers to reduce the margin for tactical error. Errors in play calling will kill us quicker than mistakes in any other phase of football. 60% run 40% pass The above percentage between pass and run is the healthy approach to pro football in any tightly played football game. To run more than 60% of the time will result in low scoring unless we are definitely superior. To pass more than 40% could mean costly losses as the result of failure in pass protection with loss of ball possession and field position due to interceptions." I think this is simple. If you run the ball more you will protect the ball, avoid turnovers (though option attacks sometimes begin to resemble passing attacks in statistics), and control the game, making incremental yards. But as Henning notes, if you rely only on this, you simply won't score enough to win highly competitive games if your talent is equal. You might design your run plays to always go for scores, but we know this won't happen with near enough frequency. On the other hand, while the passing game brings with it points and yards, it also carries risk - risk of sacks, risks of fumbles (i.e. Kurt Warner disease), and risk of interceptions. All these risks must be balanced. I don't necessarily agree with the 60/40, but it's not a bad rule of thumb for him in the NFL. See the rest of my article for thoughts on how I think people should approach this breakdown.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Mar 28, 2008 11:21:43 GMT -6
I have read all of this and concede that big plays are a good thing, and that scoring is good! But if a team can't get that "explosive" play out of there regularly called offense it is more than likely that the Jimmies and Joes on the opposite side of the ball are just better. In this case trying to "manufacture" one of these so called "explosive" plays will only worsen the position the team with lesser athletes was in in the first place. I believe that the FACT that big plays and scoring are good is just a side effect of good execution, which comes from excellent preperation on the part of the athletes and coaches. This thread is starting to sound as if it should go into the paralysis by analysis thread. Just my .02 I agree but with the "manufacturing" explosive plays I think you have to be aggressive and basically run counters. If you throw the wide receiver screen, you should throw the fake screen nearly every game. If you run the hitch, throw the hitch and go. If you run the ball effectively run some effective play action, or reverses, etc. I think you can get too conservative with everything, and if nothing else sometimes those counters will scare the bejesus out of them and you might open up the hitch or the simple run play for the rest of the game. It's only problemmatic if you're just trying to force everything.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 28, 2008 11:27:39 GMT -6
To explore another vein....are you more successful at getting 4-5 yards a play, and being able to sustain that drive if you DON'T design/expect each play to be explosive. A dbl wing friend of mine has been talking to me about this philosophy. The plays are designed to get 4-5 yards thats it. No TD blocks downfield, just concentrate the blocking to get 5 yards... I like that question... It seems to be asking if you should be focused on first downs or touchdowns... I firmly believe in first downs... and maybe those that believe in the big play, are saying it should be touchdowns. And not being a double winger, I can't speak to their blocking schemes (yes I could, but lets act like I can't )... but every blocking scheme I draw up, implicitly creates an alley for my player to run through... if he runs correctly, he should get 4 to 5 yards... if he runs great... he should get a td... and if he runs poorly, he should get 3 yds... I'm just sayin' ;D See, but I detect a difference in the approach here still. "If he runs great, he should get a TD" is not apart of what my friend is talking about. He is basically saying, if everyone does EVERYTHING perfect, the RB should get 4 or 5 yards, and then be in a position to be tackled. His point of view is : Can we design something so that it would taken an EXTRAORDINARY effort by the RB to make more than 5 yards, and give up any strong possibilities of getting more than that 5 yards, IF the TRADEOFF is that it will take a relatively pedestrian effort on everyones part to get that 5 yards. In theory, if the "commonly designed" football play is executed perfectly, (each defender is flatbacked by his blocker after the ball carrier/receiver gets it) the ball carrier is left in a one on one situation (or one on two vs pass) to score. We all recognize that this is a very rare situation. Usually, a varied number of defenders are temporarily neutralized such that a certain number of yards are gained. The higher the number, would roughly correspond to the amount of yards gained. However, is there a way to design plays so that you can GREATLY increase the likelihood of gaining that 4-5 yard mark, the trade off being diminishing the chances of a big play. For those stat-minded / mathematical guys, is there a way to design the plays to reduce variance, and increase the MODE rather than the AVG.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Mar 28, 2008 11:45:01 GMT -6
BTW, perhaps you should read Billick's book before offering criticism of it. . if you don't own a copy of this....... WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU WAITING FOR?The entire crux of this thread is based on the first chapter of the book, an analytical approach to game planning / play calling. If you cannot create an 'explosive', it is like issuing every member of your army .223 caliber weapons and expecting to make a dramatic impact (the infantry is comprised of small-arms, heavy-machine guns, artillery,etc) You have to have an option of providing a defensive-stressing component to your attack, to open up a contrary/complimentary counter in your arsenal. I think the "big play" argument stems from the average yards per play. It is about how efficient are you at gaining yardage (which usually translates to scores). If it takes 40 sales to make a profit, versus 3 sales to make a profit....juggling the expense-vs-price ratio.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Mar 28, 2008 11:55:18 GMT -6
I think I'll just sum up the dubber/khalfie debate, and maybe we can move on:
Both agree that "explosive plays," so defined, correlate highly with winning teams. Dubber thinks that this is often more cause than simply correlation, where either teams with superior talent frequently bust big plays or, when you have equally talented teams, the coaching is good to create those big plays or put the kids in position to get chunks of yardage.
Khalfie thinks the stat makes sense, but only as a correlation not as a cause; in other words, of course winning teams (i.e. talented teams who are efficient) bust big plays. But it's not because they do or should go around trying to create them too much, but instead they are good teams and if you get consistent gains enough you'll break the big play, particularly if you have more talent. and if you have less talent, forcing the big play will probably get you into more trouble than it is worth.
So it's just the classic causation vs. correlation debate. To resolve it I think we'd need more than to just argue about it, but we can certainly take our sides with it and try to go from there. I expressed the rough outlines of my opinion above.
|
|
|
Post by justryn2 on Mar 28, 2008 12:08:52 GMT -6
Just to prove my own stupidity I'm going to jump in to this debate!
1. "Teams that get big plays win more often than those that don't." Duh! Big plays come happen for lots of reasons but generally it has something to do with speed. If you have a running back that is faster than most of the guys on defense, and you can create a nice crease for him with blocking execution, you're going to get a big play.
2. "Most scoring drives include one or more big plays." Maybe. But there are advantages to scoring drives that eat up clock quicker than they eat up yards. Holding on to the ball for 7 or 8 minutes of game time, then adding 7 points at the end of it is sometimes better than getting that same 7 points but only using up 2 or 3 minutes of game time.
3. "If I'm not getting explosive plays I need to address that issue." That depends. You can score points and win games without explosive plays. Sure, the likelihood of a mistake that kills a drive increases with the number of offensive plays that you run. But another thing that increases with the number of offensive plays that you run is the likelihood of a big play. In fact, the likelihood of any good thing and any bad thing that can happen on offense will increase with the number of offensive plays you run. The big point here is that, if you are not getting explosive plays, and you are not scoring points, you do have issues that you need to address but you cannot address them during the game. You have issues that you need to address in the next weeks practice.
OK, that's my two cents worth.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 28, 2008 12:10:07 GMT -6
I think I'll just sum up the dubber/khalfie debate, and maybe we can move on: Both agree that "explosive plays," so defined, correlate highly with winning teams. Dubber thinks that this is often more cause than simply correlation, where either teams with superior talent frequently bust big plays or, when you have equally talented teams, the coaching is good to create those big plays or put the kids in position to get chunks of yardage. Khalfie thinks the stat makes sense, but only as a correlation not as a cause; in other words, of course winning teams (i.e. talented teams who are efficient) bust big plays. But it's not because they do or should go around trying to create them too much, but instead they are good teams and if you get consistent gains enough you'll break the big play, particularly if you have more talent. and if you have less talent, forcing the big play will probably get you into more trouble than it is worth. So it's just the classic causation vs. correlation debate. To resolve it I think we'd need more than to just argue about it, but we can certainly take our sides with it and try to go from there. I expressed the rough outlines of my opinion above. Spread attack..good synopsis..HOWEVER I do think there is a mitigating factor in the discussion, and that is the level of football you are competing at. Just from personal experience, at the 1AA level, as well as the top class of Louisiana HS football, I have coached teams where you did have an opportunity to "scheme" a big play (risk/reward tradeoff), AND I have coached on lower level teams where the best chance of a big play was to simply run power and hope the RB breaks a tackle.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Mar 28, 2008 12:27:26 GMT -6
Well I agree. I think that's one thing that comes up with Billick's article. He's talking specifically about the NFL and/or maybe major college football, with the most important thing being that most teams are about roughly equal in talent, and they have the capacity (usually) to throw, etc. This affects the risky percentages, but also in the NFL you don't have any teams that are so much more physical that they could run 90% of the time just over everybody and average 25-30 points a game.
Now, at the lower levels talent is different, the types of talent can be different, and certain types of coaching can have a larger effect. So I agree the level of football really can't be overlooked here.
|
|
|
Post by morris on Mar 28, 2008 13:37:57 GMT -6
Compare the information in Billick's book with your own film and stats. His percentages and information stand up well all the way down to at least the MS level. Where they start to get somewhat funny is in pts due to the fact lower levels have a harder time finding good kickers.
I think people are still stuck on the idea that "big plays" and "explosive plays" are plays that go for Long gains and TDs. Billick puts a set number that it has to meet to be placed in an explsovie play group. It does not matter fi you run the QB sneak or the hail marry. If the QB sneak gets you 12+ then you have 1 explsoive play. If you complete the arrow on stick and the guy is tackled 20 yds from the LOS then it is a explosive play.
If you think the OLB reacts hard to the run and the CB peaks in the backfield then you might use a concept that gives you PA with a vertical and attacking the OLB. If the CB peaks and you get him then great and if not you get a positive play by going after the OLB.
|
|