Scoring drives analysis

From "Developing an Offensive Game Plan" Brian Billick pg 11

Explosive plays are measured int he NFL as gains of 20 yards or more. A more detailed analysis shows a more valid measuring being runs of 12 yards or more and passes of 16 yards or more. these levels of production proved to be moresignificant as to what is needed to constitue and gain the effects of an "explosion". the 1994 and '95 NFL seasons were the first in a dozen years that explosions carried a higher winning ratio than did turnovers. This measurement showed that teams with a +2 or greater advantage won the game between 80-80% of the time. The significant thing about explosives is that they do not necessarily need to lead to a score to be productive. Huge changes of field position can also positively change the profile of a game. this measurement, like turnovers, is an interactive measurable because a team's effectiveness in this area can be diminshed if your defense is giving up explosives at the same rate as the offense is gaining them.

Amen. I am a much better play caller when I have kids who can tip the field on any given play. It always makes me laugh when the slot catches a 5 yard route, splits 2 defenders, makes a safety miss, takes it 60 yards for the score and someone (straight-faced) slaps me on the back and says, "great call".

This would bring a whole other question.
if the defense gives you a short field to work with, would that constitute as a "big play" offensively?

and

wouldn't that mess up the stats that Billick explores in the book in terms of scoring because of "big plays offensively" rather than big plays from the whole (special teams/ defense/offense) that contribute towards scoring.

I would agree that if an offense starts with a short field, either by a defensive takeaway or a play in STs, that wouild be defined as a big play and would skew the stats when analyzing drives. For purposes of this discussion I'd consider a "drive" to be one of 60 yards or more.

With that in mind I agree with Dubber. Between evenly matched teams it's hard to consistently make drives of 60 or more yards without some of it in a big chunk. Oh, we've done it and have had it done to us but it's not going to happen often. As a DC I depend on that premise. If an offense can't get a big play-and it doesn't have to be a "home run" just a field-position changer- somewhere along the line they're going to be punting a lot.

A running offense can and must have ways to manufacture big plays without doing something out of character. PA is the most obvious answer. Just don't wait until 3rd and 8 to run it. When Dee Dowis, who nobody ever got confused with John Elway, was the QB at Air Force they led the NCAA in Yards Per Pass Attempt.

Running the option is another way. You don't have to major in it but forcing the defense to play assignment football and make a tackle in space does put you in position to make a big play. Slow QB? So what? Remember, we're talking about 10 yard runs not home runs.

Anyway, that's my long-winded way of saying that I agree with Dub.

This is what Dub and some of us have been saying all along. If you read the portion of the text I posted he says that it does not have to lead to a score but a change in field position.

Look at your film. Go back and look through your season's film and break it down to see how your drives break down. I do not think anyone (or at least me) is saying I am looking for the big play all the time. This is not chuck it up and throw it deep. This is not OC setting around saying I have to make things happen.

Having a short field does not change the numbers. Billick points to " From year to year, four factors have been identified that have a consistently high correlation to a team's winning or losing"
Turnovers
Explosive plays
1st down efficiency (4+ on 1st down)
Red Zone efficiency

If you get a short field then you are getting into the Red Zone efficiency area. No one is saying that big plays or sound plays on defense on special teams do not play a large role in winning games. This is stricty from an offensive side of the ball what can they do or need to do to give their team the best chance to win.

Plays over 12-16 often happen in the course of game just by players being players and coaches being coaches. Look at your film or games you have on tape and chart the drives. I would also suggest reading Billick's book and watching Coverdale's DVD on preseason planning. Coverdale goes through how he has taken Billick's information and how he applies it. Billick's POV in his book is not something he just came up with.

"However, when I think of Bill Walsh and the "West Coast Offense", I think less of the actual X's and O's than I do of the comprehensive approach Coahc Wlash took to creating structure."

"It is this systematic appraoch, which I learned from people like Bill Walsh and Dennis Green, that I am attemtping to convey in this book. Regardless of the style of play you advocate, the overall structure of prepaing your team through the game plan remains the same."

Its not Bellichic..its Billick. Bellichic is the HC of the Pats and Billick is currently not coach I believe.

Defenses just like Offenses are going have to have breakdowns. They are going to miss tackles. I would like to see tape of a team that went through a whole game or a number of complete games and did not miss a tackle or blow an assignment. Guys always following their keys and that is why teams have false key plays. I would say all defenses are designed to take away the big pay some how. Some are more comfortable if they give up a gain of 12-16+ but how many DC are happy giving up any type of big play?

Certain plays have a higher likely hood of picking larger amounts of yrds. This might be due to defense calling a bad call, formation, matchups, or be simple design of the play. 4 verts is going to have a different probabilty of picking up 12-16+ yrds then the FB dive. Now against a prevent defense then the FB dive has a higher probablitly of picking up larger chunks of field. I wonder how many options the T team that started this debate has for 3rd and 8+? I am sure a number of good T teams have a plan for those types of down and distance that is outside their normal play calling to a small degree.

By game planning you can create (and practice) chances to put your team in a position that a play would have a higher chance of gaining a large gain in the 12-16+ range. This might only be good for a few tries because the defense will make an adjustment. You might not be able to call a play becasue you have not set it up yet. What I am NOT going to do is call a play and pray.

There is something more coaches can do to increase their efficiency of offense, to give their offense more of a chance to be successful and that is game planning. While all people game plan not all people game plan in an effective manner. Teams that game plan extremely well win more games I would venture to say. Their teams are better prepared and thus play better. They leave little to chance and place their players in positions that directly relate to what they will or could be asked to do in a game.

OK. Turnovers I can fix. Hold onto to the ball, don't throw into coverage.

The point that we want more explosive plays is simple. But it sure isn't easy to create more explosive plays.

I am willing to bet that most every run-first coach on here will run the counter or pa pass when it is open or the defense over commits to stop your run. I also bet that most every run-first coach still will take a chance (trick play or bomb) or two a game if they are losing or even early in the game.

My guess would be that you would think that if you are pass-first or spread you are already trying to create explosive plays.

My point is, I think most (not all) are doing what they should to create explosive plays. The better teams just create more. Play the game to win, not to create explosive plays.

I believe that turnovers are the number 1 predictor of winning. A reverse with a double handoff has a greater chance of a turnover. Should I never call the reverse since it has a greater likelyhood of a turnover, and the more I turn it over the less likely I am to win? No, if the reverse is open I should call it.

It is just like the explosive plays. If I had some magical list of explosive plays, shouldn't I call those everytime? No, call them when they are open. Play the game to win.

If they can't stop lead, then run lead. But if they can't stop it, it is going to be explosive. Every lead is not going to go for 4 yards exactly. You are going to have plenty to go for 8+ if they can't stop it. Then all of the sudden, your most basic call and play is magically explosive.

If I am up 4 in the fourth quarter, and lead is working (not dominant, but working), and I check some chart and realize that I haven't had an explosive play lately and call that reverse and we fumble, then I am a dumb butt.

I have seen plenty of teams lose to us because they tried to get "explosive." They are lining up and kicking our butt on a drive. Then on 2nd & 6, they throw a play action pass and we sack them or intercept or even it falls incomplete. Every coach on our side says, "THANK YOU." They then end not running the play we can't stop because it only got 4 yards on first down. We end up stopping the drive and that allows us to win. Trying to be "explosive" or cute cost them the game. Surely, you coaches have had that happen to you. It has happened plenty to me.

And yes, I am gulity of trying to get too cute also. Hopefully I have gotten better.

I am afraid that this thread could cost some coaches to lose some games by getting too "cute."

I know that a lot of y'all think that if coaches don't call more explosive plays, that will cost them some games.

My solution, call the game. If they can't stop something, run it. If they give you something, take it. Don't be afraid to run something, but don't be stupid and run something to just try and be explosive.

Does this make me smart? Heck no. Coaches have been doing this for 100 years.

I think we agree to agree! No arguement here.

Another way to look at this whole thing is how many third downs are you having to convert on a touchdown drive. If the defense can consistently make you convert third downs they have a much better chance at stopping you. So, the more plays on a drive that you can gain chunks of yardage the easier it should be to score.

Guys...i really think that the major issue / "disagreements" being had here are because of the differences in level and approaches to the game. A coach who considers himself "run series oriented" might not approach the game the same way as an NFL coach. A coach without a diverse talent base might not approach the game the same way an NFL coach with various weapons adn mismatch opportunities would.

Again, context must be taken into account. In the NFL, there are definitely certain plays (usually passes) that have a higher probability of gaining 10-12 yards than other plays, such as lead, zone, trap , iso and counter. At the H.S level, this MIGHT NOT be the case. At the H.S level, your best chance at getting a 12+ play might be to run your best play, be it lead, zone, trap, iso, counter...therefore you don't really "look" to create explosive plays.

I would say however, that there are probably still things you can take from this. Look for ways to design more explosive plays using your available talent. Formation/motions to isolate your best player against their worst defender...shifts and unbalanced to get levarage on the edge...

The level of play and style of offense are addressed in the book. One example is that HS teams will go for it on 4th downs more so that changes the approach to some of the other downs. The ratios and percentages do hold up.

To me its simple, I have guys that go two ways, and I practice 4 days a week for all intents and purposes. We are limited as high school coaches as to how much we can rep things. In college you meet and watch film for HOURS before and after practice, not to mention spring football etc and you are only going one way. IN the pros its your job, Its 9-5 at least for those guys and they're going one way as well. so obviously execution will be better at the NFL level and they feel they need to get an explosive play, because at some point someone screws up or the defense guesses right. Now if we are not physically superior to an opponent and I am going to try to go on 13+ play drives all the time, someone is going to guess right or physically beat my kid at some point or we will make a mistake(missed assignment penalty etc) and I'm looking at 2nd and long or 3rd and long. The big play eliminates the number or plays and such the probability of a mistake by my guys because they have less oppurtunities.
Field position and big plays GREATLY increase your chances to score. Look at every scoring drive you had last year, I'm willing to bet average field position was better on them than on all drives, and on the majority of them you had at least one and probably more plays of 15+yds. Its simple mathematics and probability.
EXPLOSIVE does not mean TRICK. It means your guys execute better on a play and you get a larger than typical gain. It might be an iso that your back breaks a tackle on the first level and gets 18 instead of 4 or 5.
All this leads to the conclusion that in wins you are gonna have big plays and thus big drives. In losses you will have less big plays, in turn less scoring drives. Have I gone on 15 play 70 yard drives, yeah, but on most of them we had 3rd and 10 we had to convert and thus had a big play. I love a drive of 70 yards of all 3, 4, or 5 yd gains but they don't happen on a regular basis.
Alot of words but long story short I agree with dubber and morris.

As a former DW guy, that does get the job done. Sure I'll pop a Counter Criss Cross for 80 yards, but I'm more than content to Super Power my way up and down the field.