|
Post by spreadattack on Feb 5, 2007 17:11:27 GMT -6
For your level I'd take a look at Ted Seay's Wild Bunch. Running game is based off simple inside runs, traps with the jet series to either side and the rocket sweep if you like. Formation also works well for throwing the football. Go to the downloads section and look for Wild Bunch. If nothing else it will get you thinking. Otherwise I'd look at what tog on here does, I think his style of jets, dives, simple zone ideas with spread and bubbles is a good place to start. At the Pop Warner level I'd probably use a tight end though
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Dec 12, 2006 12:49:11 GMT -6
I like to label it by what the action is, and the formation we call is what formation we will actually end up in.
For example, to use very basic terminology, Twins Rt (TE Right, twins receivers left) Z-Fly has the Z receiver line up to the right like a normal Pro-set, and then "Fly" across the formation to make it a twins formation to the left. Makes it simple for everyone else, including the QB. The motion receiver just has to know where he has to line up to begin with to get where he needs to go.
Examples:
Near (Start outside, motion inside) Orbit (Fake across and finish up where you started) Scat (begin in the backfield and motion out) Trade (TE begin on one side and shift to the other) Jake (motion from split receiver to backfield. We didn't know what to call this and our QB at the time was named Jake, so we said "start outside, and then go to Jake" and it stuck) Jet (a "jet sweep" motion, only used with jet calls, the jet receiver is either taking the ball or faking the handoff).
There's tons more. I also like this because it cuts down the words, and players should know where they need to line up for a given play, so telling them where to go exactly seemed superfluous.
Shifts I tend to practice a few set shifts during the week to make sure you get it all right, or you can just shift from one formation to the next. A hypothetical example would just be saying "Power Rt shift Empty Rt"--nothing tricky really (I just invented formation names, use whatever you already use for this). We sometimes will have a few set "one-word" shifts like "Starburst" was one where we used to shift from some base sets to a bunch set and often had a few predesigned plays, like toss sweep or a quick pass.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Sept 16, 2007 22:06:46 GMT -6
I love this commercial. The music is from Last of the Mohicans (Great movie).
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jul 18, 2006 6:25:37 GMT -6
I think what goldenbear was saying is that the Jesuit school probably at least tries to kind of teach and run a "holistic" program where football, school, and God all integrate and mesh, and it could be simply a job requirement that if you coach there you're expected to be open and talk about religion and help the young kids grow in theirs.
Since you said you don't have any religious preferences, and mostly are interested in the football side, I wouldn't think that it'd be bad to miss that. You might've been asked to do things you weren't comfortable doing or were uninterested in doing.
It is a Jesuit school, so it's not shocking that they tend to highly value that kind of thing.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jul 17, 2006 21:04:12 GMT -6
I want to work with great men of character, and to me two characteristics of great character is a conviction in one's own beliefs and a respect for others. One of the best people I ever knew was a coach who was a devout and great christian, but he'd have never told you unnanounced. Yet, somehow everyone knew. He was always available for the kids and for other coaches if you sought him out in private. I always thought if you were going to be spiritual that was the way to do it.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jul 17, 2006 11:27:19 GMT -6
Not hiring someone based on religion is a pretty clear violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. I suppose you could make an odd argument if you hired someone because of their religion, but anyone you did not hire probably has a lawsuit against you.
I don't really know what the law says exactly, but I think religiously affiliated parochial schools can use religion narrowly as a factor if they are linked to an organized religion, since I think common sense dictates that Catholic seminaries are allowed to prefer catholics (similar rationale goes to housing). Could still be an issue if it gets to football coaches. Always dangerous territory.
I don't really understand the purpose of the question though. Is there a situation you have in mind? Or is this just a general view of how much we value a football coach's religious preferences?
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on May 13, 2006 14:14:59 GMT -6
kw and everyone makes good points. Try to identify their "studs" and quickly identify where they are against you. This is a common phenomenon, and like someone said, it usually works in your favor.
One trick is to run some very basic things early while you figure out where they line up, or stuff where your rules and assignments aren't going to get so confused, like some 3-step with slide protection, screens, speed option and quick hitting run plays. Then once you get a better idea settle it down.
We always would try to throw a lot of almost random things at the kids so whatever they come up with they have "seen" it some, particularly in pass protection. Most of my specific "gameplanning" work comes at halftime and inbetween series's. We try to get with the QB and OL (That don't go both ways) and really get a handle on where they are and what they are doing. Usually the first and third quarters have been very good to us: the first because we go out and run our base stuff and they aren't as used to it; then they get a bit more settled but in the 3rd we come out up-tempo and have adjustments ready.
It does tend to make a lot of specific scouting somewhat meaningless, which can be frustrating if you felt very prepared going in.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Nov 5, 2007 9:08:20 GMT -6
I stopped watching after 10 minutes, waaaay too many commercials for me to sit through. I DVR'd it and came through at halftime, then just was able to fast forward through the commercials. Great game. The Pats are basically a spread offense team these days. The two teams play like what each other used to play like - Pats are the go-go pass to win team, while the Colts are much more grind it out. Difference between what the Colts did for three quarters and what the Pats have done all year is they constantly pressured Brady into throwing sooner than he wanted and even got a couple of sacks. Really was huge, they got pressure and really messed up timing and at least slowed them down. To the Pats credit though they stuck with the draws and quick screens and the pass rush completely dried up in the 4th quarter. Suddenly then the Pats were back on track and scored the quick TDs. It was the complete opposite for the Colts too in the 4th. First half and 3rd quarter they opened up holes for Addai and more or less gave Manning plenty of time. Fourth quarter Pats front 7 was everywhere, no holes to run and Manning had very little time. I hope these teams meet again. The other thing is that the Pats aren't 100% healthy (Maroney, etc) but the Colts were really lacking firepower. The announcers mentioned they had only two healthy receivers in the second half, not counting Dallas Clark. Wayne didn't play terrible and Clark had that one huge 3rd down catch to set up the TD, but the Colts receivers were really not clutch (Clark had 15 yards receiving, Wayne had the huge drop on the deep ball, the rookie Gonzalez had the drop in the end zone, Morehead had a drop or two and failed to get open, Fletcher ran the wrong route it looked like and didn't come up with a catch or two). Will be an interesting game if the Colts have full firepower. At that point the game would probably be in Foxboro.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jan 2, 2008 13:03:25 GMT -6
Sorry this post is so long with the diagrams. If it's a real pain let me know and I will shorten it or something.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jan 2, 2008 13:02:45 GMT -6
Don't know if this is what you are looking for but it depends on your philosophy and who you move. I have a few called formations and a few where I tell one player (my "A," but an "H" in many peoples' systems) where to go. This way I can line up in lots of formations - 2x2, I, offset I, Ace, trips, trey, etc - while not confusing the other guys. Here's my base "Pro" set.
-X---------T-G-C-G-T-----Y -----------------Q---------------Z ------------------------------- -----------------R
Now below is "Pro-Wing"
-X---------T-G-C-G-T-----Y ---------A-------Q---------------Z ------------------------------- -----------------R
Below is Pro-Near
-X---------T-G-C-G-T------Y -----------------Q-----A---------Z ------------------------------- -----------------R
Below is Pro East
-X---------T-G-C-G-T-----Y -----------------Q---------------Z ---------------------A--------- -----------------R
Now Pro West
-X---------T-G-C-G-T-----Y -----------------Q---------------Z -------------A---------------- -----------------R
Now Pro I (Note this doesn't accurately show backfield spacing but you get the idea)
-X---------T-G-C-G-T-----Y -----------------Q---------------Z -----------------A------------ -----------------R
Now Pro Slot
-X---------T-G-C-G-T-----Y -----A----------Q----------------Z ------------------------------- -----------------R
Now Pro Acer
-X---------T-G-C-G-T-----Y -----------------Q--------------A----Z ------------------------------- -----------------R
Now Pro Wide
-----X---------T-G-C-G-T-----Y -A------------------Q-----------------Z --------------------------------- ---------------------R
And so on. You can do the same thing from say a different set. I call this Twins Tight
-X---------T-G-C-G-T-Y ------Z---------Q--------------- ------------------------------- -----------------R
Twins Tt Near
-X---------T-G-C-G-T-Y ------Z---------Q--------A------ ------------------------------- -----------------R
Twins Tt Wing
-X---------T-G-C-G-T-Y ----Z----A------Q--------------- ------------------------------- -----------------R
Twins Tt Wide
-----X---------T-G-C-G-T-Y -A--------Z---------Q--------------- ------------------------------- ---------------------R
Hope that makes sense. I think it's very multiple and variable. You can do a real easy diagram where you should the different sets for "A." If you don't have an A who can do all of these, you can substitute that player in and out. From there you can have a few simple sets that tell everyone what to do and don't have a call for A: "split" (splitbacks, or the base call from 2-back gun, i.e. Gun split), "Bunch" (basic bunch set right with the bunch 4 yards from the tackle), Gator (Base 5-wide set), etc.
Last, if we go in "Gun" the R back will just align wherever he needs to run the play, i.e. IZ, counter, or his protection responsibility. Like I said, if we are using 2-backs in gun we say "split" which tells R to line up to the QB's right and "A" to line up to his left.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jan 10, 2007 16:17:07 GMT -6
I think Weis is a better offensive mind than Urban Meyer. It was almost sad with the speed mismatch with ND and LSU, the announcers mentioned that Weis was doing things like trying to isolate mismatches on a particular cornerback or run this motion and shift so they could get 6 yards on a counter run, whereas LSU just played man across, blitzed, and then went for the jugular for big plays on offense with better athletes. LSU is well coached but it was almost pitiful the disparity in speed in that game. Meyer's nice and all. But Petrino, Boise's staff, Weis, June Jones, Rodriguez, Leach, Tedford, the USC offense (Sarkisian, old BYU QB), and a few others are more bang for my dollar I think. Though looking at my list it is clear I'm not giving the spread option guys enough credit.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jul 12, 2006 6:50:24 GMT -6
The sled is not perfect, and they are expensive. If you have one though you can cycle through reps quickly, it conditions the relevant muscles, and what I like is even if you can't see all 5 or 7 guys what you can see is whether the sled is being drive back or spinning in a circle--tells you who is moving their feet.
this is a good thread though to evaluate why you do things. If you do it and get exactly what you want out of it, then fine. If you're doing it and not getting what you want, maybe there is something else.
Phantom, what did you find yourself replacing sled time with the most? To me if you're going to do sled and bags then you should be focusing on feet, legs and hips, with some explosion in there. We move to live-bodies when we're ready for hands. Of course I've never been a full-time line coach.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jul 11, 2006 15:08:13 GMT -6
I agree with those, but is it possible to rank them since practice time is short? What do you think we have the most control over as coaches? What do you do to make those happen (or not happen? (I think things like self-confidence and mental errors is a different discussion but definitely musts. I think those are very important too.)
Out of your list I'd put that eliminate interceptions, score in the red zone, and one I'll add, convert third downs, at the top. I may also add to average 5+ yards on first down as a goal.
Although counterintuitive I think fumbling is not something we can really control well (with the exception being if you are a good option team or your QB in the pocket. Otherwise the stats show that good and bad teams both fumble about the same which is rather surprising).
Penalties are similar, and I think it matters more for some penalties than others. False starts, offsides, and personal fouls are all intolerable; holding and others are either evidence of poor technique, a mismatch, or simply excusable in small doses.
Any ideas on how to instill self-confidence? Off-the top of my head is I try to coach swagger in my offense. If they saunter a bit, walk like badasses, etc that's fine. I tell them that the defensive guys can jump around and shout, the offensive guys can walk around with a smirk on their face and fire in their belly as if they know something that the defense doesn't (which they do--where the ball is going!).
Mental mistakes are a constant battle. I'm not sure what the best approach is other than to focus on teaching and making sure everything can be understood. Also, I've found that some guys simply execute better than others and, until I am a better coach, those guys are going to play.
Just some ideas.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jan 1, 2007 10:14:28 GMT -6
A contract doesn't mean they can shoot you if you quit/breach. They usually specify breach terms, which often involves forgoing money or giving some back--usually not a concern when you take a new job or even 'Bama would pay for it. When a school or NFL team fires a coach--thus breaching the contract--they usually owe some kind of guaranteed money or severance. I saw during the East Carolina bowl game they mentioned how East Carolina was paying for 3 different coaches' contracts.
One feature of our law is that you cannot compel a person to perform their services contract, of which a contract to coach is, because the law calls this "involuntary servitude"--which smells too much like slavery for a court to enforce it. So since Miami cant sue Nick Saban to compel him to coach the Dolphins, then it just becomes an issue of money.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Dec 17, 2007 16:00:58 GMT -6
Ha, my favorite is that the Jets score because they can't see their Madden playcall
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Dec 16, 2007 13:45:14 GMT -6
Anyone catch the gun-option stuff by the Jets with Brad Smith at QB? Game still going, has its moments but it doesn't look particularly well practiced. They have a few good plays though.
Phil Simms is on some kind of ridiculous crusade against it though. Trying to convince everyone how terrible it is.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Oct 9, 2006 10:26:25 GMT -6
Sometimes we have to remember that football is a game . . .
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Feb 21, 2007 10:07:29 GMT -6
It quite simply boils down to the fact that a lot of playing experience, major college or especially NFL, is a great asset that can give you an experience, tools, knowledge, and a respect factor other coaches may not have. But coaching is about communicating, teaching, constant learning, and building relationships with other coaches and the players. Nothing in being a great player teaches you to do those things.
The calculus analogy is apt, because being a player is being a student. Many GREAT students (putting talent aside) have their own learning styles, and they can't understand how other people go about learning things, and thus have trouble teaching them.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Dec 13, 2006 11:15:50 GMT -6
I wasn't the greatest student in HS, but I never understood how people get straight up Fs. There is the occasional kid who true troubles, but it's just a disregard for themselves. Further, having seen these kids on the field it is clear many of them are not exactly geniuses, but there's zero reason they should be straight up failing.
It blows my mind too because I've done all of the above as well-study tables etc, and in the short run it seems to work, they actually do some work and stop failing, but I'm always a bit wistful when I see those kids walk out the door because I and the other coaches are/were probably the last people who will push them to succeed in all spheres of life, and a disappointingly small fraction of them learn to push themselves when someone else isn't watching over their shoulder or when football isn't a part of their lives anymore.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Dec 13, 2006 10:17:36 GMT -6
How do you get the basketball players out. Show them a comparison of the number of football players who get college scholarships versus basketball players. Especially factoring in Div-II etc where they can break up their scholarships and put kids on partial scholarship.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jan 2, 2008 9:06:41 GMT -6
Things that UM did that I really, really liked: 1) Pass to set up the run. Ran their signature Wide Zone play a bunch, but largely in good "box situations" and more out of 11 personnel than maybe they had all year. Gave them a chance to run in key spots v. a very active front. I also have a hunch that this is the first time in a long, long time Henne has been truly healthy. 2) Jet. Hadn't done this a bunch, but it probably wasn't hard addition because I would assume they just blocked Wide Zone. Great way to get Manningham extra touches. 3) Double Post in the Red Zone. Hit 3 big ones, twice for TD, once to the 1 YL. This has been a Michigan RZ staple since Fielding Yost...makes it surprising that UF didn't have stronger answers than, say Cover 0 for it in that area... 3b) Creative formation structures for protection answers. TE/Wing empty as a way to get to their favorite 7 man protection (variation of 58-59 Full slide away from TE/FB-Wing)...starting Hart out in Empty to get coverage and pressure declared, then motioning him back into the backfield...strong stuff. 4) 'Levels' concept (a la Indy) in all shapes and sizes. Big conversion down play. 5) Broke known tendencies....best example: Had been a 100% Quick Screen team from 'Diamond'. Threw TE throwback screen away from Diamond for a big chunk that set up one of RB's goalline fumbles. 6) Cadence variation. Got several offsides penalties, but I don't think that was the point. Pass pro was better than it had been all year for them, and I think part of it lie with using those cadence variations to see where the stuff was coming from, and Henne is a master of redirecting/repointing protections. For any HS coach that's been fortunate enough to visit their staff, you have to feel great for a phenomenal group of human beings....from Coach Stripling to Coach Deboard, Coach Moeller and Coach Loeffler, and particularly Coach Carr, they have been a model of going above and beyond to help HS coaches learn the game. Great post! I will say that, from an outside observer, Michigan has always run a pretty sophisticated offense over the last few seasons. They really incorporate a lot of new and good stuff. I didn't get to see all of this game, but I am never impressed with Meyer's passing concepts. I'd need to study film to get into it, but there's something wrong there he needs to get fixed. Now he's got a returning QB - I would think about watching that Michigan tape maybe and borrowing a few ideas. Anyway, I love RR but arguably his passing offense - spread or not - will be less sophisticated than what Michigan has done for the past few years. They were one of the early movers on the "spacing concept" and lots of others. Anyway, again, great post yspace.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Apr 7, 2008 16:08:14 GMT -6
I would really appreciate it if some intrepid soul wanted to fill in this spreadsheet with stats from the site I linked to below: www.cfbstats.com/My spreadsheet is here, which I started www.savefile.com/files/1490376If no one takes me up on this I understand, but I could at least run a regression on this and see what it churns up for talking points and discussion. (It won't be the bible, I assure you.) I took the top 38 teams according to the final BCS rankings and votes, and have assigned them arbitrary points. If we can fill in the stats we can see what stats were more correlated (or negative correlated!) with winning.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Apr 7, 2008 16:05:45 GMT -6
Well I just plugged in these numbers into an excel spreadsheet and ran a regression (the "LINEST" function) and TO margin fared decent insofar as it implied that teams would be ranked higher among these top 10 teams.
If someone had the time to make a spreadsheet with a larger swath of teams (and teams from a wider range, maybe a set of 25-30 teams ranked 1-60 or so) I could come up with something a bit more scientific here in terms of what statistics are really correlated the highest.
I also have done stuff like this before and I think yards per play statistics are very important, particular yards per rush and defensive yards per rush against. (Yards per pass usually does better than pass efficiency, too). Also takeaways by itself tends to do much better than turnover margin. (Interestingly, turnover margin often settles who wins a particular game, but is less correlated with winning over the course of a season or a few seasons - go figure.)
Anyway, if anyone wanted to be intrepid and gather those stats I'd be happy to run the simple regressions in excel and post the spreadsheets. The regression stuff captures much better actual correlations. (Though we might start another war, i.e. explosive plays happen because you're good anyway or you are good because you get explosive plays.)
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Dec 6, 2006 10:20:52 GMT -6
I think the thing is that the 400 page playbook is beneficial for the person who makes it. Further, that coach should probably go back and cut it down to about 250 pages, eliminating redundant things or finding better ways to present the same information. Then you've really got something.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Dec 5, 2006 17:21:42 GMT -6
I agree for the coaches. Stick to one-sheet handouts, if anything, for players.
Norm Chow told a story that he made playbooks on CD (not sure if Powerpoint or what) but the last page said "if you're still reading come see Coach Chow for a free $100." Only one player came to see him--his all-american, 4.0 gpa center.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Aug 22, 2007 8:56:24 GMT -6
like i said in the last post on vick, he will get a slap on the wrist. he will serve very little or no jail time. he will however face finacial fines. average joe would get the max. we have a legal system in this country not a justice system. more money= more justice I would normally agree but Vick's problem is that this is a federal prosecution. A federal US Attorney is not (certainly at this point) going to go light, and the federal judge presiding over this was not so amused. Was this a state prosecution then I might agree. Ironically, the state is actually allowed to prosecute him again for the exact same crime without violating double jeopardy because it is considered a separate sovereign than the federal government. Now that would be wild! To see Vick prosecuted twice for these same crimes. He's lucky he didn't get a wider "RICO" or racketeering charge if this was indeed a large gambling ring.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Apr 26, 2007 10:55:20 GMT -6
IMO you can't say who the "best" player in the draft is. Can JaMarcus Russel catch like Calvin Johnson? Can Adrian Peterson tackle like LaRon Landry? I bet Gaines Adams can't throw that fade route. See what I mean? It's just one of those little things that irks me. I'm inclined to agree, but with the way the draft works, if you are sitting on a pick you have to pick somebody. Very often it will be between this WR, this OT, or this LB. How do you compare? Need yes but often you need to go for the "best player available." The idea of "need" is often ephemeral and guys "reach" for weaker players too often.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jul 5, 2006 13:42:30 GMT -6
"The only stat that matters is wins and losses."- Bill Belichick I agree tvt, no one is saying otherwise. But I do imagine you're not saying discount them? And certainly Belichek isn't saying that, considering the Patriots pay a guy $500k a year or more to research and analyze football stats year round. I think Belichek is just smart enough to say things like that because it's true, but it's also a truism, and the last thing he wants is the rest of the NFL copying him any more than they already do.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jul 5, 2006 13:40:29 GMT -6
It certainly does. I suppose that's just the balance of it though. I've seen a lot more about the explosive plays recently, particularly from teams like Louisville and Boise St and others who openly have said that they try to have at least one or two per quarter and have plays designed to do that and they try to pick the perfect scenario when the % chance of success is the highest and the risk the lowest. I suppose it's all about trying to look for it and pick your spots.
One thing about the spread is it tries to counteract the turnover/forcing a big play concern by putting lots of speed on the field with the theory that more short plays can be "explosive" if there's speed and space. The problem with the spread in this case, at least it seems to me, is that there are not many good true play action passes from spread sets, and all the data implies that play action passes, because they are situational and set up, are completed at a higher rate and result in more big plays than normal drop back passing.
A dropback pass sets up a draw, two plays with only a marginal chance of getting an "explosive" play, whereas a normal run play sets up a play action pass, which, if successful, has a high chance of being an explosive play.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jul 5, 2006 10:58:46 GMT -6
I've posted more narrowly targeted versions of this topic at a couple other boards, but I wanted to get some feedback here on what the big brains here have been doing and maybe some criticism of what I've been thinking. Basically, I think a lot of football common sense is wrong, and even if it's only half or partially right, maybe we can exploit that to win more games. Also, as important as watching film is or even watching practice, we really can only see so much and tend to just remember a few plays or two.
We talk a lot about schemes and systems to "help us win with inferior players," but I wanted to look at a bit at how we grade our offenses and defenses, and how we evaluate those players. In fact, what if they weren't inferior at all, but instead just had skills we didn't appreciate enough or didn't possess skills we overvalued, such as the old "looking like a football player."
Anyway, here's a quck rundown of some of the team stats I tend to focus on, mostly offense to try to evaluate what I'm doing right or not. As I said in another thread, I'm not looking for a magic number or even a "killer stat" in general--those are for gamblers trying to beat the spread--but instead things to help me better understand the game and appreciate it objectively. I'm not looking for a magic bullet. I think this is what a lot of gameplanning is all about. Also, I'm not an NFL team and I don't have a director of research or anything, so I still try to keep it fairly simple.
The stat with the strongest correlation to wins and losses is, unsurprisingly, point differential. So, no surprise, my goal on offense is to score points and on defense to get shutouts. Nothing shocking there. A "field position" team and a "wide-open" team tend to try to achieve them in different ways. One way of course is to just keep scoring at a rate your opponent cannot keep up with, the other is to prevent them from scoring hardly at all so any scoring you do should be the difference in the game. To some extent I think you pick one or the other or try to be a blend of both, and just go from there.
To start, I think time of possession is fairly meaningless. I *do* believe in protecting leads: If we get up by 7-10 points or more, you can believe we are going to try to shorten the game and run more time off the clock. This really though is an effort to reduce the number of plays in the game, any TOP differential is usually derivative of the number of plays run and further can be misleading if you scored on the first play of your first two drives and then on special teams and then, even if you spent the rest of the game trying to run the clock down you may get a TOP no more than even.
All that said here we go:
1. Turnovers per play - This is just a way to see how often we force turnovers. My games tend to have more plays than the other guy so the number of turnovers per game can be misleading. I'll also look at turnover differential, as that is the number one stat that goes with winning and losing.
As a digression, some studies have shown that interceptions count more against you than fumbles, but for the most part a turnover kills you because possessing the ball on a certain part of the field carries with it a certain "expected scoring value"--i.e. with the ball 1st and 10 on their 20, I expect to score a TD a certain amount of time, or a field goal another amount of time, and thus simply having the ball there is worth say 4.5 points to me. Then, if I turn it over on the next play and they run it back to the 50, they now have say an expected value of 2.8 points, which is a point swing of more than a touchdown on one play. That hurts a lot.
2. Redzone Percentage: I break this down in 25 yardline, 15 yardline, and 5 yardline (and have other numbers going farther out). Typically the winning teams are very good at getting touchdowns, while losing teams do not. Total yards tends to get washed out and doesn't correlate well with winning and losing, but this does. No secrets here.
3. Yards per rush: My favorite rushing stat. As I said in the rushing thread, I tend to focus this number on 1st and 2nd down rushes (and I will get more down and situation specific as well), but I want to know how many yards I expect to get from my team and certain plays. I ignore third downs because I don't want 7 yard runs on 3rd and 9 inflating my run stats.
4. Yards Per Pass Attempt: My number one passing stat behind interceptions. This is so important. The key to this stat is that it is a function of yards per completion and completion %, along with losses from sacks. So the more you get per completion the less your passing % needs to be. This is true also of your individual plays. Stick is a great play because it routinely completes over 70% for me, but it does not average a lot of yards. A play that only completes about 50% needs to get more yards, either through consistency or big play potential. I usually with also use the Sharpe ratio at the end to judge how widely some of my passes vary to see which are the consistent gainers (like stick) or that have results that vary (like post-corners where sometimes we get the 25-30 yard gain or sometimes we drop it off to the RB).
The key to this stat is you can compare it to yards per carry to see what your balance is doing to you. Also, because other teams respond to you, the more you pass, the more your yards per rushing attempt should go up, and the more you run, the more your yards per passing attempt should go up. The goal is to find the "balance", which simply means what combination will let your offense be the most effective. Whether you are 80/20 run pass or 20/80 probably depends more on your kids and what you teach and work on in practice.
Nevertheless, this stat is important to me because it makes sure that I'm moving the chains. As you'll see from the others, I'm really big on "efficiency" on offense, as my goal is to always get positive yardage, get first downs, but have the chance to score a TD at any time.
5. Third Down %/Average yards per third down: No shocker here either, but teams good on third down win more. However, all strategy aside, the best way to determine how good you are on 3rd down is to have manageable third downs. This means getting positive yardage on 1st and 2nd.
6. % of total plays that are 3rd downs: This is another effiency stat. One thing I realized is that teams that score points and win games aren't the ones with the most 1st downs, but the ones who get those first downs on 1st and 2nd down. The game totally shifts to the defense on 3rd down. Your options are limited, you have t react to them, often you simply have to make a call to not put them in great field position, but on 1st and 2nd down the world is yours and good teams get first downs on 1st and 2nd. The higher the percentage of your plays that are 1st downs the better you'll be.
7. Explosive plays: I want to generate them, as a simple 20 yard gain can often be a 3-5 point swing in terms of your expected points based on field position. Runs over 12 and passes over 20. That is most important to me.
Anyway, I can also post on how I rate individual players but along similar lines. It's hard to really objectively judge them since there's so much going on and a RB on one team can't really compared to a RB on the other, and sometimes even on your own squad. Looking for discussion
|
|