|
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 5, 2021 11:16:58 GMT -6
The 31-0 start and then got going had me puzzled also. Did the other team pull their dudes, and y'all just got going against their scrubs? Or was it same kids vs same kids and made a legitimate comeback where winning was an actual possibilty? We do grade players. When I say slow start, it is almost like they are going through the motions. The 31-0 game, we couldn't move the ball on offense due to lack of execution and defense was not aggressive at all. They did put scrubs in for 1 series but our execution and therefore our intensity picked up. We also had a game in which we were losing 25-6 with 6 minutes to play in the game and won 28-25. We were very young (mostly 9/10 graders) with only 9 seniors. All of our games were very similar. Even teams we handled were games that were slow starts and close at halftime and then we would play differently in the second half. So- what are their grades early on ? Are their grades better late in the game?
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 5, 2021 8:23:57 GMT -6
I would like to introduce a more analytical point of view. When you say "start slow" what exactly do you mean? It is one thing to start slow. Being down 31-0 doesn't qualify in my book as a slow start though.
Break it down. Do you grade players and evaluate film? If so, how are those grades in the beginning of the game vs other parts? When you say they are "starting slow" are they playing with poor fundamentals, high pad level, no hustle, bad technique, committing mental errors in the beginning but then later on you see good fundamentals, low pad level, high hustle grades, good technique grades and no mental errors?
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 4, 2021 21:17:26 GMT -6
But it isn't a play just like every other. It is a singular untimed play in which the offense even gets to choose aspects of where the ball is spotted that was created because the offense scored. other than the untimed down.... the rest is just semantics of the game I would suggest that in this case, those distinguishing factors ARE important. A "try for point" only occurs when the offense scores. It is treated differently than a normal play from scrimmage in several ways. It is NOT "every other play". Just never thought given those details that the Defense should be allowed to score.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 4, 2021 20:56:14 GMT -6
With regards to 13, I disagree. I have never thought the D should be able to benefit on a play created because they had just given up a score. I have always thought the idea of an extra point made sense when you look at it like this : If you drive the ball down a certain distance, and then kick it the rest of the distance through the goal post it is worth 3 points. But if you drive the ball ALL THE WAY, you get double the points, PLUS the opportunity for an extra point or two. Never thought the defense should be able to score on that play. it just makes the chance for points the same for any play just like every other..... except for KO and I'd be in favor of allowing the KO team a chance to advance the ball I'm all for making each play and each infraction being balanced between the OFF and the DEG But it isn't a play just like every other. It is a singular untimed play in which the offense even gets to choose aspects of where the ball is spotted that was created because the offense scored.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 4, 2021 20:15:33 GMT -6
8) By kickers, I mean the entire kicking team. Same for returners. The entire return team. You get a kick blocked, no way you should be able to pick that up and then get a first down. You kicked the ball and lost possession in my opinion. I would actually clean up that rule even more. Did you realize that you can kick a -5 yard punt and go pick it up and run it for a first down? Just a bad rule. In my opinion, once you kick it, you have lost possession and the only team that can benefit is the return team. Of course if the return team muffs it, you should be able to recover. Which reminds me of some more rules. 11) Offense can't advance a fumble. If you fumble, the best you can do is recover it. If you fumble, forward and recover or goes out of bounds, it should go back to the spot of the fumble. You should not gain an advantage by messing up - fumbling or getting a kick blocked. I would make an exception for non-contact fumble. Especially the qb dropping a snap or the rb dropping a handoff where the defense wasn't responsible. I guess the best way to describe it would be like catching a kick. Call a dropped a snap or handoff a "muff". Offense can advance a muff. This probably needs to be cleaned up. 12) Change the fumble out of the endzone from a touchback to the offense getting the ball on the 20 (instead of the defense). If it was 4th down, then the defense gets the ball on the 20. I just don't like the fact that if you have the ball on the 5 yard line going in and you fumble to the 1 inch yard line, the offense gets the ball on the 1 inch. But if they fumble and it goes 1 inch in the endzone and out of bounds, the DEFENSE gets it on the 20. Think of that difference, not only 20 yards, but also change of possession just based on a pylon and how the ball bounces. 13) I am actually not crazy about extra points. If you really think about it, those are weird. Not weird because we all grew up with it. TD's 7 points. I am iffy about this one. * & 11 -I guess i get where you're going with the 'mishandle ball' .... IE keep it consistent. 12- what keeps the OFF from just 'fumbing' the ball through the endzone to get a new set of downs and another try from the 20? 13- what's wrong with a 'kick try'?? I'm all for allowing the 'try for point' to be advanced by the defense for a score. I'm kind of up in the air for whether that should be 2 or 6 for the defense..... I could go either way. With regards to 13, I disagree. I have never thought the D should be able to benefit on a play created because they had just given up a score. I have always thought the idea of an extra point made sense when you look at it like this : If you drive the ball down a certain distance, and then kick it the rest of the distance through the goal post it is worth 3 points. But if you drive the ball ALL THE WAY, you get double the points, PLUS the opportunity for an extra point or two. Never thought the defense should be able to score on that play.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 3, 2021 18:42:21 GMT -6
You must not have to travel far to away games LOL. Ugh.. 15 minute quarters on the road in the chuck and duck/spread and shread age....
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 3, 2021 15:54:16 GMT -6
I will be honest here- I think that may be just your experience. I think off-season work is creating a gap. The "have" teams look like studs and are playing at a higher level than years ago. The have nots are ...worse. I'm not associated with a program now, so I get to see a lot of different teams around the area. As a whole, they're smaller and sloppier than they were 5-10 years ago. My 15 year old daughter currently squats more than about half the starters on her HS' football team. And they're 2-1 right now and will probably go 4-2. I wouldn't necessarily call that a "have" team. As was discovered in the compensation thread, things vary widely.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 3, 2021 15:27:28 GMT -6
I would make off-season programs illegal. Judging by the quality of play I've seen the past couple years, and the physique of the players, they're not accomplishing anything anyway. I will be honest here- I think that may be just your experience. I think off-season work is creating a gap. The "have" teams look like studs and are playing at a higher level than years ago. The have nots are ...worse.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 3, 2021 13:28:49 GMT -6
1 yard downfield instead of 3 for pass plays for OL.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 31, 2021 20:12:24 GMT -6
You only have part of the variables in play. You also need to know how much of the game is remaining. Also, pending what you are using it for, possession & timeouts Dude just answer a general question without turning it into a theoretical debate. There are no absolutes in football....we get it I have to say I understand what carookie was saying though. Without additional parameters, you get replies like chi5hi 's. I would say that he can't be interpreting the question the same way as others if he says that a 9 point lead is "comfortable"
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 16, 2021 17:02:08 GMT -6
Day 1. I make a suggestion about teaching terms, labeling techniques. I get ripped a new, told we ain’t changing, this how we do it, this is is the system, get usual name calls, cussed out, about die in the process. Day 2. I suggest rip Liz. I am not a defensive guy. Cussed out again, dirty, told to keep my f-in mouth shut, ripped his resume up and down a-hole. He, we ain’t changing. Get on board or get out. Day three. Hc use to work for saban, marveling at how does this does that, how he has adapted.... how he continue to evolve... “hmmm” slips from my mouth... dead silence in the room.... “imagine that...” HC and o-line leave the room. You probably won't take this as constructive criticism, but if you communicate in person anything like you do here, you should take note of the number of times that someone here has commented on how incoherent and nonsensical one of your posts are. Constantly missing key words and phrases. Often provocative and trying to make it seem like you are the only one in on the joke. If that is how you communicate face to face, it isn't too hard to picture the events you describe.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 16, 2021 16:49:15 GMT -6
In college, we had a "strong" side and a "quick" side. The ST and SG would always line up on the right side and the QT and QG would always line up on the left side unless the formation was called "left". In that case, ST and SG lined up on the left side and QT and QG lined up on the right side. What was unique about the system is that the playcalling terminology followed the players. So, even-numbered holes were always to the strong side and odd numbered holes were always to the quick side, regardless of whether they lined up on the right or left side. Example: our off-tackle play to the strong side was called "24". 2 back through the 4 hole. We usually ran it to the right. But if the formation was called "Left 24" in the huddle,ST and SG would line up on the left side and the play would be run to the left. It was initially confusing because virtually all high school players equate odd numbered holes to the left and even numbered holes to the right, but eventually it made a lot of sense. Very similar here in HS. Deleware wing T plays (but not terminology). Numbered Players. Base had 2,4,6 (G,T,TE) on the Right and 3&5 (G and T) on left. When the formation call had an "over" then the 2,4,and 6 (G,T,TE) were on the left etc. To answer the OPs question, I don't know if having pre set FIELD/BOUNDARY based players or alignments on offense provides any real plusses.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 13, 2021 8:21:55 GMT -6
Jail? What laws that carry an incarceration penalty were broken? Embezzlement? No clue. But just from general awareness, I would be surprised if taking money intended for one thing, and using it to pay for housing for a player receives jail time. Now, if he was personally enriching himself to the tune of whatever limits the statue require for jailing, that would be different. That said, I would be all for jailing him. Seems like a creep. So were the people who crashed the financial world in 2008--I don't think more than 2 or 3 involved received any jail time.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 13, 2021 7:49:24 GMT -6
I take back what I said. This guy is wanting to willingly break the rules and looking for ways to not get caught. It is understandable that sometimes there is accounting mishaps in fundraising, having a small slush fund of a couple hundred bucks for breakfast tacos and water. But getting burn phones and paying for housing is another level. But unless he goes to jail, he will get hired again, somewhere. Jail? What laws that carry an incarceration penalty were broken?
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 9, 2021 6:48:57 GMT -6
{cough cough} Kansas {cough cough} Yeah I posted it!!!! He can’t do much worse. The think mark mangino might work against him though- having a spectacular season running “the spread” just a little over a decade ago. People making hiring decisions get fooled by stuff like that
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 7, 2021 18:35:43 GMT -6
Yes, which is why I don't believe there is much to be gained from monitoring/reporting on things that show up on the stat page. I think time would be better spent monitoring and reporting on things that create the stats in the stats page. Isn’t the game of football all about situations? Isn’t it about being successful in those situations? How do you track the successes in your program? By wins and losses. (Truly by other things that aren't necessarily field related, but for the purposes here, wins and losses). I don't believe in games within a game. I believe in tracking the things that are part of the process of the performance, not a secondary outcome. Is a big time stop on 3rd/4th and 1 achieved because the DL have been drilled to get off the ball and maintain pad level and that those things are emphasized as evidenced by weekly reports on THAT or is it achieved because a coach tells kids "hey, if we get 4th down stops it helps us win?" We both know the answer to that one. So the secondary question comes up "Are the kids more likely to get off the ball and maintain pad level because THAT is what you track and harp on daily in practice in both regular drills and short yardage situations and in games OR are they more likely to get off the ball and maintain pad level because you tell kids "we need to get 6 to win" or do schedule short yardage periods in practice? Those are all outcomes. You have to do SOMETHING to get first downs, or keep the opponent from getting first downs. Doesn't it make more sense to monitor, report, and emphasize THAT? LSU was 4/12 on 3rd down this year against Vanderbilt. Beat them by 34 points. They were 5/15 against Bama. Lost 55-17. They were 8/18 against Florida and had their best win of the season. Did something change and the coaches suddenly realized they needed to be better on 3rd down? Did the players suddenly try more on 3rd down? Or did the players performance change, and they started to do the little things they needed to correctly? So is it your position that when two teams are equally talented, that one team will have more success because their team talks about "getting 6" or "getting 5" or "creating 4 explosives" or "holding them to less than 30% on 3rd down" or "getting 4+ on P and 10" than a team whose team talks about and tracks player actions such as procedure penalties, pad level, get off, hustle grade, second man strip, opponents fooled by fakes etc? I would suggest that the OP is asking about stats, and as I said I don't believe much can be gained by chasing the ghosts of secondary outcomes. People grade players SPECIFICALLY for the reason I have said all along. Because the PROCESS matters and improving the process is what generates the desired outcome (win game) and will most likely also generate those secondary outcome results as well (5 yards on P&10, converting 55% 3rd downs, 4+ explosive plays". Process creates outcome. Secondary outcomes are a result of the process, just as the primary outcome is. Put another way, you don't lose because the stat sheet says your 3rd/4th down conversion rate was 25% and the opponents was 60%. You don't lose because the stat sheet says you were -2 in the turnover battle. You lose because : your OT was lazy in his approach to the line, was not on the LOS, resulting in a procedure penalty and a 3rd and long that you failed to convert. Your DT got driven back on one of the 7 plays he popped up on, allowing the opponent to walk in the endzone on a 4th down Your RB fumbled because on one of the 3 plays he didn't keep it high and tight, it got poked out. Your Defense did not put pressure on the opponents ball security because the second person in was not attempting to strip? Your Defense gave up a 3rd and 2 because they were not aligned properly and the opponent executed a silent sneak? Right?
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 7, 2021 12:47:20 GMT -6
That is where I differ. Stats such as these are simply outcomes just like the scoreboard. They are outcomes of individual plays, or a small sample of plays, as opposed to the outcome of the entire collection of plays (scoreboard). But they are still outcomes. Tracking things such as the % of 2nd tackler in strip attempts, % of plays with good pad level, % of plays with high levels of pursuit, % of plays with no procedure penalties etc. seems to be more beneficial as it is monitoring and reporting on the process and things that can be controlled strictly by your team. Imo its easier to sell "Get 6" to your team rather than saying "our percentage of 2nd tackler strip attempts is too low". Not saying as a coach you shouldn't research that, just that how exactly do you sell that to your team in an energetic way? Think the turnover chain frenzy that's sweeping college football. It's easy to focus on, easy to encourage, etc in game. Percentages are for practice But saying "get six" doesn't do anything. Monitoring and reporting on 2nd tackler strip attempts is tangle. It is something you and your team can 100% control. You can't coach your opponent to drop the ball (the key component to a fumble). I can harp on, practice, monitor and report on how many times my team is doing what I coach them though. Need a catch slogan? "Second man strip". Yell that out all the time in practice. "Get to the football, second man strip". There boom.. 9 syllables that can be echoed easily in an energetic way that actually tie into things YOU control.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 7, 2021 10:47:27 GMT -6
I see these things as a pathway to a desired result, the scoreboard is the result. Not how to get there. That is where I differ. Stats such as these are simply outcomes just like the scoreboard. They are outcomes of individual plays, or a small sample of plays, as opposed to the outcome of the entire collection of plays (scoreboard). But they are still outcomes. Tracking things such as the % of 2nd tackler in strip attempts, % of plays with good pad level, % of plays with high levels of pursuit, % of plays with no procedure penalties etc. seems to be more beneficial as it is monitoring and reporting on the process and things that can be controlled strictly by your team.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 7, 2021 9:05:22 GMT -6
Honestly, I can and do see the usefulness of presenting such things to a group of 15/16 year old kids to make the overall desire (winning) seem more attainable. Especially if that group has had little success in the past. And I can even see some validity in at least using some of the info to evaluate certain aspects of coaching habits. Maybe looking at something like the "explosives" will help someone feel a bit more comfortable not being 100% inside zone/power when it is 2nd and 3. So I don't think topics like this are counter productive or wrong. I just don't see much value in monitoring and reporting on these things because they are still outcome based and we already have an outcome based measure to evaluate the team-the scoreboard.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 6, 2021 19:08:42 GMT -6
coachdawhip While true, I think info like that is cart before horse type of things. Teams that are winning games are playing better. Playing better means making explosive plays and not turn the ball over. I think coaches, especially HS would do better to monitor things that impact the play as opposed to focus on outcomes. I disagree.
Analytics are Analytics... I think knowing what to chase is better than just chasing ghosts.
We spend time on P&10, because I have 7 years of data that proves my team scores more when we get 4 plus on 1st down. SO we emphasize it in gameplanning and practice.
We spend more time working explosive plays for the week, even if on air because sometimes you DO have to manufacture them.
We stress takeaways more on defense, through what we do at practice just as much as turnover circuits.
We practice redzone extended times because we have to score when we get there.
We have talked about and may do more things to prep the middle 8.
Too many coaches say well that's just college stuff
and do Indy group 7on7 / ISR Team
and fail to be successful at critical time.. Football is simple rep the base stuff to sleep and prepare for crunch time (but understanding what is crunch time matters)
So you only call the good plays to start possessions, and call the crappy ones on other first downs? If you know which plays will gain more yards (explosives), why bother ever calling the ones that wont? Sure, I am just playfully giving some grief here, but I think my point of view still holds true. The things you mention are still results and not processes. I am not sure I subscribe to the fact that having these type of things prevent HS athletes from having a mental lapse on a play, or prevent them from taking plays off, but I would say that I could see why that would be a valid opinion. Can you explain a bit how monitoring and reporting success on P&10, or 3rd downs etc has changed how the athletes performed? I would think actually monitoring and reporting on what the athletes are doing, as opposed to the results of those actions, would lead to increased success. As I said earlier, if a coach says "well, it wasn't until I saw a stat that the team had to win 3rd down "x" percent of the time to have the best chance at winning that I started to evaluate what we did on 3rd down" or "It wasn't until I saw a stat that if we have more breakaway plays we have a better chance of winning" I don't really know how to respond to that.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 6, 2021 16:56:01 GMT -6
coachdawhipWhile true, I think info like that is cart before horse type of things. Teams that are winning games are playing better. Playing better means making explosive plays and not turn the ball over. I think coaches, especially HS would do better to monitor things that impact the play as opposed to focus on outcomes.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 6, 2021 11:08:15 GMT -6
True. But don’t all of the stats do that to an extent? I guess there’s only maybe three then. 1. Win the turnover battle. 2. No penalties. 3. No negative yardage offensive plays. Everything on offense is going to relate to scoring points. Everything in defense will relate to not giving up points. “Explosives” just mean you’re more likely to score/give up a score. Same thing with completions, etc. etc. Yes, which is why I don't believe there is much to be gained from monitoring/reporting on things that show up on the stat page. I think time would be better spent monitoring and reporting on things that create the stats in the stats page.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 6, 2021 10:37:26 GMT -6
Search the article by Tony Demeo - 4 stats that matter. He has been on podcasts and talked about it too. I’ve never seen anything else backed by as much evidence and be as simple. (Many goals go way too in depth). In my opinion anything that is important or to be remembered should be in the 1-5 range or it isn’t simple enough and won’t be remembered. Obviously each of these goals depend on a lot of other things (which he explains) but in general the GOALS to remember are these; 1. Score 25 points offensively. Develop an offense that can score 25 versus the best on your schedule. (Keep things simple, hitch and a pitch, have answers). 2. Hold the opponent to 16 or less. (Best 11 play defense, run to the ball, defensive backs with hands). 3. Be plus 2 in the turnover margin. (Obviously don’t give up any on offense and make it a priority on defense). 4. Score a non offensive touchdown. I agree the simplistic aspect, but regarding Coach Demeo's stuff here, I would say is just lecture/podcast fluff. Essentially, isn't he just restating the overall objectives of football. #s 1 and 2 are just putting a number on the base objective of the game. Score points, keep opponent from scoring. I don't know how putting numbers to that or tracking that actually changes your ability to do the things to achieve those objectives.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 5, 2021 11:18:09 GMT -6
Thanks for the input, fellas. I am trying to find a balance between winning and opponent strength-of-schedule that could entice teams to play a more competitive schedule. The way it stands, with no adjustments, there is very little inter-class play because: 1) A large school can't afford to lose points for playing and even beating a smaller division school (beating a 0-10 AAA team is worth the same as beating a 9-1 AA team currently) 2) The smaller division schools don't want to play larger division schools as beating a 0-10 AA school is worth more than losing to a 10-0 AAA school It FUBAR'd for sure The think the hardest thing to do mathematically is negotiate that fine line for strength of schedule. The inverse of the situation you describe here is getting “bonus points” for playing a horrible team that happens to be larger. Louisiana’s system lets a solid small school earn up to 8 points (The equivalent of beating an eight win team) just because of size differential. I think that is a little too much.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 5, 2021 7:04:40 GMT -6
One of the best ones's I've every heard was - Always end a drive with a kick. Hahah. Haven’t heard from him in a while, and although I do not like his online persona or his actions on this board I do hope service everything is OK with him. Ol’ aceback did not like it when I brought up the point that I can absolutely fulfill that goal and never make a first down the entire season
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 5, 2021 5:16:12 GMT -6
Yes I did, I guess my point (which I apparently explained poorly) was that rather than looking for metrics or numbers from the stats page look for measurable items from performance based tasked. For example, : team effort or pursuit grade on defense. How many times did you get "X" number of players to the football before the camera cuts (or within 2 seconds of the whistle or whatever you do to evaluate pursuit) What percentage of plays did the players carry out their fakes so well that a defender took himself out of position? How many times did the second tackler in make a legitimate attempt to strip the ball? you could probably set up a goal for procedure penalties. Off season attendance. Things like that. I think when you start to talk about other things that I am sure will be mentioned in this thread it really is more of an outcome based number. Things like "x" number of yards or explosive plays, or completion percentage (given up or achieved) etc. all become heavily dependent on the opponent don't they? I feel they are simply secondary scoreboards somewhat. Look at a game in which you win 35-3. I bet you will find that you most of the "stat line" stuff you come up with will simply mirror the score. If you are a running team, you will have big rushing yards. Passing team big passing yards. Probably several explosive plays. Probably stopped the run and didnt give up explosive plays etc. i don't know how having such things as a goal really influence anything. The same with other metrics such as the ones being mentioned on this thread. I see 3rd down efficiency mentioned a lot in threads like this. But what does that actually mean? How can "wanting to succeed on 3rd down" actually impact things that are ACTUALLY OCCURING on the field? --"Darn It Johnny. We are trying to achieve ____% 3rd down efficiency. Why did you go and get pancaked by that LSU signee and let them run for 35 yards. Now our 3rd down numbers are bad, AND we gave up an explosive play" I just have never seen much value in such secondary outcome reports. There is a scoreboard already. To say the stats reflect the 35-3 score, isn’t it quite the opposite? Isn’t it because you had all that success in those situations that you won 35-3? To me football is about winning situations. Not total rushing or passing yards etc. To answer how does wanting to be successful on 3rd down actually impact things that are actually happening in that moment on the field? We wanted to also be better on 3rd and pass so we started to get into 5-0-5 near fronts and run way more sim pressures and creepers. Since starting those we have been more efficient on 3rd and pass. Quite some time ago we gave up a first down 80% of the time on 3rd and 1/2. That number impacted how we played base downs. Of course we needed to be better in that situation, but we also needed to be in that situation less overall. I guess my point is; the goal or data you’re looking at is more so influencing your philosophy on how you’re going to play that situation. Which leads to how you practice and ultimately the play on the field. . If looking at numbers like that has in your opinion helped you play better, that is all one can ask for, but I will be honest: If trying to achieve a certain mathematical level of 3rd down success was the driving force behind coaching decisions- I don’t really know how to respond to that. What was the driving force prior? Self reflection is good though and so is improvement. My point was that the actions that lead to a 35-3 score are going to lead to 3rd % and “winning” 1st down etc. As cqmiller points out, in HS, most often those actions will most likely be impacted by being bigger,stronger,faster than the opponent. I dont think it is accurate to believe you win a game 35-3 because you had situational successes. You win the game by performing the actions that caused the situational success. THOSE are the metrics you should monitor
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 4, 2021 17:47:18 GMT -6
I would argue that NO stats,numbers or metrics influence winning. The fundamentals, strength/conditioning, and drills that allow for things such as better pad level, the ability to create linear force as well as torque, better pad level, situational awareness as well as just overall strength/speed/explosiveness lead to and influence winning. While this may seem like a snarky response, I don't believe it is. The key is to actually influence the performance on the field, not the numbers on the stat sheet. Find the things that impact THAT. People love to point out "turnovers" and then talk about "turnover circuits" I have always looked at that with some skepticism. Look at the top NCAA turnover stats. Every year it has different teams. Do those teams quit doing the circuits they lectured about at their clinic the previous year? I don't find your response snarky. I actually like your insight on this board. But, I think you knew the spirit in which I was asking the question. Yes I did, I guess my point (which I apparently explained poorly) was that rather than looking for metrics or numbers from the stats page look for measurable items from performance based tasked. For example, : team effort or pursuit grade on defense. How many times did you get "X" number of players to the football before the camera cuts (or within 2 seconds of the whistle or whatever you do to evaluate pursuit) What percentage of plays did the players carry out their fakes so well that a defender took himself out of position? How many times did the second tackler in make a legitimate attempt to strip the ball? you could probably set up a goal for procedure penalties. Off season attendance. Things like that. I think when you start to talk about other things that I am sure will be mentioned in this thread it really is more of an outcome based number. Things like "x" number of yards or explosive plays, or completion percentage (given up or achieved) etc. all become heavily dependent on the opponent don't they? I feel they are simply secondary scoreboards somewhat. Look at a game in which you win 35-3. I bet you will find that you most of the "stat line" stuff you come up with will simply mirror the score. If you are a running team, you will have big rushing yards. Passing team big passing yards. Probably several explosive plays. Probably stopped the run and didnt give up explosive plays etc. i don't know how having such things as a goal really influence anything. The same with other metrics such as the ones being mentioned on this thread. I see 3rd down efficiency mentioned a lot in threads like this. But what does that actually mean? How can "wanting to succeed on 3rd down" actually impact things that are ACTUALLY OCCURING on the field? --"Darn It Johnny. We are trying to achieve ____% 3rd down efficiency. Why did you go and get pancaked by that LSU signee and let them run for 35 yards. Now our 3rd down numbers are bad, AND we gave up an explosive play" I just have never seen much value in such secondary outcome reports. There is a scoreboard already.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 4, 2021 11:08:08 GMT -6
During this offseason, I have been doing some self scout for our defense (I'm a varsity DC). I am a huge believer in goal setting. I want our goals to be specific and measurable. Also, I don't want to just spit out some things that might "sound good". I've looked at 3rd down efficiency, turnovers, penalties, etc. So my question is this: In your experience, What are some of the stats, numbers, metrics, etc. that have largely impacted the outcome of your games? It could be defense, offense, or things that apply to the whole team. I would argue that NO stats,numbers or metrics influence winning. The fundamentals, strength/conditioning, and drills that allow for things such as better pad level, the ability to create linear force as well as torque, better pad level, situational awareness as well as just overall strength/speed/explosiveness lead to and influence winning. While this may seem like a snarky response, I don't believe it is. The key is to actually influence the performance on the field, not the numbers on the stat sheet. Find the things that impact THAT. People love to point out "turnovers" and then talk about "turnover circuits" I have always looked at that with some skepticism. Look at the top NCAA turnover stats. Every year it has different teams. Do those teams quit doing the circuits they lectured about at their clinic the previous year?
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 3, 2021 17:12:27 GMT -6
stupid question.... Is everyone talking about the same type of points system? The one I mentioned was strickly for season by season playoff qualification and seeding.... not for reclassfication. I think most are. I only saw one post about a promotion/demotion classification point system. The rest are about playoffs
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 28, 2021 19:34:35 GMT -6
To me the whole conference thing is a wash... average team will be .500 in league. Your overall league record is the same as everyone elses... for both categories. Basically your entire seeding boils down to your 3 or 4 non-league games. I would likely agree. My previous post was just showing that the suggestion that the opponents of patsy would likely have better records and therefore having that patsy on the schedule would result in a higher score for that 20% category may not be a good thought process.
|
|