Analysis of your own game film

Do you have hudl? If your data is tagged run the scouting reports. You'll learn your tendencies in all situations, plays and formations you called the most or least. I could go on and on.

If you're talking about analyzing or grading players, theres some point systems out there on the Web or I'm sure someone on here will share theirs.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

I run Hudl reports on us. I also tag a play as efficient or not. Efficient means it gained 4 yards, scored, or converted a first down. Sometimes average per carry can be deceiving. But efficiency has to do with consistency.

Another thing I do in the off season is run those scouting reports in three batches:
All games
Wins
Losses

Then I can compare what the differences are. A lot of this we know intuitively but it's good to see the data too.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

In regards to what you do (play calling and tendencies of that sort), or how your players did (knowing what to do and executing it)?

Either or. I run our efficiency by the year.

First thing to do is put in your playcalls, otherwise you have no context.

Then make sure the games are prescouted. That means down and distance, field position, etc.

Next thing is to break up those playcalls by segment. So if you're a defensive guy it's probably front-blitz-cover. Offense is probably something like shift-formation-motion-line call-line dir-tag-pass concept-tag. A split field D will want to split the coverage calls. The more you can split it up the better. This is also a good place to spot playcalls that didn't really fit the flow of your offensive structure and see how you can make them more logical.

In terms of efficiency, first look at all the big plays, all the disasters, then all the most common plays. See what can be gleaned from there. WRITE STUFF DOWN. Your brain sucks, it's full of type I errors, and you need to hypothesis-test everything you do.

I have some more developed ways of determining play efficiency and success, but the methods above are reasonable approximations. That's good information to put in.

Now run reports on everything. Look at efficiency ratings, average gain, by D/D, opponent, formation, motion, every combination. Most of it will be junk. Or tell you stuff you already know, but once in a while you'll see something odd. Hudl makes it easy to pull up a cutup and investigate. Some of these will be spurious, but there will be that occasional nugget of gold. For us this year it was: 22 is far more effective for us than 31. Why? Our OL, despite their insistence, is more comfortable with a standard box structure, and in trips teams will use a run-heavy adjustment, whereas in 22 they tend to roll with their base because there aren't any really good run-stopping adjustments.

If you can, try to get a feel for practice time vs game day pay off. How much time did you spend working Spider 2 Y Banana and how many times did you call it? Was it practice efficient?

I already know that I wasn't very practice efficient with regards to our sprint out/screen game from the summer. We worked it a bunch and barely ran any of it in game.

Just plug the same information into a spreadsheet and then organize it like that-its pretty much the same thing

Totes. I definitely have room to grow in this capacity but I know it's a place I'm improving in because I definitely think it's super important.

In regards to analyzing your film from a previous year based on play success, I would be wary of taking the raw data at face value without contextualizing. Allow me to explain:

A couple years back the HC asked me to breakdown the previous year's film to see what plays worked best and what did not (this was from a defensive perspective). I told him, "I already know what the answer is going to be; the plays we ran against Poly, Central, and Washington would be our most successful (weakest opponents). While the ones against North and Canyon would tend to be our worst (strongest opponents)."

One thing we have to keep in mind is that the relative talent level in HS football is not homogeneous (when compared to the upper levels where we hear a lot about analysis). The worst NFL team could beat the best NFL team 1 in 10 times, and hang with them for most of the others. The best team we played could easily beat the worst team we played 50 times out of 50 (and win many of those by triple digits if they so desired). The point is you need to contextualize for opposition when looking merely at play calls vs success rate.

In addition, you need to contextualize for situation. I could tell you right away which ones of our plays yielded the least yards per play: Under Saw 0, Over Hammer 0, under Shunk 0. Why? Because we only ran them in goal line and short yardage situations. At most the opponent was going to gain 1-2 yards (but then again they'd only gain 1-2 yards if we werent on the field in a goal line play anyways). I bet a lot of running back and slip screens will come up as being successful yards/play; we run them on 3rd and long all the time. But if the defense is giving 12 yards on 3rd and 15 how successful was the play really. To this 2nd point, there was a formula I saw out there once that measured pct of yards needed for the first and took into account the down.

When I analyze game film I look at our players foremost (grade them out every week), they either get a '+' or '-' each play kinda based off the old SATA thing. If they correctly perform each of the following they earn the plus, if not the minus:
1) were aligned properly and in a correct stance
2) are their eyes right, keying the correct thing, and responding as the play is designed
3) did they utilize the correct technique with a quality effort
Do it every week, and give the players a copy with notes. This helps them see where they need to improve as well as me. Also, every week we enter our play calls based on D&D and other variable; this lets us get a tendency report on ourselves to see if we are becoming too predictable (not that is always a game breaker, but just lets us know).