Grading

The format I liked the best was a points system.  It was basically a check list of things you want a player to do (as well as not do) during the course of a game.  For each play you simply tallied how many of those actions occurred by each player.

The biggest problem with this is that a player could do everything right on a given play, but not do what was on the list.  It is much more outcome orientated in nature.  

The reason I liked it more was that the old +/- system could have half your team get a failing grade, but your stud ______ players scored 5 TDs and you won the game ....

If you can't replace a guy there isn't much point grading. Making notes of things to improve would be a better use of time. 

Number: DEFENSE PRODUCTION POINTS

Name: Opponent:
Positive Points / Times / TOTAL
Series (1)
First Hit (2)
Assist (1)
Sack * (3)
QB pressure (1)
TFL * (2)
Batted Ball (1)
Forced Fumble * (3)
Fumble Recovery * (3)
Ball Hawk (1)
Big Hit * (3)
Big Play * (3)
PBU (1)
Lock Down (1)
INT * (3)
Great Execution (1)
* represents automatic star Total Positive Points:

Negative Points
Metal Error (-1)
Unnecessary Penalty (-2)
Loaf (-3)
Total Negative Points:

1 Star every 15 points Overall Total:

Your second question is why I really don't think most HS programs/coaches would benefit from thinking about the first question.  The scenarios where a detailed formalized grading system adds value to a HS program are likely quite rare.  Not to mention the added headache/question as to what to do when your player lines up against a superior opponent on Friday Night.  How does one grade a cornerback  who "does it right" but gets "Mossed"?  How do you grade an OL who steps with the correct foot, has low pad level, puts his hands and hat right at the aiming point, and gets stoned by the kid who will be practicing in Athens in the spring as an early UGA enrollee?  I could never come up with anything that satisfied myself. 

If you can’t replace a guy all you can do is coach him up.

But as long as you have 12 guys, everyone’s replaceable.

We will stick with a kid that’s trying to do what we are asking pretty long but a kid that’s not trying to do what we need him to gets to hang out on the bench.

As far as grades I prefer correction notes because they are going to make the whole position group better not just the individual.

Absolutely and not just games. If your best players are not doing what they are suppose to do, they really are not your best players. And that goes beyond the practice field and game night. Every player, whether it is legit or not, needs to be under the impression they have a legit chance to start, earn playing time/practice reps, just as much as the so called studs need to understand they are not guaranteed anything either.
0- you did nothing, you didnt know your assignment, your technique awful
1 - generally speaking you are still awful, but maybe you got close on technique or you went hard or you went in the right direction.
2.- you went in the right direction, you were aggressive or maybe you knew your assignment.
3- you got it all right.

What generally happens is the seniors get it. Nobody gets 3, the good ones will 2.5
The junior may or may not. 1.5-2.4
Soph do know what hit him.
Frosh dont know.

And that generally applies to everything. So even if you grade practice, the chances are your best players are going to get it correct more times than not in more way than not.

If you want culture, it has to be understood that talent alone is not enough. Otherwise, the coach, the coaching staff is full of themselves.

Grade using this system:
2 = Exceptional play
1 = Did your job with acceptable technique
0 = Flaw in technique or assignment
-1 = Complete Bust / Mental or Physical
Make notes on why a 2 or 0/-1
Grading is more about being a tool for improvement.

Not this one but I’ve seen other charts that are production charts.

I don’t remember any in detail but something like:

-2 Critical Error
-1 poor technique/missed assignment/loaf
0 didn’t affect play
+1 Good Play
+2 Tackle
+3 TFL
+4 Sack
+5 Takeaway

The rationale would be that you as a coach can gauge how productive a player is. It helps to distinguish who is making big plays.

I don’t use it but I can see why some coaches do.

I don’t use it so I can’t say for certain.

I’ve pondered it. I think it would help by emphasizing what was most important to the success of the defense to the kids. Then it would also keep the kids motivated to try to accomplish those things that the coaches put on the production chart.

I don’t think it would do it as well as giving specific feedback but I do think you get what you emphasize so it’s not a complete waste of time.

Didn’t grade in high school. Never saw the point. The guy is the guy.

Graded in JuCo. ATAK* was the criteria. Alignment. Technique. Assignment. Key Read. * was extra bonus point. Every play was possible 4 points. If you aligned, used proper technique, nailed your assignment, used actions dictated by your key read, and made a huge play then you got 5 out of 4.

Just how we did it. Not very hard. Excel formula did all the math. Total points for a game. Average points per play. Also allowed you to do average points by criteria in a pivot table. Can also use data points to show improved field of play over the course of a season. Example being a player averaged 0.78 points (essentially a 78% score) in alignment through the first five weeks, but bumped to 0.93 points for the last five weeks.

Where I coach now we go over film w/ the kids & they have their own grade sheet.  We comment on it and they are asked to" grade" themselves.  Reality is they are making their own notes of mistakes they made and need to correct.  I like it.  Not time consuming and encourages them to reflect on their own performance and put in writing things they need to fix.  

I teach AP US History...I'm always grading something!

Oh wait...not THAT type of grading...sorry...I'll see myself to the door...