The NFL's most deceptive stat is TOP

[Oldschool7]

The NFL's most deceptive stat is time of possession.

It not only deceives but it sets the foundation for a whole set of lies regarding what constitutes true ball control offense.

Football fans and coaches breathe this lie for so long they can't step back and see it for what it is.

Ball control is important in the NFL. Very important. The problem is that this stat--unlike any other-- is measured not in the number of plays or in a percentage of plays but with minutes and seconds.

This skews both numbers and perceptions. It is responsible for a big myth. A team that uses the run to control the ball wins T.O.P. A team that uses the pass to control the ball may or may not win T.O.P.

The BIG LIE here is how fans and mediots start to believe the nonsense that running = ball control.

I contend that ball control is achieved by first downs, especially by 3rd down conversion. The best way to achieve first downs is by achieving a high rate of yard per play--and in today's league passes achieve 50-100% better ypp than runs. Furthermore, the best way to convert third down is with the pass.

Take this last Sunday's game. New England CONTROLLED the ball though it was completely miserable in its run game. It achieved 4x as many first downs through the air than on the ground, 4x the yardage and 5x the TD.s

They dominated the ball by THROWING the ball.

Guess what...the Cowboys have done EXACTLY the same thing this whole season. We have had many 10-14 play drives that exhausted the defense when we hardly ran the ball at all!

ANYTHING that leads to consistent first downs = good ball control.

Some balance is helpful but if anything controlling the ball comes down more to a team's aerial attack.

 

[Oldschool7]

A two yard run that leads to a punt runs off 40 seconds.

A complete pass play that goes out of bounds for 11 yards may run off 5 seconds -- even though it moves the chains.

Which is real ball control?

 

[Jimz31]

That is exactly how we have been leading in TOP in most of our games....via the pass.

 

[Wolfpack]

The NFL's most deceptive stat is time of possession.

It not only deceives but it sets the foundation for a whole set of lies regarding what constitutes true ball control offense.

Football fans and coaches breathe this lie for so long they can't step back and see it for what it is.

Ball control is important in the NFL. Very important. The problem is that this stat--unlike any other-- is measured not in the number of plays or in a percentage of plays but with minutes and seconds.

This skews both numbers and perceptions. It is responsible for a big myth. A team that uses the run to control the ball wins T.O.P. A team that uses the pass to control the ball may or may not win T.O.P.

The BIG LIE here is how fans and mediots start to believe the nonsense that running = ball control.

I contend that ball control is achieved by first downs, especially by 3rd down conversion. The best way to achieve first downs is by achieving a high rate of yard per play--and in today's league passes achieve 50-100% better ypp than runs. Furthermore, the best way to convert third down is with the pass.

Take this last Sunday's game. New England CONTROLLED the ball though it was completely miserable in its run game. It achieved 4x as many first downs through the air than on the ground, 4x the yardage and 5x the TD.s

They dominated the ball by THROWING the ball.

Guess what...the Cowboys have done EXACTLY the same thing this whole season. We have had many 10-14 play drives that exhausted the defense when we hardly ran the ball at all!

ANYTHING that leads to consistent first downs = good ball control.

Some balance is helpful but if anything controlling the ball comes down more to a team's aerial attack.

Are you Urban Mier?

You just described the Spread offense.

Good post...I always think balance helps unless you can dominate in one area
but you can get balance by pass route depth as well.

 

[AdamJT13]

You're not making an argument against time of possession, you're making an argument against the perception that running the ball creates time of possession.

In general, the perception is true, as long as you convert a normal amount of third downs. If you convert a low percentage of third downs, you probably won't control the ball -- unless you're picking up first downs ON first down or second down, thereby avoiding third downs. But if two teams both go 5-for-13 on third downs in a game, the team that ran the ball more and passed less generally will have better time of possession because they're not stopping the clock with incompletions as often, and they're typically picking up smaller chunks of yardage (and will have drives with more plays, rather than driving quickly down the field in fewer plays).

But back to time of possession being deceiving, what determines whether an offense is a "ball control" offense IS NOT total time of possession, it's time PER possession. You can have an offense average 35 minutes of TOP per game that is NOT a ball control offense by any stretch. You can also have an offense that averages 25 minutes of TOP per game that IS a ball control offense. What people forget is that the defense's time on the field takes away from the offense's potential time of possession.

If you get 15 possessions in a game and average 2:20 per possession, your TOP is 35 minutes, but you didn't do a good job of controlling the ball. Your average TOP is well below average, and you gave your opponent 14-16 possessions. But if you got eight possessions and averaged 3:15 per possession, your TOP is only 26 minutes, but you did very well at controlling the ball. Your average possession lasted much longer than normal, and you limited your opponent to seven to nine possessions. It wouldn't be the offense's fault if the defense allowed the opponent to stay on the field for 4:15 per possession.

 

[Oldschool7]

Adam I still think you are hung up in using minutes and seconds.

I say it's both simpler and far more accurate to simply stick with TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAYS relative to your opponent. This is the purest definition of ball control.

Sure it's great it you have a lead and want to shorten the game--then those 8 minute drives with lots of runs are great.

But when you are averaging over 7 yards per play--as half the league is doing--you can move the chains better through the air.

I would simply want to run more offensive plays than my opponent. Wear them down. It takes a lot of energy to try to beat a lineman and then chase a quarterback like Romo.

 

[Oldschool7]

Are you Urban Mier?

I'm not a fan of a spread offense.

I like the diversified passing game that utilizes tight end, wrs and running backs.

I think when Romo starts to integrate his backs more in the receiving game then we will be even more consistent moving the chains.

I also value protection of the quarterback too much to go for four or five WR sets.

 

[Rack]

A two yard run that leads to a punt runs off 40 seconds.

A complete pass play that goes out of bounds for 11 yards may run off 5 seconds -- even though it moves the chains.

Which is real ball control?

On pass plays, or any play that goes out of bounds, the clock stops, but then is started up again after the ball is set on the ground by the officials, unless it's in the last 5 minutes of each half.

 

[smarta5150]

Is this considered a repost

 

[burmafrd]

Bottom line is that you make sure YOUR D gets rest and THEIR D does not. However you do it is fine- AS LONG as you do it.

 

[Nors]

If you win Time of Posession, you win more than you lose

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

If you win Time of Posession, you win more than you lose

I wonder what that actuall win-loss stat is?


TOP = great to have more

but like with anything else in life... its not the quantity its, the quality...

QOP = Quality of Possession.



You could have 10 drives and score on 7 of them

or you could have

20 drives and eat up clock and kick FG's and Punt all day

 

[YosemiteSam]

Time of Possession has nothing to do with running and passing the ball. It's about ball control. If your defense forces 10 three and outs in a row, you're controlling the ball.

As for running and passing. The West Coast Offense at times uses short passing in place of a running game and works out the same way. One thing is clear though, if you want to control the ball to burn clock, you run the ball because an incomplete pass stops the clock. Getting stuffed behind the line of scrimage, doesn't.

 

[YosemiteSam]

If you win Time of Posession, you win more than you lose

I wonder what that actuall win-loss stat is?


TOP = great to have more

but like with anything else in life... its not the quantity its, the quality...

QOP = Quality of Possession.



You could have 10 drives and score on 7 of them

or you could have

20 drives and eat up clock and kick FG's and Punt all day

I would say; If you dominate time of possession, you will win more than you will lose. You can win TOP by 1 minute and have no overall effect of winning and losing. The Cowboys got dominated in TOP, and it showed at the end of the game.

 

[Doomsday101]

It depends. All stats can be meaningless using certain example. For a team who thrives on the ground game and strong defensive play TOP is a very meaningful.

 

[AbeBeta]

I say it's both simpler and far more accurate to simply stick with TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAYS relative to your opponent. This is the purest definition of ball control.

It may be more accurate when you examine one or two plays and their outcome -- but I doubt you get a different result when you look at this over the course of an entire game.

 

[Rack]

If you win Time of Posession, you win more than you lose

Groundbreaking.

Time of Possession has nothing to do with running and passing the ball.

Yes, it does.

A running play, even if it goes out of bounds, keeps the clock moving (the clock is restarted on out of bounds plays).

And incomplete pass stops the clock.

 

[khiladi]

I would like to make the argument that if you score more than your opponent by the time the clock runs out, you win the game.

 

[Oldschool7]

profound, khiladi

My point is to counter the dogma that we've heard all our lives about the relationship between running the ball and "ball control."

The Cowboys have "moved the chains" 84 times this season via the pass and 36 times via the run.

Ratios are similar for the Pats and for Indy.

The teams that sustain drives in this league are those that can best throw the ball.

 

[AdamJT13]

Adam I still think you are hung up in using minutes and seconds.

I say it's both simpler and far more accurate to simply stick with TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAYS relative to your opponent. This is the purest definition of ball control.

No, it's not, because there's no specific limit to the number of plays that can be run in a game. (OK, if you want to get picky, the mathematical limit would be 3,600 plays. But that's irrelevant.) There is a specific limit to the amount of time available. The more time you have it, the less time the opponent can possibly have it. And after the time limit, unless the game is tied, it's over. The game is run with a clock, not a play counter. You can run 80 offensive plays, but that doesn't mean your opponent gets fewer of them. They could run 90.

Ball control is about limiting the number of possessions your opponent gets, not "wearing them down" with a lot of plays.

I would simply want to run more offensive plays than my opponent. Wear them down. It takes a lot of energy to try to beat a lineman and then chase a quarterback like Romo.

You seem to be forgetting that your defense figures into the equation. You can have a "ball control" offense that averages eight plays per possession, but if your defense allows the other team to run a lot of plays, they can end up with more plays than you. That doesn't mean your offense wasn't a "ball control" offense, because it was. It was the other part(s) of the team that failed to take advantage of that.