If y’all are interested in Frost’s play calling tendencies, personnel usage and just an overall break down of his offense using some numbers, here’s a solid article based off all of his play calls from the 2017 season. You can find just the play calling charts and personnel usage in a seperate tab on the website.
Frost’s play calling tendencies and personnel usage from 2017
- Thread starter Money_Milton
- Start date
If y’all are interested in Frost’s play calling tendencies, personnel usage and just an overall break down of his offense using some numbers, here’s a solid article based off all of his play calls from the 2017 season. You can find just the play calling charts and personnel usage in a seperate tab on the website.
It is an article about UCF. Josh Heupel replaced Frost and came from Missouri where he was the OC
UCF plays on Thursday night against U Conn it will be interesting to see what they look like in that first game of the season without Frost and company.
I wrote about UCF in 2017 and what to expect in 2018 with Heupel. I charted every UCF game from 2017 obviously Frost was coach and I looked at all of his play calling tendencies and personnel usage and what was successful. All of the relevant Frost charts are under the "charts" tab in menu. The article isn't really helpful for Nebraska, but the charts could be interesting if you are into that kind of stuff
I’m guessing I missed it in your writing, but for the personnel packages, you have ‘Success Rate %’. What is considered a successful play? For instance, you have 21 personnel is successful 60% of the time, what does that success rate mean?
Btw, thanks for the information
At the bottom of the home page he has his explanations and definitions. Here is a portion of the definition of a successful play.
A Successful play gains 40% of yards to go on 1st down, 60% on 2nd down, and 100% on 3rd and 4th down. Different websites use different %’s for this, I think 40/60/100 is the best breakdown to determine if a play is successful
so success rate is:
On first down -> the play gains 40% of the remaining yards to go. ie 1 and 10 a play gets 4 or more yards
2nd down is 60% of the remaining yards to go. ie 2 and 8 the play gains 5 or more yards.
3rd and 4th down is 100% so results in a first down.
Personnel is based off the players on the field regardless of how they're lined up. So if there's two RB's on the field and ones lined up in the slot, he's still considered a RB for personnel reasons. "21" is 2 RB's 1 TE and 2 WR's.
A couple of quick questions for you Anthony.
Why did you leave out plays in blow outs? Couldn't you have added a chart that accounted for that showed a scoring component? Like ahead by greater than 15, ahead 7-14, ahead 1-6, tied. Then behind by the same parameters? Not a criticism at all. In fact I like to extrapolate data from the whole picture as well.
2 - why did you base personnel on player and not where they lined up? I would be curious to hear what led you to that thinking.
I did it mostly to save time. This season I'll be doing every play. I did keep track of scoring differential on my spreadsheet, but for the purpose of my research, I really only cared about meaningful plays which I considered as plays with the starting QB in the game bc those are the plays I felt like were part of the scripted game plan. Looking at the score for me, is great to see how play calling changes when losing late and vice versa.
As far as personnel, that's what personnel is. It's not the same as formation.
Building a culture takes time, just as removing one does. I imagine the culture there is still set so I don't expect to see a drop-off at UCF for a couple of years.
I guess, I just think Frost's offense is more formation driven then personnel. His TEs can line up outside the numbers, his RBs can line up as WR and the reverse. If he is 3 wide to the wide side of the field, with a RB and 2 WR, then has a TE and WR split out near the numbers on the boundary side, In Frost's offense, I am not sure I would call that 11 personnel, simply because the positions are so interchangeable.
I love the info. Great piece, thank you for posting.
Completely get what your saying. They're just 2 different things. Personnel just relates to who's on the field. Defenses match up to that not really where they're lined up which would be the formation. It's like when you see a RB split out wide, they normally have a LB or Safety on them, where if it is a slot WR in the game lined up in the same spot, teams will normally have a 3rd corner on the field.
I appreciate the feedback! I may chart Nebraska's games this season depending on free time.
You are very well right but I will assume it was more of the put your best athletes on the field situation than anything. Best personnel might not have been their normal position. Better athletes at positions might change the personnel.
I wasn’t implying that they would now tank... More interested on how they look offensively and defensively.
I doubt they go unbeaten but I wouldn’t beat games this year.
I am just saying that Frost will stress defenses and conflict coaches by utilizing his personnel differently than others. I think when a defensive coach tries to match up to personnel in the traditional method, he gets taken advantage of, simply because of how interchangeable a lot of his players are. His RB that splits out may have WR skills that will take advantage of most any LB.
Most defenses try to combat the spread with speed, playing sound defense and hoping that they make a mistake and turn the ball over or punt. But putting a fast LB on a guy with WR talent or a fast LB on a TE that has WR talent is dangerous. The same could be said for matching personnel when he brings a WR into the running game, not many people are expecting the WR to be an option in the the running game, when it isn't a reverse. So when they match up traditionally, they are in conflict when the have a corner out there instead of a LB.
I am by no means dumping on Anthony or his charts. They were awesome and full of great detail. I just find the cat and mouse game interesting, and as offenses evolve, it will be interesting if DCs continue to account for personnel the same way.
Maybe you took what I tried to say wrong. I am agreeing with your point. While UCF hss decent personnel, I think they were limited to a degree TO that perdonepe. And they did great things with it.
Just think about what it could be given more than just a couple years. Defenses will be stressed and stretched.
Sorry, I didn't really mean to respond directly to you. I should have posted that as a separate post, just generally summarizing my take.
http://insidethepylon.com/film-stud...anding-football-offensive-personnel-packages/
This is a good article that probably does a better job explaining the difference between personnel and formations haha
This is a good article that probably does a better job explaining the difference between personnel and formations haha
