Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

108 Excellent

About Tacosman

  • Rank
    Pro Rookie

Recent Profile Visitors

2,273 profile views
  1. Tacosman

    why I hope it's not Stefansky....

    of course I have refuted your point....there are multiple studies on this very matter, and they provide a clear answer. https://ftw.usatoday.com/2019/06/nfl-establish-the-run-play-action-pass-stats Essentially, play action pass is a very good thing. But the old mantra that you have to establish the run to effectively PaP is junk science. That's just what the data shows. Not interested in getting to the how and whys of it all...because it is what it is.
  2. Tacosman

    why I hope it's not Stefansky....

    of course...there are all kinds of anomalies here and there. But you either choose to believe in data and well established likelihoods going forward as the basis of scheming....or you choose to believe in "you see that (one time something happened)" example..... I know I prefer the former approach
  3. Tacosman

    why I hope it's not Stefansky....

    no, you don't. Chubb averaged 5.0 ypc last year. Which is very very good for a running back. Where would it average in the passing game? Last. Dead Last. And not even close to the bottom 25th percentile in terms of average yards per pass play. But even in such a simplistic look like that(just comparing ypa), there are reasons why passing is more advantageous. One is passing plays at any given point on the field have a much higher touchdown rate. So for example for a random snap taking place at the opponents 16 yard line, a passing play of x ypa is going to have a higher touchdown rate than a traditional running play of x ypa. So that's extra value for passing. Another big difference is with how holding is being called now. Holding is a tremendously costly penalty for offenses, and for some reason nfl officials are skewing more and more towards calling holding on running plays today. I don't have the exact number of holding calls offhand on chubb rushes in 2019, but I remember several killers. These two disadvantages for running(apart from just the ypa comparison) add to the difference in efficiency. The only advantage for running is that you take interception rate out of the equation, but with interception rates continuing to be at all time lows, this is less important than before. But back to your original statement- no, when you have a chance to give the ball to a guy who averages 5.0 yards per carry(in a year ypc he may not replicate btw) and who has a very low td rate relative to passing(short yard situations aside), you don't give him the ball too much. Chubb should be used as a complimentary back to the main offense- which is passing. In fact, I look at the short passing game and running game as somewhat similar, except the short passing game is more effective and leads to more than 4-5 ypa and fewer holding calls.
  4. Tacosman

    why I hope it's not Stefansky....

    the problem for your perspective is that a 'top ten running back' running the ball is still far far far less efficient and valuable than a middling passer having a mediocre game throwing the ball. I understand that some fans are stuck in this mindset that 'running is good'. I'm not saying a team should never run; just that they should definitely pass a lot more(especially in early downs early in the game or close games). here is a good 538 article from just a few days ago: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-running-the-ball-back/ Note that it makes the same point I did with the pats/titans game- BB likely baited Vrabel into all those runs and it worked great for BB. yet the mainstream sports medias take after the game was that Henry had a 'big game'......it's like they totally ignored the fact that Tennessee didn't actually score any points the entire second half on offense.
  5. Tacosman

    why I hope it's not Stefansky....

    The traditional running game does have it's uses- killing clock(although you need first downs to kill clock best) and ideally an occasional change of pace. But you definitely don't want a 'balanced' attack in the nfl in close games, if part of that balance is giving your rbs 30-35 carries total. That means you are going to be wasting far too many plays. As we all know a lot of times we will see teams with a ton of rushing attempts end up in winning the game. In most of those cases, that team jumped out to be a big lead....by passing.
  6. Tacosman

    why I hope it's not Stefansky....

    who said anything about PFF? I am interested in looking at the data in a way as to determine what is more efficient. A few points: 1) You use the word 'establish' the run, but as I pointed out that's a myth. We have data that suggests play action pass is effective *independent* of whether the run has been 'established'. We all grew up listening to talking heads ramble on about how they are running the ball so that play action will be more effective. turns out it doesn't work that way. You say later than play action works when the defense respects it. This is not true. Play action...just works. Even if the other team hasn't been running the ball or hasn't run it effectively. 2) I really wouldn't say New England salvaged much of anything. They were consistently poor on offense the entire second half of the year. Sony Michelle was terrible all year, and the passing game for NE was bad as well. 3) speaking of the dallas-seattle game, you talk about their offensive line struggling on the edges but when Wilson did drop back to pass that game GOOD THINGS HAPPENED. So it didn't look like it was struggling to protect Wilson that game, as evident by his ypa and how effective he was. Moreover as I pointed out in 1 and the data indicates, seattle couldnt run the ball at all and yet play action was still very effective for seattle. What killed them was all the first and second down running which went nowhere. You can talk about pressure rates and such all you want...but that doesn't change the data or what actually happened. this issue has been settled some time ago. Will teams continue to run the ball too much early in the game and on 1st down? Maybe...but its definitely improved from several years ago. Teams also do dumb non-analytically oriented things like punt too much. The smart teams are catching on. Smart coaches/teams knew this truth decades ago- remember what BB said to Lawrence Taylor and the rest of the giants defense(he was DC then) before the giants/bills sb. He said "if Thurman Thomas runs for over 100 yards we will probably win this game". BB recognizes that letting Thurman 'get his' was a great strategy. And TT did. But his carries are still a hell of a lot less effective than the real danger- Kelly getting the ball down the field to Reed and Lofton and using the short passing game as well. So BB baited the Bills into pounding Thomas and the Bills offense was held in check. Almost 30 years later we see BB do the same thing with the titans and it almost cost them the titans a game they should have won. Watch tonight's Baltimore-Tennessee game. I bet Tennessee comes out and tries to run henry a ton on first down, and I bet that goes nowhere and puts them in a ton of 2nd and 3rd and long. Meanwhile Baltimore isn't going to do that early- they are going to run Lamar a lot, and throw with Lamar, and then mix in a *little* traditional runs. Now the final rushing stats for ingram and the Baltimore backs may be respectable, but how many of those will come in the second half after the ravens get a big lead? If Tennessee was smart, they would come out and do nothing but spread things out and throw. Throw 14/15 plays to open the game. Instead they are going to play right into the ravens hand and try to ground and pound, and it's going to turn out poorly for them. On offense at least.
  7. Tacosman

    why I hope it's not Stefansky....

    no...you didn't read(or understand maybe) my post. I said traditional running plays. Baltimore runs a ton with Lamar Jackson, sometimes in designed plays and sometimes broken plays. Those runs(especially the broken ones which were passing plays by design) are ultra efficient. That's pro-analytics. Unless Baker Mayfield is going to have lots of ultra efficient/successful designed running plays(hint- he isn't), Baltimore is a horrible example. Baltimore is actually a team that runs way less than average early in games and in close games out of traditional running plays. Which is a reason they are so successful. As for your other teams, except for maybe san fran they go towards MY point. NE's offense blew goats most all year. Seattle is a perfect example of a team that should pass A LOT MORE. It's running as much as they do that's holding them back and cost them the division. It certainly cost them a playoff game against dallas last year, and multiple articles showing the data have been written about that(and that game in particular) As for Tennessee, they ran the ball a zillion times last week against NE. NE perfectly baited them into doing so. How did it work out for them? Pretty poorly, as in doing so they only scored 14 pts total and ZERO in the entire second half. They almost lost the game despite an amazing defensive performance because they were so infatuated with 'ground and pound'. Running the ball is just a lot less efficient than passing the ball. And no, it doesn't 'set up the pass'. We have tons of data that suggest play action pass works independently of whether the run has been 'established' or not. The nfl is very much being grouped into two different factions- those who understand data, what it means, how to use it. And those who don't. Those who don't are still running a lot early in games on 1st and 2nd down. This is a terrible strategy. I'll leave it with a famous quote(or close to it) from Bill Walsh(he was kind of a smart guy in case you didn't know)- "If you gain 4 yards on a running play they say you are beating them. If you gain 4 yards on a passing play, they are beating you". Walsh's point was none of that makes sense. He understood brilliantly that the short passing game was more efficient and successful than a monotonous running game. And he won a few super bowls and changed the game btw....
  8. 1st and ten to open the game: run for short game 2nd and long: run for short game Far far too much running on 1st and 2nd down. He's had a pretty decent qb and this 'ground and pound' approach is anti-analytics and a losing strategy. Running Dalvin cook like 36 times for not even 3 yards per carry almost cost them the saints game. If a guy cannot understand that running the ball on 1st and 2nd down in the nfl early in games(blowouts are different) is not a good strategy relative to passing.....well, that's a problem. And don't cite what Baltimore is doing. A large portion of those aren't traditional runs but ultra efficient qb runs, and another large portion of them are after the game is already a blowout. They actually run the ball with traditional running plays in the first half less than most teams, which is a key to maximizing their success. Chubb is a fine back, but in the current NFL(and probably the former nfl, teams were just dumb) you don't win by running the ball. Teams that run a ton in a game have a good record, but that has nothing to do with causative factor. I don't know that stefansky fully understands this
  9. Tacosman

    Browns to interview McCarthy

    ugh....hate the idea of MM. He is way too conservative and doesn't understand risk/reward, point expectation charts, etc He SINGLEHANDEDLY lost the nfc championship game in Seattle some years ago with numerous terrible decisions. He kicked two field goals at the 1 yard line in the 1st quarter. That's terrible and not defensible. Then, as if that weren't bad enough, with 4-5 minutes in the game GB had the ball up 11(?) and he ran the ball into the line 3 straight times. Didn't even try to get a first down.....with prime Aaron Rodgers. GB punted and the next time they touched the ball they were behind. I do not want the coach responsible for that coaching malpractice to coach the Cleveland Browns.
  10. Tacosman

    So, who would you pick as the next HC ?

    the problem with rivera is he doesn't seem very analytically oriented. Yes he does have a rep for going for it on 4th down which is good, but other than that he isn't an analytics guy The one guy I definately dont want is Mike Mccarthy. Would rather have freddie back than that loser
  11. Tacosman

    Ratbirds @ Browns Official Gameday thread

    maybe 8 carries too many?? Running the ball early in the game(especially on 1st and 2nd down) is a bad strategy in the nfl in today's game. It's been proven time and time again. Teams just cannot afford to run the ball in tradtional ways(exempting many of the ravens runs) unless they are way ahead late in game. In many ways, it's better to have a completely ineffective running game any given day than a 'good' running game, because the team with the ineffective running game may not even try and not waste key first downs. And you look at Chubb today and he's put them in some bad situations and 2nd/3rd and long. It's just too easy to get behind the sticks trying to run the ball.
  12. People who want to 'establish the run' and run more don't understand efficiency and such. The reality is we, and most teams, should be running even less. Baltimore is a horrible example. Subtract all of Jackson's runs for starters as they are not traditional runs(the scrambles or the designed runs).
  13. It's interesting that Jarvis Landry, after two pretty bad seasons(2017 ranks as one of the worst receiving seasons in nfl history imo) has had a nice year so far this year. He's getting down the field more, and his average route run appears to be longer. In 2017 he somewhere managed to turn 160 targets into less than 1000 receiving yards. How does one do that? 2018 was mediocre at best. Then in 2019 he's become a plus player. The question is whether or not 2019 represents something, or whether or he will revert back to 2017 and 2018? Because if this year represents a move towards running routes of more value and more YAC in general, he's ok even at his current contract. But I sense it is more the former, and if so he will be cut whenever that contract means the Browns can get out of it without a cap hit. IIRC it's not this offseason but the next.
  14. Tacosman

    Looking back - Josh Allen vs Josh Rosen

    this is a bizarre comparison now. I'm NOT an Allen fan, but he has a starting job in the nfl now and is supposedly improving. Is he good? Well I don't think so....but he's on a completely different level than Rosen who cannot get on the field for one of the worst teams in the nfl who has nothing to lose by playing a young qb they basically took a flyer in. So at this point the book is very much open on Allen, but nobody is comparing Josh Rosen to him at this point in a serious way. If you had to rate their level of NFL success/performance to this point you would have to give Allen about a 4 I guess and Rosen a 0.
  15. Tacosman

    Looking back - Josh Allen vs Josh Rosen

    the problem with this argument is that when the Dolphins made the switch to Fitz(a crappy veteran journeyman by all accounts) it was clear he was a major upgrade over Rosen. That's why fins fans were ticked, because they were hoping to continue losing every game and going from the disaster Rosen was to more marginally capable qb play hurt those chances. If a marginally capable crappy journeyman vet comes in and is CLEARLY the superior option, what the hell does that say about Rosen? Has Rosen been put in dumpster fire type situations at both places? Sure, but he also looks like he sucks. At least that seems to be the consensus. If the Dolphins were to move on from Rosen after this year, they would get almost nothing for him. Like 5th round pick type value. Which speaks to how everyone in the nfl views him now. There is nothing that says a qb can't be thrown into poor situations and also suck. That very much appears to be the case with Mr Rosen. And I don't know jack about college to nfl qb evaluations and liked rosen coming out of UCLA too, but I can admit he's looked pretty poor. And I'm not sure why you bring up character issues in defending Rosen. That was some(admittedly BS) whispers 2 years ago. Now nobody cares about that in the least and the issue has nothing to do with that.