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

[Tacosman]

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

[tiamat63]

Unfortunately Seattle, New England, Tennessee, Baltimore & San Francisco would like a word with you as "run first" teams.  

3 minutes ago, Tacosman said:

 

 

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.  

 

[Tacosman]

1 minute ago, tiamat63 said:

Unfortunately Seattle, New England, Tennessee, Baltimore & San Francisco would like a word with you as "run first" teams.  

 

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....

[D Bone]

Taco's message is brought to you by Madden 2020 - "Madden, allowing you to pass on every play since 1988" 

[Tour2ma]

8 minutes ago, D Bone said:

Taco's message is brought to you by Madden 2020 - "Madden, allowing you to pass on every play since 1988" 

With all the "short game" talk I thought it was Tiger Woods PGA Tour.

[tiamat63]

21 minutes ago, Tacosman said:

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....

You're too obsessed with PFF.   You sound like one of their data scientists I had a conversation with.    I get what you and they are saying, I just disagree with it from a personnel, game planning and schematic stand point.   Consider that passing might be more "efficient", but that is entirely dependent on having the QB to properly execute that on any given down.   Some of the teams I mentioned don't necessarily have that unless the run is established in game.

Also not taking into account how the offense is structured in an attempt to produce a higher YPA completion when they do pass.  Seattle might be bottom half in total passing, but kept check their YP Completion dating back to 2012.    Play action works when the defense respects it.. Period.  You either have to be known as a team that can efficiently and effectively run the ball or you have to establish it in that game.    

If you walk into a game dead last in rushing and I'm a coordinator, I sure as shit am telling my safeties not to go until they know.    I'd be curious as to the pressure rates vs play action against teams that are bottom 1/3 in rushing.   I'm sure there is some correlation to be found there.    You're also viewing the run in a vacuum.  Either between play efficiency and/or setting up play action.  Not understanding or properly measuring the toll it takes on a defensive front,  limiting opposing offenses time with the ball, slowing down the opposing pass rush for when you do drop back and throw,  setting up the screen game and, in many cases, inviting additional pressure for favorable passing matchups. 

 

I'm a proponent of using analytics.  But I'm also not a proponent of pushing dogma.  Those are the two categories you're really highlighting  The "numbers" guys and the "football" guys.  I've preached on this before...  It's dogma in a great sense.   Those who take their analytic models and make it their God are every bit suffering from the same delusion and cult like narrow mindedness as those who don't bother to analyze their data AND their own early game tendencies.  Sometimes you break them, sometimes you don't.  

It's a fundamental disagreement.   One, from a personnel standpoint, I'm highly skeptical of when the tape doesn't back it up.

 

edit:  New England was a team that salvaged the tail end of their previous season by reducing their passing attempts.  Tennessee has resurrected the career of Tannehill by putting him in an offense that protects him from volume throws.   Seattle COULD* throw the ball a lot more, but we both know their offensive line struggles on the edges.  The last thing you want to do is continually ask a QB to save your team when pressured.  It's not a pragmatic approach to the game of football.   THAT is what cost them last year vs Dallas.    And while you bring up that game as an example, who was it that controlled the game with the more effective rushing attack and setup their #1 receivers with favorable matchups off that running game?  Oh, that would be Dallas.   Did you also want me to list the pressure rates that game?

Like I said, PFF serves it's purpose.  In a vacuum with individual grades I tend to side with things they settle.  But, much like their collective Oline ratings, I tend to disagree with a great deal else.   

[Tacosman]

33 minutes ago, tiamat63 said:

You're too obsessed with PFF.   You sound like one of their data scientists I had a conversation with.    I get what you and they are saying, I just disagree with it from a personnel, game planning and schematic stand point.   Consider that passing might be more "efficient", but that is entirely dependent on having the QB to properly execute that on any given down.   Some of the teams I mentioned don't necessarily have that unless the run is established in game.

Also not taking into account how the offense is structured in an attempt to produce a higher YPA completion when they do pass.  Seattle might be bottom half in total passing, but kept check their YP Completion dating back to 2012.    Play action works when the defense respects it.. Period.  You either have to be known as a team that can efficiently and effectively run the ball or you have to establish it in that game.    

If you walk into a game dead last in rushing and I'm a coordinator, I sure as shit am telling my safeties not to go until they know.    I'd be curious as to the pressure rates vs play action against teams that are bottom 1/3 in rushing.   I'm sure there is some correlation to be found there.    You're also viewing the run in a vacuum.  Either between play efficiency and/or setting up play action.  Not understanding or properly measuring the toll it takes on a defensive front,  limiting opposing offenses time with the ball, slowing down the opposing pass rush for when you do drop back and throw,  setting up the screen game and, in many cases, inviting additional pressure for favorable passing matchups. 

 

I'm a proponent of using analytics.  But I'm also not a proponent of pushing dogma.  Those are the two categories you're really highlighting  The "numbers" guys and the "football" guys.  I've preached on this before...  It's dogma in a great sense.   Those who take their analytic models and make it their God are every bit suffering from the same delusion and cult like narrow mindedness as those who don't bother to analyze their data AND their own early game tendencies.  Sometimes you break them, sometimes you don't.  

It's a fundamental disagreement.   One, from a personnel standpoint, I'm highly skeptical of when the tape doesn't back it up.

 

edit:  New England was a team that salvaged the tail end of their previous season by reducing their passing attempts.  Tennessee has resurrected the career of Tannehill by putting him in an offense that protects him from volume throws.   Seattle COULD* throw the ball a lot more, but we both know their offensive line struggles on the edges.  The last thing you want to do is continually ask a QB to save your team when pressured.  It's not a pragmatic approach to the game of football.   THAT is what cost them last year vs Dallas.    And while you bring up that game as an example, who was it that controlled the game with the more effective rushing attack and setup their #1 receivers with favorable matchups off that running game?  Oh, that would be Dallas.   Did you also want me to list the pressure rates that game?

Like I said, PFF serves it's purpose.  In a vacuum with individual grades I tend to side with things they settle.  But, much like their collective Oline ratings, I tend to disagree with a great deal else.   

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. 

[Tacosman]

1 hour ago, D Bone said:

Taco's message is brought to you by Madden 2020 - "Madden, allowing you to pass on every play since 1988" 

 

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.

[Tour2ma]

You see the 49er TD drive? 8 plays... 8 runs...

I guess those were nontraditional middle traps and off tackle runs.

[tiamat63]

37 minutes ago, Tacosman said:

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. 

1) - Who is "We"... ?   I don't have that data, I'm not collecting it, but I have seen it.      Do you honestly believe play action is effective independent of the running game?  Perhaps in a small sample size of one game, sure.  Or more to the point, when a matchup will dictate it.   Certainly not over the course of a full season or seasons. To which you have not refuted my point - what is the play success rate of a team ranking bottom in the NFL in rushing using play action?  

- No, play action does not "just work". Especially over the sample size I've mentioned.   The whole point is to bluff the threat of the run...  You have to create the conflict of assignment.     If rushing was so ineffective, then why even bother taking the steps to setup freezing backers and safeties?   Another point, you haven't even begun to mention just HOW* teams should pass more?  You're throwing around generalities that they just should.  What concepts?  What formations? What personnel?  How will pass protection be handled? etc etc

- I said New England salvaged their PREVIOUS season.  You know, the Superbowl one?

- Seattle was struggling at points to protect Wilson.   I'm not saying that means you shouldn't* throw the ball, but pressure rates generally correlated to turnover rates and 3rd down stops.  You think Seattle would have enjoyed that marginal success they had without at least being known as a team that runs the ball or has a QB capable of creating some of his own yards?    Again, I point to YPA throwing the ball over the course of multiple seasons as well.  This is where you're failing, you're going off small sample sizes alone.   Statistical and schematic outliers.   I don't disagree that a team should break tendency and play to their opponent.     But in YPA  I said dating back to 2013.     Notice the correlation of strong rushing teams and high YPA throws?   How do you suppose the deeper depth of target and the longer completions are setup?   Of course Seattle had success with play action, they are a run first team.   Coaches design their defenses to attack that first.    That doesn't mean you run head first into a brick wall time after time.  But you also acknowledge that running the ball on early downs, staying ahead of the chains, using those constraint formations and making a defense play "honest" (for a cliche' term) is rather vital over the course of a season for a good lot of the teams I've mentioned.

- Re : Balt - Tennessee.    I might grant you that, but TEN doesn't have a QB that forces a defense to play in the manner in which other teams have to prepare for Lamar.  They ride on the legs of their RB and build off of that.     You're playing to my point though in a sense.  Because of the constraint that Lamar and the running game puts on defenses, they get these favorable shots on all the early downs.    Notice how you keep using these one game examples and smaller sample sizes.  To which I don't argue against...   tendency.     I'm sure if you pour over the volume, you'll eventually find teams that play lighter box counts against the bottom feeders of the league running because they can.  That doesn't create favorable matchups for you when passing.   

Also, to an extent, I agree with Tennessee perhaps attacking a little more.  But that's only because I believe they have an Oline that can give Tannehill time to throw vs, what has been, a pretty great secondary.    If this was a Ravens pass rush of old? Pick your poison.   To where I ask you again, what is "spreading out" and throwing?  What formations and personnel are you using?  What concepts does Ryan excel and using?   Also, if you have a QB that struggles with consistent ball placement, struggles with decisive and smart throws, are you not playing into what is simultaneously your potential greatest strength and weakness?

 

It's a philosophical difference.    I choose to not look at such things by just looking at one game.   But how you would build a team, how you would establish your offense and the plays, where there are usually 6-8, that constitute the foundation of how you attack a defense then building off of that.   

Even this game right now that we're watching.  San Fran was only up a touchdown and ran the ball on 1st and 2nd down just after halftime more often than not.   That doesn't line-up with your philosophy which is classic Bill Walsh "West Coast" of throwing to build a lead then running on a tired defense.   But again, I'm only point out one game sample size like yourself at times.

There is football that lies in the middle ground between Bill Walsh and Bill Parcells.

 

edit:   Also, since you use the word "traditional" run plays.  With the transcendence of the option into the NFL and the fact the Ravens offense is built upon that design, it can very much be called "traditional" in 2020.  Especially for Baltimore.

[D Bone]

Maybe our next new Former Browns Head Coach will go all Run N Shoot.......... yea, that'd be sweet. 

[Tour2ma]

3 minutes ago, D Bone said:

Maybe our next new Former Browns Head Coach will go all Run N Shoot.......... yea, that'd be sweet. 

Pretty sure Kevin Gilbride is available... if you can woo him away from his XFL gig.

[hx214]

Man Taco.... I didn’t really like Stefanski but after reading your 1st post about him running the ball a lot..... I’m warming up to the idea.... Browns have two top ten running backs on roster.... ok Taco you talked me into it. Stefanski it is.

[tiamat63]

3 minutes ago, hx214 said:

Man Taco.... I didn’t really like Stefanski but after reading your 1st post about him running the ball a lot..... I’m warming up to the idea.... Browns have two top ten running backs on roster.... ok Taco you talked me into it. Stefanski it is.

 

Here's the funny part, I don't necessarily disagree with Taco.   You don't NEED a dominant running game to enjoy the highest successes in football and you don't NEED top 10 running backs.   But you do need an effective ground game with capable running backs.  You have to force teams to respect that play action, respect formation constraints, (or at least adjust personnel and scheme wise to them) and take the most logical path to setting up the downfield passing game.     

What this boils down to is just what I've said - philosophy.    He's not entirely wrong, passing IS efficient...  when you have the personnel and scheme.    But to discount the running game almost entirely and to just simply say "pass more" is doing a disservice to smart football.     I'm a big believer in the *How*.  As in, HOW do we take a QB like Ryan Tannehill, throw the ball more, stay ahead of the chains, keep him upright and protect our team from turnovers or inefficient/incomplete passing plays.

To not ask these questions is to look at numbers and numbers only.

 

Or to quote the great Mos Def - "You push them, and even numbers got limits".

 

 

[Dutch Oven]

I just can't wrap my head around hiring a CO-offensive coordinator with one season experience as a head coach, right after the debacle of hiring an OC with little experience who completely bombed out. 

Maybe that isn't fair, Stefanski is Stefanski and Kitchens is Kitchens, but man, that's a ballsy move if Haslam does it. 

[LondonBrown]

Well if they were in two minds between Stefanski and Saleh I think they've had a nudge in one direction...

[SdBacker80]

Just now, Dutch Oven said:

I just can't wrap my head around hiring a CO-offensive coordinator with one season experience as a head coach, right after the debacle of hiring an OC with little experience who completely bombed out. 

Maybe that isn't fair, Stefanski is Stefanski and Kitchens is Kitchens, but man, that's a ballsy move if Haslam does it. 

I’d say that as well if Depo wasn’t still around. 
I’m far more worried about the OC DC and QB coach.  I think if Anything was learned this time around it’s your HC sets the tone and leads and influences but OC will calls the plays and the Def. coordinator schemes things up.

[hx214]

7 minutes ago, tiamat63 said:

 

Here's the funny part, I don't necessarily disagree with Taco.   You don't NEED a dominant running game to enjoy the highest successes in football and you don't NEED top 10 running backs.   But you do need an effective ground game with capable running backs.  You have to force teams to respect that play action, respect formation constraints, (or at least adjust personnel and scheme wise to them) and take the most logical path to setting up the downfield passing game.     

What this boils down to is just what I've said - philosophy.    He's not entirely wrong, passing IS efficient...  when you have the personnel and scheme.    But to discount the running game almost entirely and to just simply say "pass more" is doing a disservice to smart football.     I'm a big believer in the *How*.  As in, HOW do we take a QB like Ryan Tannehill, throw the ball more, stay ahead of the chains, keep him upright and protect our team from turnovers or inefficient/incomplete passing plays.

To not ask these questions is to look at numbers and numbers only.

 

Or to quote the great Mos Def - "You push them, and even numbers got limits".

 

 

Ya, I’d agree with that statement, but when you have Chubb, you run the ball. A lot. The guy is unreal and can hit a home run every time he touches the ball.

[Tacosman]

19 minutes ago, hx214 said:

Man Taco.... I didn’t really like Stefanski but after reading your 1st post about him running the ball a lot..... I’m warming up to the idea.... Browns have two top ten running backs on roster.... ok Taco you talked me into it. Stefanski it is.

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.

[Richiswhere]

14 minutes ago, LondonBrown said:

Well if they were in two minds between Stefanski and Saleh I think they've had a nudge in one direction...

So your saying they will be taking a 2nd look at Stefanski?

[Tacosman]

3 minutes ago, hx214 said:

Ya, I’d agree with that statement, but when you have Chubb, you run the ball. A lot.

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.

[Tacosman]

53 minutes ago, Tour2ma said:

You see the 49er TD drive? 8 plays... 8 runs...

I guess those were nontraditional middle traps and off tackle runs.

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

[Tacosman]

50 minutes ago, tiamat63 said:

1) - Who is "We"... ?   I don't have that data, I'm not collecting it, but I have seen it.      Do you honestly believe play action is effective independent of the running game?  Perhaps in a small sample size of one game, sure.  Or more to the point, when a matchup will dictate it.   Certainly not over the course of a full season or seasons. To which you have not refuted my point - what is the play success rate of a team ranking bottom in the NFL in rushing using play action?  

 

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. 

[D Bone]

For the record Taco, I too hope it's not Stefansky but just for different reasons. 

[LondonBrown]

19 minutes ago, hx214 said:

Ya, I’d agree with that statement, but when you have Chubb, you run the ball. A lot. The guy is unreal and can hit a home run every time he touches the ball.

Unreal is right, he is so good, Kitchens was just pandering to the QB and WRs 

[tiamat63]

5 minutes ago, Tacosman said:

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. 

Of course you're not, that would require far more than just looking at a handful of numbers for yourself as to how the data arrives there.   Like I said... DOGMA.  This is how sites like PFF use their god to determine that Corey Coleman is the best WR in the 2016 draft.  There is no room for reflection and additional input once a "conclusion" has been reached by their proprietary grading models.   

11 minutes ago, Tacosman said:

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.

 

The fact you cannot reconcile these things as being a complete apples to oranges comparison is why the discussion is going no further.

[The Gipper]

48 minutes ago, Richiswhere said:

So your saying they will be taking a 2nd look at Stefanski?

I think he is saying that  in a one on one death match between those 2 in the game that happened today,   Saleh  put the sleeper hold on Stefanski.  Until the mid 4th quarter when the game was decided, the Vikes did not even have 100 total yards. 

[tiamat63]

2 hours ago, Tacosman said:

 

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. 

Oof.

 

Even if this game goes sideways for Tennessee, their run heavy nature and working the play action off of it has shown out well early vs the Ravens.    Lamar has been running a bit, but trying shots and trying to protect himself.  But Batlimore has been asking him to throw more and its sure as shit hasn't worked out.  Just watched him go empty set and scramble only to take a little shot at the end.  Those add over time, by the way.   Here's 3rd and 8... SHOCKER, he is inaccurate to the sidelines. He's also been in some 3rd and long situations and hasn't been able to move the chains so far.  So perhaps just saying "throw it more" isn't as simple as the analytics make it to be for many teams?  Probably because you have to tend with that human element of the personnel executing the plays.

Any team with Mahomes throwing smoke is in a hell of a lot better position than Lamar Jackson being asked to do the same.    Also, I see signs of the Ravens going to some "traditional" zone read to begin getting ahead of the chains and settling their players into the game.  

Or perhaps it's a fine idea to admit that complete offensive efficiency simply cannot be boiled down to YPA only and perhaps advanced analytics and the game of football are a delicate relationship that requires a great deal of process analysis?

[calfoxwc]

Balt is frustrated already - a few dirty plays, and they are getting away with so much offensive line holding it's a disgrace.

Come on, TENN !

[D Bone]

The Titans have looked really balanced on offense throughout the first half while building their 14-0 lead.