stopping the run and running the ball.....

[Tacosman]

 

is *not* something an nfl team in today's game needs to prioritize.  

That's why I wasn't a huge fan of the stefanski hire like I said when it happened, because I was afraid he would take this mindset.  

We stopped the ravens running backs just fine today.  Who cares though?  It sounds weird, but had Ingram and co had more success it may have been a good thing because they would have 

maybe pounded the rock a little more to those guys....which is obviously preferable than Lamar torching our secondary to the tune of 11 yards per attempt.  

The ravens led the league in rushing last year, but they didn't do so with this "line up and hand the ball to the back" mindset.  As noted before, some of those running plays were garbage time(since they were so far ahead many games) and some were lamar runs(which could either be designed runs or original pass attempts and scrambles).  The ravens offense is so good because they don't have a mindset of pounding the rock with their running backs.  They understand thats not how to win in today's game.  

Likewise, they take the same mindset on defense.....they pour all their resources into stopping the other teams passing game.  

Same thing with the chiefs- they won the super bowl last year with complete stiffs in the backfield.  They used alloted resources on defense to give them an average pass defense...they blew off 'run defense' as they noted it's unimportant.

I'm just worried Stefanski won't de-prioritize the running game and run defense.  Already hearing rumblings about a big extension for chubb one day.  Giving a big extension to a running back who isn't good in the pass game in today's game would be absurd.  Not a huge fan of how the saints and vikes just paid Cook and Kamara, but those guys can help a ton in the passing game(ie they can help your offense a lot).  

Opponents are going to be more than happy to give Chubb and Hunt 120 yards or so a game on the ground if it gobbles up 25ish plays to do it.  Thats not winning football....it's fine when you have a big lead and you need to run clock, but in the first half of games we don't need to be 'pounding the rock'.  

And we don't need to be putting our resources on game day into stopping the other team from doing so.  At one point in the first half of the game today it looked like Ingram was running into 

a loaded front.  WTF?  Sure it helped us strong ingram, but he's irrelevant.  Mark Andrews running wide open down the gaping middle of the field past our linebackers are one of the things(amongst others) that gets you beat.....

 

[tiamat63]

29 minutes ago, Tacosman said:

 

We stopped the ravens running backs just fine today.  Who cares though?  It sounds weird, but had Ingram and co had more success it may have been a good thing because they would have 

 

The ravens led the league in rushing last year, but they didn't do so with this "line up and hand the ball to the back" mindset. 

 

 - and some were lamar runs 

- The ravens offense is so good because they don't have a mindset of pounding the rock with their running backs.  

 

- Likewise, they take the same mindset on defense.....they pour all their resources into stopping the other teams passing game.  

-Same thing with the chiefs- they won the super bowl last year with complete stiffs in the backfield.  They used alloted resources on defense to give them an average pass defense...they blew off 'run defense' as they noted it's unimportant.

 

 

- The Browns averaged over 5ypc.  Turnovers and getting away from the game plan is what killed that from being even more effective.  

- No, the ARavens lead it with the "lets pound the rock and supplement our QB's average passing ability by using his legs to threaten every level of the defense"...  mindset. 

- A LOT were Lamar runs. 

- The Ravens offense is so effective because it is crafted around the threat of the running game and the legs provided by their QB. Then you mix in the TE work and the misdirection creating an effective passing attack.   Notice what has happened to that vaunted offense when defenses with quality secondaries no longer want to respect their QB?  They get blown out in back to back years.  

- The Ravens have a quality secondary.   The Browns have drafted CB's in the 1st, 2nd, brought in FA DB's and just drafted another S with a top 50 pick this past season.   So what do you call that?  Not investing resources?

- The last part is where I knew you were truly full of shit.  The Chiefs actually invested stopping the run by involving Derrick Nnadi more in the back half of their season and the playoffs.  How do you think they stopped Henry from putting up almost 2bills again?    It wasn't Chris Jones, who is actually a pretty big liability in limiting the run.  If not for that serious defensive turn around, it's incredibly possible the Titans play for their 2nd Superbowl.

 

Aren't you the same guy who said the Titans should come out and throw 15 of the first 16 times vs the Ravens in the playoffs last year?  We get it, you're Mike Fucking Leach.    Yes, it's a passing league.  But if you can't limit the running game, not get sucked up by play action and not ice the clock then you run into very real problems in the NFL.       You preach about the Chiefs, but ignore that they took a RB in the first round who was hardly involved in their passing game week 1.   

You're shtick is easy to turn on itself.

 

[tiamat63]

Double post.

 

AND FURTHERMORE,   you want to stress the limits of this passing game despite having a QB who is currently struggling to execute high level schemes, concepts, timing and throws.  Which limits your offense and when they are attempted, risks turnover or at least getting severely behind the chains.   

Fucking brilliant.   

[jrb12711]

I’m doing this on my phone, but I know I’m right saying this. Something like the last 12 super bowl champions were top 10 running teams except this past years chiefs squad. The majority of them were top 5-6. Empirically, you are just incorrect.

[gumby73]

over 5 rushing yards per carry...while throwing 6 of 8 to TE's for almost 10 yards per catch & your only score... can i call plays Thursday night? 🤓  

[jiggins7919]

We don't have a loaded front. I hardly remember hearing any of those bum's names all day. Did Myles even do anything? So much for "defensive player of  the year". GTFOH. 

I'm kind of torn. On one hand, it's difficult to judge how your team is when you play the Ravens. They obviously have their shit down pat, whereas we are trying to implement all new shit. I'm having a hard time giving us a pass though. Even though just about all of us knew it'd be rough, this was utterly indigestible. 

I told anyone who would listen that we would lose big, so I'm not surprised. The reason I'm so disappointed is we didn't make ANY EFFING PLAYS on either side of the ball and our "stars" looked like total losers. What hurts even more is the "running qb" Lamar Jackson made throws all day long that our QB could NEVER dream of making. I hate to say it, but it's true. Baker can't hold Lamar's jock, and this "qb friendly system" he's in might just be designed for Case Keenum if Baker doesn't get it together. I can GUARANTEE Mary Kay Cabot is going to ask about it, watch. That bitch lives to ask shit like that. 

[Tacosman]

6 hours ago, tiamat63 said:

Aren't you the same guy who said the Titans should come out and throw 15 of the first 16 times vs the Ravens in the playoffs last year?  We get it, you're Mike Fucking Leach.    Yes, it's a passing league.  But if you can't limit the running game, not get sucked up by play action and not ice the clock then you run into very real problems in the NFL.       You preach about the Chiefs, but ignore that they took a RB in the first round who was hardly involved in their passing game week 1.   

You're shtick is easy to turn on itself.

 

 

Oh, so you are one of those "running the ball sets up the play action huh?".....no, no, no, and no.  

Just because something has been said a million times doesn't make it true.  The evidence that we have is that play action passing(which is generally a good idea) has success that

is really independent of 'establishing the run'.  There was a seminal paper on this recently.  You may think that in theory that would be the case.  But real life data suggests otherwise.....

 

It's simple- people(and that includes the browns) can look at data in doing things, or they can make decisions based on what they heard watching Berman and Tom Jackson on prime time growing up.  

You're either going to go in an evidence based direction or your not.  All the evidence suggests that teams should invest as much as possible in throwing the ball efficiently early in games(meaning the first half to 3 qtrs) and defending the pass.   The run both ways(at least the traditional running game where you hand it off to a back) is just filler.....if a team is having a little success doing it, that actually may be a negative for them(and a positive for their opponent) if it leads to them doing it more than sparingly in meaningful action.  

Now I'm sure I'll get a lot of pushback about how I'm an idiot, how running the ball and stopping the run is super duper important, etc.....all that sounds nice(and heck I am an idiot sometimes), but the truth is the truth.

We're seeing a fundamental shift towards analytics and efficiency in each of the three major sports leagues.  Each at a somewhat different pace/time.  Over the last 7 years or so in the nba we've seen it with a complete abandonment of the mid range game and traditional post play.  Why?  Because data indicated that the difference in shooting percentage from a 5 foot shot to a 20 foot shot are roughly the same.  You need to get inside 5 feet, and if you can't you better go past the 3 point line.  In baseball in the late 90s an analytical revolution happened in the mainstream(there was always a small group of bill james types even in the 70s/80s).....things like WAR, OPS+, VORP, WAR, rc/27 etc came into being.  There was a guy on the internet who had an Newton like epiphany:  Pitchers have little control over balls in play(meaning everything but strikeouts, walks, and home runs allowed).  Whoa...that blew peoples minds.  But when they started looking at the data.....yep, there it was.  Suddenly anomaly years made sense in that was just random chance and luck.  

Now in football given the nature of it, the analytical revolution has come at a different pace in a little different form.  After establishing that stopping the run is far more important than stopping the pass,  it involves essential questions like- is coverage or pass rush that more dictates success in this regard?  An important question since it involves organizations deciding whether they should commit most of their money to corners or DEs/OLBs.  

There are lots of unanswered questions and nobody has figured it out yet.....but we've figured out enough to know that the emphasis for successful defenses are going to be towards stopping the passing game.  And no, that *doesn't mean* stopping the running game first so you don't get suckered into PA pass.  Anyone looking at it that way is also probably arguing that their favorite mlb team should do more hit and run and try to steal more bases, or that their favorite nba team needs a big hulking center who plays with his back to the basket.  

[Tacosman]

Another way to look at it- a defense in today's game should *never* be suckered by play action, regardless of how well a team is running.  Because any passing attempt thrown by 

a non-disastrous qb is going to have a better positive value expectation than even the most well oiled running game.  Especially a play action pass thrown in a favorable situation for the offense.  

It just takes training I'm sure to not react that way even when you 'see' run initially.  Hell you are hoping they run anyways, so if you are little slow to react to it because you were playing pass....thats fine.  Thats a far superior situation(having to recover as a defense TO a running play) than having to recover into a pass defense situation when you have already 

bit on the run.  

the first time I heard that running the football had absolutely no effect on the success of later play action passing, I was like "what?  how so?".....but it doesn't.  

[Nero]

Some things don't change: the Browns not winning the opener, Tacosman making his own thread afterwards... 

[tiamat63]

I'll eviscerate your post later tonight when I finish up with work and pan searing my steak.

But the crux of your argument is that we could magically overcome Bakers limitations, inefficiencies and turnover worthy throws if only we just passed the ball even more.  

....Makes perfect sense.

Either that or take the Jaemis Winston approach and spin it regardless if he throws 30 picks or not.   Well, 25 NFL GM's had the option of making JW their starter and going with that approach.   25 of those GM's passed on that.

 

 Look, I get what you're applying, but the attempt is misplaced given our current QB situation.  At some point you have to realize that offensive efficiency goes just beyond YPA passing.    More on that later.

 

[nickers]

Kevin Stefanski is a J A C K O F F!... That is all you need to know... This guy will look worse than Hueless...  So we have a clueless HC and QB who still hangs his targets out to dry... Not a good combo... But that just seems like the norm here in Cleveland.

[SdBacker80]

18 hours ago, Tacosman said:

 

is *not* something an nfl team in today's game needs to prioritize.  

That's why I wasn't a huge fan of the stefanski hire like I said when it happened, because I was afraid he would take this mindset.  

We stopped the ravens running backs just fine today.  Who cares though?  It sounds weird, but had Ingram and co had more success it may have been a good thing because they would have 

maybe pounded the rock a little more to those guys....which is obviously preferable than Lamar torching our secondary to the tune of 11 yards per attempt.  

The ravens led the league in rushing last year, but they didn't do so with this "line up and hand the ball to the back" mindset.  As noted before, some of those running plays were garbage time(since they were so far ahead many games) and some were lamar runs(which could either be designed runs or original pass attempts and scrambles).  The ravens offense is so good because they don't have a mindset of pounding the rock with their running backs.  They understand thats not how to win in today's game.  

Likewise, they take the same mindset on defense.....they pour all their resources into stopping the other teams passing game.  

Same thing with the chiefs- they won the super bowl last year with complete stiffs in the backfield.  They used alloted resources on defense to give them an average pass defense...they blew off 'run defense' as they noted it's unimportant.

I'm just worried Stefanski won't de-prioritize the running game and run defense.  Already hearing rumblings about a big extension for chubb one day.  Giving a big extension to a running back who isn't good in the pass game in today's game would be absurd.  Not a huge fan of how the saints and vikes just paid Cook and Kamara, but those guys can help a ton in the passing game(ie they can help your offense a lot).  

Opponents are going to be more than happy to give Chubb and Hunt 120 yards or so a game on the ground if it gobbles up 25ish plays to do it.  Thats not winning football....it's fine when you have a big lead and you need to run clock, but in the first half of games we don't need to be 'pounding the rock'.  

And we don't need to be putting our resources on game day into stopping the other team from doing so.  At one point in the first half of the game today it looked like Ingram was running into 

a loaded front.  WTF?  Sure it helped us strong ingram, but he's irrelevant.  Mark Andrews running wide open down the gaping middle of the field past our linebackers are one of the things(amongst others) that gets you beat.....

 

Wrong on many fronts.

The Chiefs added another dimension by getting a weapon in the backfield.  

The Ravens running threats (QB, Multiple backs) made their passing game a problem to stop.

on the flip side when it was 24-6 and we were emptying out back field and put Chubb on the bench we did the Ravens a favor. 
 

40 Run - 30 Pass is our formula this year.  We protect an average to below average defense.  We make Baker a better QB and we utilize our backfield to its potential. 

[tiamat63]

On 9/14/2020 at 2:20 AM, Tacosman said:

 

Oh, so you are one of those "running the ball sets up the play action huh?".....no, no, no, and no.  

No, actually, I'm not.  Again we've been through this.

Just because something has been said a million times doesn't make it true.  The evidence that we have is that play action passing(which is generally a good idea) has success that

is really independent of 'establishing the run'.  There was a seminal paper on this recently.  You may think that in theory that would be the case.  But real life data suggests otherwise.....

Neat.  Was this paper or evidence collected by yourself?  Why do you stand on the shoulders of those who have, shouting it like it was your point to make, only to not apply appropriate context?    I've actually shown, with screenshots, proof of depth of defensive drop between two teams with respect to their running games.    Look no further than my posts during the last SuperBowl.     The Niners didn't respect the running game of the Chiefs, nor should they.  Instead they got impatient and blitzed themselves into trouble while holding a 10 point lead.   You might love to use the Chiefs as an example, but make no mistake you were one game away from being reaaaaaal quiet this entire season as well. 

 

You're either going to go in an evidence based direction or your not. 

And I've begun showing my own evidence in high profile games (including playoffs)  Now, have I done this over a sample size of a whole season? No, sadly I don't have that kind of time.  But if I did, I would be willing to bet a great deal of money I could put out my own paper that would show the impact of making it to the playoffs only to find a specific game-plan designed to not at least honor your ground game.      Again, you use the Chiefs as an example.  In 2018, before his release, Kareem Hunt was averaging nearly 20 touches a game.  

All the evidence suggests that teams should invest as much as possible in throwing the ball efficiently early in games(meaning the first half to 3 qtrs) and defending the pass.

Brilliant analysis.  You required research for that?  It's a passing league and NOBODY has argued with you otherwise. 

 .if a team is having a little success doing it, that actually may be a negative for them(and a positive for their opponent) if it leads to them doing it more than sparingly in meaningful action.     

Again, fucking brilliant analysis.   If the running game isn't netted expected yardage gained per the average play design, then it might be a negative for the team using it and a positive for that defense?   Holy shit, Money Ball,  you're YEARS ahead of your time here.

 

On 9/14/2020 at 2:20 AM, Tacosman said:

Now I'm sure I'll get a lot of pushback about how I'm an idiot, how running the ball and stopping the run is super duper important, etc.....all that sounds nice(and heck I am an idiot sometimes), but the truth is the truth.

There is no "stopping" the run.  You can limit the running game, absolutely.  

Running the ball at or above expected average (i.e. the net average this play design gets vs the called front/defense over the league) is not only efficient but incredibly important at times.   Because you think you're just setting up playaction.  You aren't.   You're also benefiting the passing game by slowing down pass rush, setting up the screen game, putting hits on dline and linebackers that in turn affects their ability to function on the field.

We're seeing a fundamental shift towards analytics and efficiency in each of the three major sports leagues. 

The shift is already there.  You're thinking this is some cutting edge technology bullshit.  You're a nerd half a decade behind the times.

Each at a somewhat different pace/time.  Over the last 7 years or so in the nba we've seen it with a complete abandonment of the mid range game and traditional post play.  Why?  Because data indicated that the difference in shooting percentage from a 5 foot shot to a 20 foot shot are roughly the same. 

The larger abandonment from the midrange and post game is because of the lack of "traditional" play during developmental years.  Which is why, on the off-chance, you find a dominant big, they end up being just that.   It's flashy to chuck up 3's and not play defense.   It's a play-style trend.   But much like defenses in football that shifted to smaller personnel to deal with the 3 and 4 WR sets of the late 90's and early 2000's, offenses began to counter again by running larger bodies - "Move TE's" 

 

Now in football given the nature of it, the analytical revolution has come at a different pace in a little different form.  After establishing that stopping the run is far more important than stopping the pass,  it involves essential questions like- is coverage or pass rush that more dictates success in this regard?  An important question since it involves organizations deciding whether they should commit most of their money to corners or DEs/OLBs.  

NO revolution required that a franchise pass rusher and franchise corners are a hallmark to what coaches have looked for in over 50+ years of football.  Really since the advent of the modern passing rules.    What that boils down to is coaches and scheme.   We've seen good defenses with so-so CB play and dominant pass rush work.   We've seen defenses with 2 all-pro corners and patchwork defensive fronts work.     We've also seen both of these methods failed at the highest of levels as well.

There are lots of unanswered questions and nobody has figured it out yet.....but we've figured out enough to know that the emphasis for successful defenses are going to be towards stopping the passing game.  And no, that *doesn't mean* stopping the running game first so you don't get suckered into PA pass.  Anyone looking at it that way is also probably arguing that their favorite mlb team should do more hit and run and try to steal more bases, or that their favorite nba team needs a big hulking center who plays with his back to the basket.  

You STILL haven't addressed the points I've brought up.

 

WHY did the Chiefs invest a 1st round pick in a RB and then run the ball 19 times in the first half compared to 22 passes?  For a balance they had not achieved in almost 2 years. Why was a Superbowl winning GM, scouting staff, coaching staff, etc etc... willing to make an investment that you weren't?

Why are you ignoring their premium put on stopping Derrick Henry, which then became their meal-ticket to the Superbowl?

Why are you pretending that if you give coaches like Vrabel and Shanny 6+ YPC, like they won't sit there and run the ball 40+ times a game and limit your offensive possessions?

Have you played football at ANY level beyond rec league?  

What is the ratio of run:pass that you would recommend for this current Browns team?

Do you believe that Baker, or ANY other average to below average QB with a high turnover, inaccuracy rate and missed opportunity percentage somehow elevates offensive production by making even MORE pass attempts? 

You say the Browns should invest resources into the stopping the pass and passing more effectively...

In the past 6 years since they began under new ownership the Browns have taken.

-  TWO 1st round QB's

-  FOUR top 50 OL

-  TWO 1st round pass catchers while also trading for an additonal TWO top 20 WR's

------  On Defense

- THREE 1st round DB's

- TWO top 50 DB's

- #1 overall on a pass rusher

-  TWO top 50 pass rushers

Another handful of DE's, WR's and DB's between the 3rd and 4th rounds.

 

Can you tell me, in detail, was that enough of resources spent?  If not, how much is enough?  And can you provide me the picks you WOULD have made along with any future picks you MAY make.  

 

 

To deconstruct your entire post.

Please consider the bold.  Appreciate your time.

[Orion]

On 9/14/2020 at 1:44 PM, SdBacker80 said:

40 Run - 30 Pass is our formula this year.  We protect an average to below average defense.  We make Baker a better QB and we utilize our backfield to its potential. 

It's hard to run the ball as well as you're suggesting.  Even harder when you end up punting (eventually) and they take the ball down the field in short order for points.  And again...and again...

You have to be able to pass the ball.  When you get behind by a bunch of points, and you see that your D is not holding up well...then you can't just keep running the ball.  You're only gonna get so many drives.  If you're offense is supposed to 'cover' for the defense, then when you get behind you've gotta put it in high gear in order to catch up.   If you're not far behind on the scoreboard then you can try your running prowess and try to wear down the D.  

IMO, if our passing game sucks, and we're gonna have to win games with run right, run left, and run up the middle, then we're not gonna win too many games.  Or not enough anyway.

[SdBacker80]

13 hours ago, Orion said:

It's hard to run the ball as well as you're suggesting.  Even harder when you end up punting (eventually) and they take the ball down the field in short order for points.  And again...and again...

You have to be able to pass the ball.  When you get behind by a bunch of points, and you see that your D is not holding up well...then you can't just keep running the ball.  You're only gonna get so many drives.  If you're offense is supposed to 'cover' for the defense, then when you get behind you've gotta put it in high gear in order to catch up.   If you're not far behind on the scoreboard then you can try your running prowess and try to wear down the D.  

IMO, if our passing game sucks, and we're gonna have to win games with run right, run left, and run up the middle, then we're not gonna win too many games.  Or not enough anyway.

The only thing that was going well at half when it was 24-6 was running the ball.  Chubb had 10 for 60.  We actually could have used a 6-7 min drive after the half hammering on the D front of the Ravens.

the game was over at half though.
 

The Titans are a great example of a limited passing team that gives a guy like Henry 31 carries - many of which 2/3 yard gains but in doing so they set up a historically mediocre QB like Tannehill and some average WRs for big gains.   We are a lot like the Titans minus the defense, coaching and discipline but with better WRs

[Orion]

9 hours ago, SdBacker80 said:

he Titans are a great example of a limited passing team that gives a guy like Henry 31 carries - many of which 2/3 yard gains but in doing so they set up a historically mediocre QB like Tannehill and some average WRs for big gains.   We are a lot like the Titans minus the defense, coaching and discipline but with better WRs

Well said.  But it's our D that doesn't give us the time to pound a D into submission.   ( agree 100% that Tannehill is very average )

[tiamat63]

This thread aged well.