Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 12 of 34
  1. #1

    Flacco to the WRs

    Deciding to start a new thread for this, but it gets into the discussion we were having in the Zorn thread, where my claim was Flacco is throwing down-field more often than he should be, and Jim saying he didn't believe that to be the case. This will wind up turning into an article at some point, but here's the data and a few thoughts.

    First, the assumptions...
    - I decided not to look at left/mid/right segments of the field. Too much to cut for something that right now I don't feel like spending a ton of time on. Maybe later.
    - I used arbitrary cuts for where the yardage buckets were cause I really had no other choice. Shorter than 5 yards, 5-10 yards, 11-15 yards and 16+ yards. Honestly I think that's good enough.
    - I then tried to come up with some of the better QBs, and split them into two groups. One, guys with receivers that aren't like ours...more down-field threats...this has P Manning, Rodgers and M Ryan. Two, guys with receivers more like ours, without a real down-field threat, more possession receivers. The problem is, that second bucket is tough. I chose Brady and Brees. Not perfect fits, but it's the best I've got.
    - I only counted passes thrown to the two, three or four receivers. Mason/Boldin/Housh for Flacco. Two for Brady, four for Manning, three for the other guys. No TEs, no backs, WR only.
    - Incompletes were counted too.
    - I only counted the distance the pass went, not the total reception. A pass with the receiver 10 yards down field that was thrown 20 yards past the receiver only counts as a 10 yard throw. A pass 10 yards, caught, YAC of 30 is a 10 yard pass, not a 40 yard one.
    - I'm doing this in percentages. These numbers are the % thrown at each distance for the total thrown to the WRs. i.e. Flacco's short means that of all passes thrown to Boldin, Mason and Housh, that 16% of them were for less than five yards. The grouped QBs are the average of averages, but there's not a huge discrepancy in the data QB by QB so weighted avg wouldn't change it much if at all.

    So here we go...

    Flacco
    Short - 16%
    5-10 - 35%
    11-16 - 19%
    16+ - 31%

    Deep group (Manning/Rodgers/Ryan)
    Short - 28%
    5-10 - 30%
    11-16 - 15%
    16+ - 27% (none of them had > 29% here)

    Possession group (Brady/Brees)
    Short - 36%
    5-10 - 33%
    11-16 - 15%
    16+ - 16%

    The data really speaks for itself. It's not just us throwing a little bit more down-field than the guys with more possession receivers. We're almost doubling their down field rate. But we're also throwing down field more than the top QBs in the game that have receivers specifically built for speedy, down-field passing!

    I'll build an article around this eventually. For now, I'll just let others lend their thoughts.

    - C -
    ---------------------------------------------------

    www.oblongspheroid.com

    A blog about any and everything football.

    Twitter: oblong_spheroid





  2. #2

    Re: Flacco to the WRs

    Basically the data proves that we are running the wrong system for the type of players we have.

    What really worries me is that a fan on a message board can use data to prove this assumption, but our coaching staff can't seem to get the message. psuasskicker joins the list of people I would rather have coaching this team other than Jim Harbaugh's brother.





  3. #3

    Re: Flacco to the WRs

    LOL... I definitely don't want to coach this team. I like to think of myself as a pretty knowledgeable football guy. But no chance I'd have taken this team to 12-4 this year.

    I would, however, love to put these numbers in front of Biscuit, Oz and Harbaugh, and then hear their honest thoughts about them. Maybe they've seen them already. But honestly, it wouldn't shock me if they haven't. And frankly, I don't think these numbers are even a little bit defensible. They're worse than I thought. I expected 16+ to be maybe 50% bigger than the possession receiver group and a bit under the deep route group.

    - C -
    ---------------------------------------------------

    www.oblongspheroid.com

    A blog about any and everything football.

    Twitter: oblong_spheroid





  4. #4

    Re: Flacco to the WRs

    I doubt they have seen them. Harbaugh doesn't seem like a numbers guy, and it isn't really Bisciotti's or Ozzie's job to track that stuff. They don't make the game plan.





  5. #5

    Re: Flacco to the WRs

    Quote Originally Posted by Purpleguy View Post
    Basically the data proves that we are running the wrong system for the type of players we have.
    And here in lies the biggest problem.

    I've heard multiple times on the radio that when Ozzie is asked about his opinion on how he feels about how the players are being used, he basically replys that he doesn't interfere with coaching, etc.
    He basically states it is his job to acquire the best players he can.

    That's fine and dandy, but there is a serious disconnect here.

    What the hell good is it if the people in charge of acquireing the players don't take into account what type of system the coaches are running and the type of players that would fit best?

    And flipping the coin...


    What the hell good is it if the coaches aren't trying to run the best system that fits the players we acquire and have to utilize what these players do best?


    Until this happens.......:grbac::grbac::grbac::grbac::grbac::grbac:
    Will Die A Ravens Fan!!





  6. #6

    Re: Flacco to the WRs

    That must have taken a fair amount of time to do, heck of a job!

    Don't suppose you happen to have the number of passes completed in that area aswell. Obviously it's one thing to say "We don't have the players for that, etc" but without knowing the success of the high percentage of the time that we were throwing it over 16 yards it's hard to really judge whether or not Flacco was really doing it "too much".

    The other thing I find interesting is that we also were throwing a high percentage of the time between 5 and 10 yards, which you could argue is the area our WR's are best suited to.

    Having thought about it, and I've not researched this in anyway it's just an opinion, could the low percentage of passes to the WRs of less than 5 yards be more because of Ray Rice being the primary option there?

    Good work though, especially to start the offseason with a good bit of debate.
    UKRavenGordon's Gametrips

    2009 v Cleveland W
    2010 @ New York Jets W
    2011 (January 2012) @ New England AFCCG L








  7. #7

    Re: Flacco to the WRs

    Quote Originally Posted by The Fanatic View Post
    I've heard multiple times on the radio that when Ozzie is asked about his opinion on how he feels about how the players are being used, he basically replys that he doesn't interfere with coaching, etc.
    He basically states it is his job to acquire the best players he can.

    That's fine and dandy, but there is a serious disconnect here.
    Yeah, but that's on the coaches. It's not Ozzie's job to build a team around a system. Coaches change all the time. It's Ozzie's job to get the talent. It's the coaches' job to use the talent that makes the most of their abilities.

    Quote Originally Posted by UKRavenGordon View Post
    That must have taken a fair amount of time to do, heck of a job!

    Don't suppose you happen to have the number of passes completed in that area aswell.
    Yeah, I can cut that in later, maybe tonight. My article is going to be more involved than just this. Completions will be in there. I will completely break down Boldin vs. other receivers. I'll probably also create a 16-25 bucket and 26+ to look at even deeper passing. FWIW, I looked at Boldin this year vs. last year... Boldin went 16+ 28% of the time this year, last year it was 15%. That's simply stupid, IMNSHO.

    Quote Originally Posted by UKRavenGordon View Post
    Having thought about it, and I've not researched this in anyway it's just an opinion, could the low percentage of passes to the WRs of less than 5 yards be more because of Ray Rice being the primary option there?
    It's probable, given how Rice almost exclusively catches passes 3 yards or shorter. But IMO it's also not an excuse. Short crossing routes, quick slants, etc. These are routes where our receivers can be successful (on top of outs, which we used a lot of), or have seen the most success in the past. They're not being used that way, and I think that's not acceptable.

    - C -
    ---------------------------------------------------

    www.oblongspheroid.com

    A blog about any and everything football.

    Twitter: oblong_spheroid





  8. Re: Flacco to the WRs

    For the sake of comparison from last season, here are some similar numbers from Flacco's 2009 season. The ranges are broken down differently, but we can still draw some similar conclusions (and notice any changes compared to this season):

    Passing Breakdown
    - Behind LOS: 22.8%
    - 1-10 yards: 45.5%
    - 11-20 yards: 20.4%
    - 21-30 yards: 5.4% (23 attempts)
    - 31-40 yards: 2.8% (12 attempts)
    - 40+ yards: 3.1% (13 attempts)

    Flacco Completion Percentage/ TD% / INT%
    - Behind LOS: 79.4% / 1% / 0
    - 1-10 yards: 69.1% / 3.1% / 2.1%
    - 11-20 yards: 52.9% / 3.4% / 2.3%
    - 21-30 yards: 30.4% / 8.7% / 8.7%
    - 31-40 yards: 25% / 16.7% / 8.3%
    - 40+ yards: 23.1% / 7.7% / 15.4%





  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Annapolis
    Posts
    154

    Re: Flacco to the WRs

    WOW!! You guys know your stuff!! Good Job!!





  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    34,414
    Correct me if I'm wrong but none of the three starting receivers were ever known to be the quick slant types?

    That was usually the domain of the Clayton types. No?





  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Baltimore
    Posts
    3,009

    Re: Flacco to the WRs

    PSU,

    Thanks for the analysis. I would say a few things, just to provide some food for thought.


    Ray Rice
    A unique feature of our offense is the check-down to Ray Rice. While every team does this on occasion, few if any are as effective at YAC as Ray Rice. It's not the sexiest play in the world, but the check-down to Rice can be effective and it's a big part of our offense.

    When addressing the question of whether Joe throws down field too much, focusing only on receivers may disproportionally discount the Ravens short passing game since Rice is such a big part of it.


    Our receivers vs the "posession" group receivers
    I feel like the receivers on the "possession" teams are both faster and quicker than our receivers. When I say fast, I mean how much speed they attain once they've had a chance to accelerate. With quickness I'm referring to how rapidly they change directions and reaccelerate in small spaces. So I think of Ray Rice and Wes Welker as players that are very quick, but not very fast.

    I think bieng "fast" is generally more important for down field routes, while being quick is generally more usefull on short routes. I feel Boldin and TJ are neither quick nor fast while Mason is quick but not fast. A guy like Boldin plays smart and physical, and while he may not be exceptionally quick or fast, he's not incredibly slow either.

    I don't know how representative the Patriots and Saints receivers are of our group of receivers. As you pointed out, this is a tough category to find good comparisons in.


    Scheme vs Execution
    For the purpose of this discussion:
    Scheme - Routes that are bieng run.
    Execution - Which route is thrown to.

    Your analysis focuses on the execution, not the scheme. Those are related, but not the same. That's not at all a criticism of the analysis, since you never claimed it was an analysis of Cam's scheme, but some will take this to mean that Cam is calling too many downfield routes. That may be the case, but it is not proven by this analysis, only suggested. Is throwing downfield more a tendency of the scheme, or a tendency of Joe's execution?





  12. #12

    Re: Flacco to the WRs

    Hokie - Good numbers, but realize that I think they include backs and TEs. Rice was I think the #1 most receptions last year, so that skews the numbers a good bit.

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Correct me if I'm wrong but none of the three starting receivers were ever known to be the quick slant types?
    I can look at last year for quick slants, but I remember that Boldin had 7-8 of those last year I think. I plan to break down segments of the field and pass % for him in '09 vs. this year.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kyle Cactus View Post
    Our receivers vs the "posession" group receivers
    I feel like the receivers on the "possession" teams are both faster and quicker than our receivers. When I say fast, I mean how much speed they attain once they've had a chance to accelerate. With quickness I'm referring to how rapidly they change directions and reaccelerate in small spaces. So I think of Ray Rice and Wes Welker as players that are very quick, but not very fast.

    I think bieng "fast" is generally more important for down field routes, while being quick is generally more usefull on short routes. I feel Boldin and TJ are neither quick nor fast while Mason is quick but not fast. A guy like Boldin plays smart and physical, and while he may not be exceptionally quick or fast, he's not incredibly slow either.

    I don't know how representative the Patriots and Saints receivers are of our group of receivers. As you pointed out, this is a tough category to find good comparisons in.
    Yeah, the real problem is, no other team really has our sort of receivers. I agree the Pats and Saints receivers are generally faster than ours. But I think that would skew them to be more down-field oriented, not less.

    - C -
    ---------------------------------------------------

    www.oblongspheroid.com

    A blog about any and everything football.

    Twitter: oblong_spheroid





Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Link To Mobile Site
var infolinks_pid = 3297965; var infolinks_wsid = 0; //—->