Long drives and the running game

[Paintballguy]

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/st...d-running-game

Tl;dr

To review, here are our three main findings:
1) It is not the case that long drives disproportionately have greater rush/pass ratios.
2) Rush attempts that come in situations where running the ball is better than passing the ball in terms of extending drives are extremely rare.
3) There is not strong carryover between rushing success in short-yardage situations and rushing success in other situations.
Justifying an investment in the run game by saying it will help extend drives is misguided. If you want to get first downs, throw the ball (unless it's a short-yardage situation).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[leachisabeast]

Tell that to the 2015 broncos

[edromeo]

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/st...d-running-game

Tl;dr

To review, here are our three main findings:
1) It is not the case that long drives disproportionately have greater rush/pass ratios.
2) Rush attempts that come in situations where running the ball is better than passing the ball in terms of extending drives are extremely rare.
3) There is not strong carryover between rushing success in short-yardage situations and rushing success in other situations.
Justifying an investment in the run game by saying it will help extend drives is misguided. If you want to get first downs, throw the ball (unless it's a short-yardage situation).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I think the conversation about the benefits of running the ball can't be quantified based on projected 1st down outcomes alone. Imho the view of offense/defense as a set static function is flawed. Teams are built differently with different personal and football is a game of match-ups and situations. While every play called hopes to gain a 1st down a run, even failed runs serve 2 other purposes that failed passes cannot 1) runs the clock and 2) sets-up play action. These factors are usually lost in a net comparison of runs vs passes. How many passes are success are based on the run? Play-action passes account for large chunks of offense that are dependent on actually running the ball.

The article begins in the 1st paragraph by saying:

After drafting Rashaad Penny in the first round last month, Seahawks coach Pete Carroll explained that running the football "helps our defense." But is that really true? Given that 33 percent of dropbacks gain first downs compared to only 22 percent of rush attempts, we already have reason to be skeptical. Sustaining drives requires obtaining first downs, and the best way to get first downs is to throw the ball.

I think stats like this are misleading because quantified in a vacuum with context or situation.

My first comment is that gaining a first down on 22 percent of runs is good especially compared to 33 percent of passes.
The offensive playbook is still wide open when the offense can stay out of 2nd and long. Even the very best passing teams are going to throw incomplete passes ~30 percent of the time. That is the comparison i'm interested in. I'm interested in how often 1st down runs vs 1st down passes result in 2nd and 10.

Defense adjusts.

Facing 2nd and 10 is much more daunting for an offense then 2nd and less then 10. Offenses rarely choose to run on 2nd and 10.
This narrows the play call options considerably.

Having the possibility to run again on 2nd down is advantageous to an offense.

But its an interesting read.

[Paintballguy]

Bill Walsh
“I do not believe in necessarily establishing a run or establishing a passing game. I believe more in fully dimensional football where you are establishing your offense.”

That’s what this article speaks to imo. A lot of coaches will repeat the “we have to establish the run and be physical to win” but that’s not the case. Good teams will build a lead by passing and then run the ball to finish the game. The ravens were 7th in rushing efficient last year and 26th in passing efficiency. Alex Collins was a monster last year but it largely didn’t mean shit because our passing offense was so bad.

Check this out... from 2011 to 2017, teams have gained 2.5 yards more per pass than per run. That fact alone should open some eyes. In a game that is won by gaining yards efficiently which should lead to scoring, a pass play gains 2.5 more yards than a run play on an average down.


I remember 2014 against the pats in the playoffs. They passed the ball 51 times against the ravens and only ran 7 times and won. Forsett also had 129 yards rushing in the game.

Being able to run the ball is good but going into every game with the mindset that you have to run the ball 25 times is flawed. You should play to your opponents weakness.

It’s much more about situational play-calling and knowing when to run and when not. Being unpredictable is important. Against good run defenses you can abandon the run game and still win easily. But you can rarely abandon the passing game and still win.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Paintballguy]

Tell that to the 2015 broncos

They were definitely an exception but they still didn’t have a great rushing offense. They averaged 107 rushing yards a game that season which was 16th in the nfl.

More often than not super bowl winners are ranked high in pass efficiency.

2017 eagles pass 6th rush 15th
2016 pats pass 2nd rush 15th
2015 broncos pass 25th rush 20th
2014 pats pass 5th rush 14th
2013 Seahawks pass 8th rush 7th
2012 ravens pass 15th rush 7th
2011 giants pass 4th rush 19th
2010 packers pass 5th rush 10th
2009 saints pass 5th rush 1st

Only 2 sb winning teams in 9 years didn’t have top 10 pass offenses. But we all know Flacco had a historic sb run passing the ball. And only 4 teams had top 10 rushing offenses.

The 2015 broncos were definitely an outlier. Their whole offense sucked.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[edromeo]

Bill Walsh, that's my guy right there.
Mentioning Bill Walsh makes me think of quote from finding the winning edge that reminds me of lamar that i'll post once I get home....but i digress.....

For the most part we agree. But the article implies that running the ball is overrated.
Their methods of tracking the "success" i.e. their conclusions misses/doesn't account for the hidden benefits to the passing came that come directly from running the ball like play-action.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying "we have to establish the run and be physical to win".
For me their argument seems kinda like they set up some strawman arguments to knock down:
1) It is not the case that long drives disproportionately have greater rush/pass ratios.
^^Okay...but who is saying this?

2) Rush attempts that come in situations where running the ball is better than passing the ball in terms of extending drives are extremely rare.
"in terms of extending drives" depends on how they classify it and how many explosive passes or favorable passing situations are a result of the defense playing to stop the run?

3) There is not strong carryover between rushing success in short-yardage situations and rushing success in other situations.
Okay, but again who is saying this?

But, i do like a good football convo.

[Paintballguy]

Bill Walsh, that's my guy right there.
Mentioning Bill Walsh makes me think of quote from finding the winning edge that reminds me of lamar that i'll post once I get home....but i digress.....

For the most part we agree. But the article implies that running the ball is overrated.
Their methods of tracking the "success" i.e. their conclusions misses/doesn't account for the hidden benefits to the passing came that come directly from running the ball like play-action.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying "we have to establish the run and be physical to win".
For me their argument seems kinda like they set up some strawman arguments to knock down:
1) It is not the case that long drives disproportionately have greater rush/pass ratios.
^^Okay...but who is saying this?

2) Rush attempts that come in situations where running the ball is better than passing the ball in terms of extending drives are extremely rare.
"in terms of extending drives" depends on how they classify it and how many explosive passes or favorable passing situations are a result of the defense playing to stop the run?

3) There is not strong carryover between rushing success in short-yardage situations and rushing success in other situations.
Okay, but again who is saying this?

But, i do like a good football convo.

Surprisingly there is no correlation between running success and play action success. I didn’t believe it either but numbers don’t lie. There are stats to track play action.






https://suuma.eu/the-running-game-is...-in-the-1980s/




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Paintballguy]

In the end of the day success in the nfl comes down to two things: pass efficiency and being able to stop the pass.

The Browns didn’t win a game last year but they had the 9th ranked rush offense and 4th ranked rush defense. (32nd ranked pass offense and 26th ranked pass def)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[edromeo]

Your post above jumps to the wrong argument.
I never said you have to run the ball successfully in order to effectively set up play-action.

That article is refuting the theory that running the ball successful is required for setting up play-action BUT I haven't said that. And I actually agree with their conclusion on how to effectively setting up play-action.

Running the ball whether successful or not is the 'constraint' play that sets up play-action.
I know this both from playing and coaching. Often times the defenders/defenses most susceptible to play-action are the defenders/defenses that are doing a good job stopping that specific run.

Then when the offense shows the defense that same 'look' that they were stopping effectively the defenders are eager to once again stop the run they are expecting.

Point being you don't have to run the ball well to set-up play-action.
You just have to run it. Which goes back to the point I was making before.
Even "failed" runs are the building blocks that set up explosive "passing" plays.
But stats about rushing vs passing success can never account for the contribution that running the ball has on the passing game through play-action and from forcing the defense to play the run by bringing a safety into the box.

[edromeo]

The Walsh quote below makes me think of Lamar Jackson:

The single trait that separates great quarterbacks from good quarterbacks is the ability to make the great, spontaneous decision, especially at a crucial time. The clock is running down and your team is five points behind. The play that was called has broken down and 22 players are moving in almost unpredictable directions all over the field.

This is where the great quarterback uses his experience, vision, mobility and what we will call spontaneous genius. He makes something good happen. This, of course, is what we saw in Joe Montana when he pulled out those dramatic victories for Notre Dame.

[Paintballguy]

Your post above jumps to the wrong argument.
I never said you have to run the ball successfully in order to effectively set up play-action.

That article is refuting the theory that running the ball successful is required for setting up play-action BUT I haven't said that. And I actually agree with their conclusion on how to effectively setting up play-action.

Running the ball whether successful or not is the 'constraint' play that sets up play-action.
I know this both from playing and coaching. Often times the defenders/defenses most susceptible to play-action are the defenders/defenses that are doing a good job stopping that specific run.

Then when the offense shows the defense that same 'look' that they were stopping effectively the defenders are eager to once again stop the run they are expecting.

Point being you don't have to run the ball well to set-up play-action.
You just have to run it. Which goes back to the point I was making before.
Even "failed" runs are the building blocks that set up explosive "passing" plays.
But stats about rushing vs passing success can never account for the contribution that running the ball has on the passing game through play-action and from forcing the defense to play the run by bringing a safety into the box.

I definitely agree. It comes down to good play calling and being unpredictable. Like you said showing a certain formation that you run out of and hoping the defense picks it up as a run when you call the same formation later but instead of run you go play action.

But at the same time if you can’t get it done through the air, it’s not gonna matter anyways. The defense will just stack the box and run blitz the shit out of you until you can beat them.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro