Extra defender in the box is worth 1 less yard per carry

**Paintballguy** · 06-06-2018, 02:08 PM

Really interesting stuff going on by this really good football analytics guy on Twitter. https://twitter.com/friscojosh/statu...545918466?s=21

His findings so far have said that an extra 8th man in the box is worth 1 less yard per carry.

I don’t get why teams run into a stacked box. Audible and pass that shit. Or why even call a run outside of obvious situations. Walk up with a pass play and audible to a run if you get a good look.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

**GOTA** · 06-06-2018, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by Paintballguy

Really interesting stuff going on by this really good football analytics guy on Twitter. https://twitter.com/friscojosh/statu...545918466?s=21

His findings so far have said that an extra 8th man in the box is worth 1 less yard per carry.

I don’t get why teams run into a stacked box. Audible and pass that shit. Or why even call a run outside of obvious situations. Walk up with a pass play and audible to a run if you get a good look.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Honestly I think they run in those situations to set up the play action pass later on. It's a poker game. If you just keep staying away they defense is going to change things up. Run against the stacked box and you'll catch them with 1 less defender for a big gain from the pass

**Ravenswintitle** · 06-06-2018, 02:53 PM

Yes, a lot of those plays are to lull the D to sleep a little so you can run a pass out of the same look later.

**Paintballguy** · 06-06-2018, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by GOTA

Honestly I think they run in those situations to set up the play action pass later on. It's a poker game. If you just keep staying away they defense is going to change things up. Run against the stacked box and you'll catch them with 1 less defender for a big gain from the pass

There is no statistical backing in that theory. Running success does not correlate directly to play action success. I’ll pull up the stats later.

A well timed and well executed play action is enough to fool a defense.

The lions were one of the worst running teams and most successful play action teams last year.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

**edromeo** · 06-06-2018, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by Paintballguy

I don’t get why teams run into a stacked box. Audible and pass that shit. Or why even call a run outside of obvious situations. Walk up with a pass play and audible to a run if you get a good look.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

No doubt it is interesting stuff....

To answer your question why do teams run into a stacked box?

- if a defense knows you won't run into a stacked box then they'll play a coverage call disguised as a stacked box knowing you'll check into to a pass i.e. (a stacked box isn't always a stacked box team seldom play wysiwyg defense)

-sometimes the biggest runs happen against stacked fronts because if everything is blocked up it will put the RB 1-on-1 vs a single post safety

-to set-up play-action (remember often times the defenses most susceptible to play-action have defenders (Lbs+Ss) that are playing well against run))

**esmd** · 06-06-2018, 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by GOTA

Honestly I think they run in those situations to set up the play action pass later on. It's a poker game. If you just keep staying away they defense is going to change things up. Run against the stacked box and you'll catch them with 1 less defender for a big gain from the pass

Originally Posted by Ravenswintitle

Yes, a lot of those plays are to lull the D to sleep a little so you can run a pass out of the same look later.

I would counter that point by saying that a well designed offense with a smart coordinator and QB should always be able to audible into a play designed to exploit a defense based on their alignment. If a team is selling out with 8 in the box, fine, but audible and burn them by going down the field. If a team plays dime or quarters, throw short or run. A good offense doesn't waste snaps running plays into the teeth of a defense's strength, they should be looking to exploit them where they're weak. That's why Manning's teams and Brady's teams were/are so good. It's not just their talent level, it's their mind. Running into an 8 man box so you can "fool them later" is the 80's football that most everyone around here complains about. A good offense attacks the defense and switches into plays depending on the defensive look with a mind to hit them where they're vulnerable. The challenge is when you have a really smart D-Coordinator and defensive captain that can react and audible quick enough to counter your offensive audible. A great example of this is when we played the Colts in Indy, I think it was maybe 2004 or so. Manning would look at our D, audible to exploit it, and Ray would audible our D into a different look. He and Manning went back and forth all game like that, it was absolutely fantastic to watch.

**Paintballguy** · 06-06-2018, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by esmd

I would counter that point by saying that a well designed offense with a smart coordinator and QB should always be able to audible into a play designed to exploit a defense based on their alignment. If a team is selling out with 8 in the box, fine, but audible and burn them by going down the field. If a team plays dime or quarters, throw short or run. A good offense doesn't waste snaps running plays into the teeth of a defense's strength, they should be looking to exploit them where they're weak. That's why Manning's teams and Brady's teams were/are so good. It's not just their talent level, it's their mind. Running into an 8 man box so you can "fool them later" is the 80's football that most everyone around here complains about. A good offense attacks the defense and switches into plays depending on the defensive look with a mind to hit them where they're vulnerable. The challenge is when you have a really smart D-Coordinator and defensive captain that can react and audible quick enough to counter your offensive audible. A great example of this is when we played the Colts in Indy, I think it was maybe 2004 or so. Manning would look at our D, audible to exploit it, and Ray would audible our D into a different look. He and Manning went back and forth all game like that, it was absolutely fantastic to watch.

Amazing post. And I agree 100%. Good offenses don’t waste a single snap and they exploit the weak spots. This whole setting up the play action with wasted runs into a stacked box is absolute bull shit that isn’t backed up by any data and just gets repeated.

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/st...action-passing

Coming into this, I did not know what to expect. Since play-by-play data on play-action passing is not readily available, it was something I had long wondered but never been able to look into. After measuring this every way I could think if, it appears that the conventional wisdom that running is necessary for play-action passes to be effective should be questioned. We have a lot of evidence that play-action passing is more effective than non-play-action passing, so the big question that remains is why teams run play-action so infrequently (the percentage of passes that are play-action has hovered around 20 percent since 2011). What would happen if teams started devoting a higher share of their plays to play-action passing? Would the advantage persist or would defenses adjust?
The recently-concluded 2017 playoffs may provide a glimpse into a future where play-action is more common. The Eagles attempted 21 play-action passes in the Super Bowl on 43 dropbacks (49 percent). Frequent use of play-action (33 percent of dropbacks against the Patriots and 54 percent against the Steelers) also helped the Jaguars score 65 points across two playoff games and nearly reach the Super Bowl. In the constant search for advantages in a competitive league, play-action passing appears to be an under-utilized edge.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

**esmd** · 06-06-2018, 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by edromeo

No doubt it is interesting stuff....

To answer your question why do teams run into a stacked box?

- if a defense knows you won't run into a stacked box then they'll play a coverage call disguised as a stacked box knowing you'll check into to a pass i.e. (a stacked box isn't always a stacked box team seldom play wysiwyg defense)

-sometimes the biggest runs happen against stacked fronts because if everything is blocked up it will put the RB 1-on-1 vs a single post safety

-to set-up play-action (remember often times the defenses most susceptible to play-action have defenders (Lbs+Ss) that are playing well against run))

You make a decent point about deceptive looks by the defense. Still, even if the play is pass coverage disguised as a stacked box, that's where a smart QB looks at the personnel. If the box is stacked with 8 guys, but the personnel is full of DBs, then maybe you run into it, or call a PA pass. Or better yet, a draw. Or maybe a RPO play. But 3 yards and a cloud of dust? Ancient football.

Originally Posted by Paintballguy

Amazing post. And I agree 100%. Good offenses don’t waste a single snap and they exploit the weak spots. This whole setting up the play action with wasted runs into a stacked box is absolute bull shit that isn’t backed up by any data and just gets repeated.

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/st...action-passing

Coming into this, I did not know what to expect. Since play-by-play data on play-action passing is not readily available, it was something I had long wondered but never been able to look into. After measuring this every way I could think if, it appears that the conventional wisdom that running is necessary for play-action passes to be effective should be questioned. We have a lot of evidence that play-action passing is more effective than non-play-action passing, so the big question that remains is why teams run play-action so infrequently (the percentage of passes that are play-action has hovered around 20 percent since 2011). What would happen if teams started devoting a higher share of their plays to play-action passing? Would the advantage persist or would defenses adjust?
The recently-concluded 2017 playoffs may provide a glimpse into a future where play-action is more common. The Eagles attempted 21 play-action passes in the Super Bowl on 43 dropbacks (49 percent). Frequent use of play-action (33 percent of dropbacks against the Patriots and 54 percent against the Steelers) also helped the Jaguars score 65 points across two playoff games and nearly reach the Super Bowl. In the constant search for advantages in a competitive league, play-action passing appears to be an under-utilized edge.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Good stuff. I do think you can set up play action, but not by wasting snaps into a stacked defense with run defense personnel. I think you need to call enough running plays total, and that alone will keep a defense honest. It's why we'd all lose our minds when Cam or Caldwell or Trestman or Marty (sheesh, not exactly a murderers row of offensive genius there, eh? Honestly, of the four, I'd take Cam as crazy as that sounds) would throw 55-60 times a game and Ray Rice in his prime would get 18 carries, with 8 after halftime.

**Paintballguy** · 06-06-2018, 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by esmd

You make a decent point about deceptive looks by the defense. Still, even if the play is pass coverage disguised as a stacked box, that's where a smart QB looks at the personnel. If the box is stacked with 8 guys, but the personnel is full of DBs, then maybe you run into it, or call a PA pass. Or better yet, a draw. Or maybe a RPO play. But 3 yards and a cloud of dust? Ancient football.

Good stuff. I do think you can set up play action, but not by wasting snaps into a stacked defense with run defense personnel. I think you need to call enough running plays total, and that alone will keep a defense honest. It's why we'd all lose our minds when Cam or Caldwell or Trestman or Marty (sheesh, not exactly a murderers row of offensive genius there, eh? Honestly, of the four, I'd take Cam as crazy as that sounds) would throw 55-60 times a game and Ray Rice in his prime would get 18 carries, with 8 after halftime.

No doubt. I’m not anti running at all. I’m just anti running in stupid situations like in a stacked box or 2nd and long. I don’t think getting stuffed for no gain is helping your future play action lol

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

**Paintballguy** · 06-06-2018, 04:12 PM

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

**edromeo** · 06-06-2018, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by Paintballguy

No doubt. I’m not anti running at all. I’m just anti running in stupid situations like in a stacked box or 2nd and long. I don’t think getting stuffed for no gain is helping your future play action lol

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I hear what you're saying but are different. Personnel, scheme all factor into what type of play call(s) are correct for the situation. Every team is different. There will be teams that are effective running the ball against stacked fronts.

Here is a look at teams that ran the ball well against stacked boxes:
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300...-stacked-boxes

A team has to be who they are. If you are a strong running team.....you run the ball. It wouldn't have made sense for teams like Christian Ponder lead Vikings to throw the ball in situations where it would make sense for other teams IF they aren't as good as those teams.

And again often times the defenses most susceptible to play-action are the defenses geared up to stop the run.

**Paintballguy** · 06-06-2018, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by edromeo

I hear what you're saying but are different. Personnel, scheme all factor into what type of play call(s) are correct for the situation. Every team is different. There will be teams that are effective running the ball against stacked fronts.

Here is a look at teams that ran the ball well against stacked boxes:
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300...-stacked-boxes

A team has to be who they are. If you are a strong running team.....you run the ball. It wouldn't have made sense for teams like Christian Ponder lead Vikings to throw the ball in situations where it would make sense for other teams IF they aren't as good as those teams.

And again often times the defenses most susceptible to play-action are the defenses geared up to stop the run.

There’s no way where it makes sense to line up and smash your rb into a 8-9 man box unless it’s goal line or short yardage situations.

And if you are a running team in the nfl now, you’re doing it wrong and not gonna be winning anytime soon. You need an efficient passing game to win. I know every team doesn’t have a great qb but fucking nick foles won the super bowl and had a great game. I think a lot of credit goes to doug pederson and the system they run in Philly

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro