Jump to content

Running the ball in the 1st half does not make 2nd half rushes more likely to be valuable in a significant way.


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, FalconsIn2012 said:

Yes sir... and there is a reason.  When you run the ball effectively you are almost always playing the game on your terms.  You’re also far less likely to turn the ball over

Ryan’s two best seasons according to PFF were 2016 & 2017.  He finished as the #1 and #2 QB respectively.  Not surprisingly he threw just 534 and 529 times respectively.  Those are the lowest of his career with the exception of his rookie season.  
 

I guarantee that if we throw the ball under 600 times next year we win the division

Ryans Record With Under 600 Pass Attempts: 67-30.  Had a winning season all six years.  Playoffs in 5 of 6 years

Ryan’s Record With Over 600 Attempts: 45-50.  1 winning season out of 6 seasons.  One playoff appearance

Ryan’s QBR Rank With Under 600 Pass Att: 3rd, 11th, 3rd, 5th, 1st & 5th.  Averages 4th in NFL

Ryan’s QBR With Over 600 Pass Att: 6th, 6th, 9th, 9th, 9th & 14th.  Averages 9th in NFL

Great stats. Matt Ryan can definitely gun sling with the best of them....but he's at his best when the play action is effective.

Edited by QuantumFalconz
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Every year I read some variation of this, yet every year I look at league leaders in team rushing stats end-of-season and see those teams in playoffs.   Top 4 running teams last year were raven

Establishing the run is one of the biggest farces in the game.  Keeping the defense honest and on their heels and not knowing what is coming at them is way more important, and if that means running wh

Yes sir... and there is a reason.  When you run the ball effectively you are almost always playing the game on your terms.  You’re also far less likely to turn the ball over Ryan’s two best seaso

Posted Images

15 hours ago, Kayoh said:

Every time I think we as a community are past the old "run x times a game and you win" and "run to set up play action" tropes, I come back to see replies like the ones in here and lose my faith all over again.

The teams that make the playoffs are more likely to be teams that run a lot not because running gets you to the playoffs, but because winning does, and when a team is really good, they tend to run a lot more in the 2nd half to kill the clock and secure a win. Most of the time these teams are getting leads by passing, and then just sitting on the ball and not letting the other team get enough possessions to come back.

There are multiple articles regarding play action and every single study I've ever seen has basically found that running the ball doesn't make play action work better, and that NFL coaches haven't used play action enough for it to see diminishing returns yet.

Also, the truth about why teams who run a lot win has been getting written about for decades.

https://thepowerrank.com/2018/09/24/the-surprising-truth-about-passing-and-rushing-in-the-nfl/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/you-called-a-run-on-first-down-youre-already-screwed/
https://www.thescore.com/nfl/news/1898897
https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2003/establishment-clause

@Vandy @Geneaut @FalconsIn2012 @athell

I understand where you are coming from. Circumstances definitely play into it, but I just respectfully disagree it’s that simple.
 

Teams who strategically prioritize the run (and stopping the run) tend to win more often than teams which don’t. To me, it’s a mindset. Last few years we haven’t made running the ball a big priority, and we’ve become known as a pass happy team that gets dictated to by their opponents. No coincidence (to me) team went 14-18 accordingly.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Rings said:

YPC is a horrible way to look at whether a running back did well or not anymore imo.  Although the data is easier to get, it can be very misleading.  Here is why.

1) Last year Henry had the best YPC, however if you remove runs from inside the 5 yard line, Chubb did.  If you are on the one yard line and score a touchdown, you did your job and it hurts your YPC, that’s dumb.

2) Last year Fourtnette had -8 yards on 13 carries.  He then a popped off a 65ish run and finished the game around 4.4 YPC.  Not all 4.4 are created equal.  

IMO success rate is the best look at running backs and their efficiency.  It truly shows how often they are putting their team in a positive situation, staying ahead of the chains, limiting negative plays, etc. 

With success rate, a 1 yard touchdown is a successful run, its a good thing.  Fournette shows he had a horrible success rate that week vs an average ypc.

Not all new analytic stats are worthwhile and some are kind of BS as they just combine other stats to make up something else.  But success rate is where it’s at in my opinion.

Yeah, back before they had success rate or EPA, I was always in favor of median YPC.  What was the number we could expect to hit generally.  That way you know if your guy is normally getting 4 yards, or normally getting under 2.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, takeitdown said:

Yeah, back before they had success rate or EPA, I was always in favor of median YPC.  What was the number we could expect to hit generally.  That way you know if your guy is normally getting 4 yards, or normally getting under 2.

I was the same.  Median is a good way to gauge a lot of things that average can sometimes skew.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Rings said:

YPC is a horrible way to look at whether a running back did well or not anymore imo.  Although the data is easier to get, it can be very misleading.  Here is why.

1) Last year Henry had the best YPC, however if you remove runs from inside the 5 yard line, Chubb did.  If you are on the one yard line and score a touchdown, you did your job and it hurts your YPC, that’s dumb.

2) Last year Fourtnette had -8 yards on 13 carries.  He then a popped off a 65ish run and finished the game around 4.4 YPC.  Not all 4.4 are created equal.  

IMO success rate is the best look at running backs and their efficiency.  It truly shows how often they are putting their team in a positive situation, staying ahead of the chains, limiting negative plays, etc. 

With success rate, a 1 yard touchdown is a successful run, its a good thing.  Fournette shows he had a horrible success rate that week vs an average ypc.

Not all new analytic stats are worthwhile and some are kind of BS as they just combine other stats to make up something else.  But success rate is where it’s at in my opinion.

I don't like YPC either (I don't really like statistics in general when truly trying to determine the efficacy of something in the NFL because it can never account for all the variables). That being said, at least YPC isn't a subjective stat. You get the yards you get. I don't think one or two TD runs per game is going to drastically alter the total YPC of a 20-30 carry game. It's a deeply flawed way to solely judge a running game, but it's a decent way of understanding one small piece of a running game.

That being said, I don't know a whole lot about 'success rate' as a stat, so perhaps I'm wrong. It seems like the more things a stat tries to take into consideration, the more misleading it usually is, however, because it can never take everything into account. 

For your examples, though, Both Henry and Chubb were parts of some of the best running games in the league, I think obsessing too much over who was first is a narrow way of considering a topic like this. They were both good. And for Fournette, who's to say running the ball earlier didn't cause that 65 yard run? It's a lot to take into consideration, that's all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Vandy said:

I understand where you are coming from. Circumstances definitely play into it, but I just respectfully disagree it’s that simple.
 

Teams who strategically prioritize the run (and stopping the run) tend to win more often than teams which don’t. To me, it’s a mindset. Last few years we haven’t made running the ball a big priority, and we’ve become known as a pass happy team that gets dictated to by their opponents. No coincidence (to me) team went 14-18 accordingly.
 

Very well said.  
 

And I don’t fully ascribe to the notion that good teams only have high run totals because they are salting the game away.  Most games in the NFL are 7-10 point games.  At such close margins the entire playbook is kept in play until the final 5-6 minutes

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lornoth said:

I don't like YPC either (I don't really like statistics in general when truly trying to determine the efficacy of something in the NFL because it can never account for all the variables). That being said, at least YPC isn't a subjective stat. You get the yards you get. I don't think one or two TD runs per game is going to drastically alter the total YPC of a 20-30 carry game. It's a deeply flawed way to solely judge a running game, but it's a decent way of understanding one small piece of a running game.

That being said, I don't know a whole lot about 'success rate' as a stat, so perhaps I'm wrong. It seems like the more things a stat tries to take into consideration, the more misleading it usually is, however, because it can never take everything into account. 

For your examples, though, Both Henry and Chubb were parts of some of the best running games in the league, I think obsessing too much over who was first is a narrow way of considering a topic like this. They were both good. And for Fournette, who's to say running the ball earlier didn't cause that 65 yard run? It's a lot to take into consideration, that's all.

If you watched that game with Fournette, he played terrible, he wasn't setting anything up other than another punt.  It was Week 3 against Ten on Thursday Night Football. His runs were for: 5, -3, -7, 0, -4, 0, 4, 2, 0, 0, -5, 69, 2, 3.  He had a long of 69 yards and finished with 66 yards lol.  He single handedly killed multiple drives that game, and if it wasn't for a botched punt and Mariotta being awful, that game may have a different outcome.

For comparison, I think we would all consider that a really bad game, here is how the two stats stack up.
He was 4.4 YPC, ranked 19/56.
He was 20% success rate, ranked 53/56.

Success Rate isn't a subjective stat, it is all about setting up the next down ahead of the chains and putting yourself in a positive situation instead of 2nd or 3rd and long.

Definition from Sharp Football:

"Success Rates:  Using success rates to measure efficiency is superior to traditional yards per play (per pass or per rush) because it adds a layer of context to the play:  the down and distance to go.  Example:  a 10 yard run on 3rd and 26 will add 10 yards/carry to a running back's average.  But that play resulted in 4th and 16 and thus, an unsuccessful attempt to convert a first down (and graded as an unsuccessful play).   Success rate is calculated in this manner:  A play is successful when it gains at least 40% of yards-to-go on first down, 60% of yards-to-go on second down and 100% of yards-to-go on third or fourth down.  "

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is where my frustration for the run game comes from.  Here is our breakdown on run plays in Q1-Q3 outside the opponents 5 yard line:

8+ in box: 28% - 9th highest
7 in box:  42% - 20th
6- in box: 31% - 16th

So far a small frustration, with our pass game as good as it was, we are running way too often with 8+ on the box.  Let’s dig deeper, success rate on these runs:

8+ in box: 42% - 15th
7 in box: 43% - 26th
6- in box: 42% - 26th

It didn’t matter how many were in the box, we couldn’t run the ball.  We couldn’t take advantage of 6 or less in the box at all.  This is due to lack of creativity, execution and disguise.  Last layer.  Below is our usage ranks and our improvement ranks in our rushing attack (improvement is not using to then using).

Play Action: 
Usage: 22nd
Success Rate: 17th
Improvement: 22nd

Pre Snap Motion
Usage: 12th
Success Rate: 25th
Improvement: 27th

More proof that we weren’t creative enough last year, but also when we did it, it didn’t help the run game at all.  Our play action and PSM in the pass game was actually good, but it did nothing for the run game.

On plays out of shotgun we ran only 14% of the time, under center ran 58% of the time.  

We need to be less predictable and show less tendencies.  I’m all about a strong run game, but talk about backs or blocking all you want, until we figure the scheme out and do a better job there we are setting Gurley and the line up to fail.

tldr, it isn’t just that we didn’t run enough, we didn’t run enough at certain times and when we did we were good at it.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Rings said:

Here is where my frustration for the run game comes from.  Here is our breakdown on run plays in Q1-Q3 outside the opponents 5 yard line:

8+ in box: 28% - 9th highest
7 in box:  42% - 20th
6- in box: 31% - 16th

So far a small frustration, with our pass game as good as it was, we are running way too often with 8+ on the box.  Let’s dig deeper, success rate on these runs:

8+ in box: 42% - 15th
7 in box: 43% - 26th
6- in box: 42% - 26th

It didn’t matter how many were in the box, we couldn’t run the ball.  We couldn’t take advantage of 6 or less in the box at all.  This is due to lack of creativity, execution and disguise.  Last layer.  Below is our usage ranks and our improvement ranks in our rushing attack (improvement is not using to then using).

Play Action: 
Usage: 22nd
Success Rate: 17th
Improvement: 22nd

Pre Snap Motion
Usage: 12th
Success Rate: 25th
Improvement: 27th

More proof that we weren’t creative enough last year, but also when we did it, it didn’t help the run game at all.  Our play action and PSM in the pass game was actually good, but it did nothing for the run game.

On plays out of shotgun we ran only 14% of the time, under center ran 58% of the time.  

We need to be less predictable and show less tendencies.  I’m all about a strong run game, but talk about backs or blocking all you want, until we figure the scheme out and do a better job there we are setting Gurley and the line up to fail.

As Danny Heifetz said, “zone blocking is like veganism - it only works if you practice it all the time.”  Everyone knows about Shannahan’s preparation.  His attention to detail borders on being OCD.  He recently spent “90 minutes via zoom analyzing a single offensive play with his team.”  That preparation pays off more often than not, especially in the run game. Since a Koetter was learning on the job last year, I don’t see how our practices could have been very good.
 

For the Falcons wide zone rushing attack to take off in 2020, they need to put in the practice hours.  Endless practice reps are required if they want 11 players moving as one.   The run game is far more complex than the passIng game.  As such, Koetter & Co need to take a page out of Shanny’s book and spend more time practicing it

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Rings

You will love this gem from Koetter’s past regarding metrics/analytics:

“Offensive  coordinator Dirk Koetter was asked today if he uses statistical research to prepare the plays he calls. Koetter took umbrage with the question.

“No. I trust my eyes,” Koetter said. “I trust my eyes, OK? I watch the tape. I watch a lot of tape and I trust what my eyes tell me. So I don’t need a freaking piece of paper with a bunch of numbers on there to tell me something my eyes can see. I mean, not to get pissed off, but that whole thing of looking at a piece of paper and telling you how to call a football game is a freaking joke in my opinion. That’s why I watch tape. Half the stuff on that paper, you can sort those stats out any way you want to. But I’m sticking by eyes. It’s worked OK for me so far.”

Whether it’s worked OK for Koetter is debatable.”

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, FalconsIn2012 said:

@Rings

You will love this gem from Koetter regarding metrics/analytics:

“Offensive  coordinator Dirk Koetter was asked today if he uses statistical research to prepare the plays he calls. Koetter took umbrage with the question.

“No. I trust my eyes,” Koetter said. “I trust my eyes, OK? I watch the tape. I watch a lot of tape and I trust what my eyes tell me. So I don’t need a freaking piece of paper with a bunch of numbers on there to tell me something my eyes can see. I mean, not to get pissed off, but that whole thing of looking at a piece of paper and telling you how to call a football game is a freaking joke in my opinion. That’s why I watch tape. Half the stuff on that paper, you can sort those stats out any way you want to. But I’m sticking by eyes. It’s worked OK for me so far.”

Whether it’s worked OK for Koetter is debatable.”

meanwhile, no team expanded their analytics division last year more than the Ravens. I guess that worked out pretty OK for them too. 🙄

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, FalconsIn2012 said:

And I don’t fully ascribe to the notion that good teams only have high run totals because they are salting the game away.  Most games in the NFL are 7-10 point games.  At such close margins the entire playbook is kept in play until the final 5-6 minutes

The biggest factor in rushing attempts is 3rd down conversion. If you don't convert 3rd downs, you punt and can't keep running. The most important factor in 3rd down conversion is your QB and OC. You can be running the ball well but all it takes is one stuffed run and it's 3rd-and-5 and you need your QB to bail out the run game. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/7/2020 at 11:17 PM, ki46dinah said:

Carolina against us in 2006? I feel like they ran like 50 times against us. We were very soft team that year...they had Chris Weinke at QB and he threw like 3 times the entire game. It was pathetic...like watching a high school football game where one team is going to state, and the other team is 0-9

I think this is kind of the point. For the most part teams that are good at stopping the run in the 1st quarter remain good at stopping the run in the 4th quarter and teams that are bad at stopping the run in the 1st quarter remain bad at stopping the run in the 4th quarter. There may be random games here and there where everyone's favorite narrative of wearing down the defense comes out, but most of the time you are who you are. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2020 at 1:52 AM, FalconsIn2012 said:

@Rings

You will love this gem from Koetter’s past regarding metrics/analytics:

“Offensive  coordinator Dirk Koetter was asked today if he uses statistical research to prepare the plays he calls. Koetter took umbrage with the question.

“No. I trust my eyes,” Koetter said. “I trust my eyes, OK? I watch the tape. I watch a lot of tape and I trust what my eyes tell me. So I don’t need a freaking piece of paper with a bunch of numbers on there to tell me something my eyes can see. I mean, not to get pissed off, but that whole thing of looking at a piece of paper and telling you how to call a football game is a freaking joke in my opinion. That’s why I watch tape. Half the stuff on that paper, you can sort those stats out any way you want to. But I’m sticking by eyes. It’s worked OK for me so far.”

Whether it’s worked OK for Koetter is debatable.”

That’s telling. I understand trusting your eyes/gut for the eventual game plan strategy , but why would a professional OC not utilize every tool available? SMH.

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Vandy said:

That’s telling. I understand trusting your eyes/gut for the eventual game plan strategy , but why would a professional OC not utilize every tool available? 

Yeah, you use the stats to validate or call into question your eyes.  You may see that the stats show you should go for it on 4th down when you wouldn't normally.  So then you go look at that more...film, tendencies, dig into the stats.

Similar to when you see someone ran a slow 40...you go see if that's going to be a limitation.

The numbers aren't the end all be all, but not paying them any attention is stupid and arrogant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/8/2020 at 10:53 AM, Vandy said:

Every year I read some variation of this, yet every year I look at league leaders in team rushing stats end-of-season and see those teams in playoffs.
 

Top 4 running teams last year were ravens,  49ers, Titans, Seahawks.  Hmmm......

You will never convince me that having a strong running game that you establish every time you step on the field isn’t a winning formula. 
 

I don’t care how many colorful charts and catchy acronyms you can come up with, if you can’t run the ball, you won’t sniff a ring!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ezekiel 25:17 said:

You will never convince me that having a strong running game that you establish every time you step on the field isn’t a winning formula. 
 

I don’t care how many colorful charts and catchy acronyms you can come up with, if you can’t run the ball, you won’t sniff a ring!

That's old school, bro. But like you said, more often than not, oldschool fundamentals is the winning formula. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ezekiel 25:17 said:

It’s true in football, horse shoes,  dating and hand grenades! 

Our man Gucci with his zen truisms!

Seriously though, what you say is true. Run the ball....stop the run....create turnovers....eliminate turnovers = playoff team. 

And like you said, practice the fundamentals in life, you'll end up just fine. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ezekiel 25:17 said:

You will never convince me that having a strong running game that you establish every time you step on the field isn’t a winning formula. 
 

I don’t care how many colorful charts and catchy acronyms you can come up with, if you can’t run the ball, you won’t sniff a ring!

As @Vandy said a few days ago, it’s more than a formula. It’s a mindset.  A core ideology

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, FalconsIn2012 said:

As @Vandy said a few days ago, it’s more than a formula. It’s a mindset.  A core ideology

Yepper! Because at some point, when you are playing a good team, you will need to get a tough yard or two.(inside of the twenties) Or will need to get control of the game with being physical on one side of the ball or the other.

you’re not doing that by playing pretty finesse football!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...