I don't know how significant this is but in 2012 there was no correlation between passer rating on play-action and yards per attempt gained by the team's tailbacks. Slightly negative, insignificant correlation. Was even more negative if you correlated the yards per carry average with the premium of play-action passer rating minus non-play-action passer rating. For example Matt Ryan achieved a 121.5 passer rating on play-action and a 94.9 passer rating on non-play-action, yet his tailbacks only gained 3.67 yards per carry on average. I could go through the trouble of snagging all of the individual games and correlating the run efficiency with the play-action efficiency, but that would take a lot of effort and I'm pretty sure I know exactly what I'm going to find which is more or less zero correlation.
By measuring the premium of passer rating on play-action minus passer rating on non play-action, you're kind of controlling for the quarterback skill set, and/or the overall effectiveness of a passing game. The play-action passer ratings of QBs for the 10 least efficient ground games in the NFL last year were an average of 13.5 points higher than their non play-action passer ratings. The play-action passer ratings of QBs for the 10 most efficient ground games in the NFL last year were an average of 7.9 points higher than their non play-action passer ratings.
I was over the Saints loss 5 seconds after it ended, but this one is lingering and I'm still kind of pissed. We made a lot of mistakes but still had a chance to win it at the end. I was very confident when we scored the TD right before halftime because the Ravens couldn't do anything on offense. Then we make the comeback, Tannehill makes one of best plays I've seen and yet, ****. I know the bye week is good for us right now, but man I wish we had a game this weekend.
I feel ya. I didn't think there was anyway we were losing that game at halftime. Then again, I didn't see the refs throwing pass INT flags all over the place and giving the Ravens free points either. Unlike the Saints, this is one we should have won and it stings. As for this weekend... I think of it like Baseketball. We needed a timeout to stop the negative momentum. We're still +1 in the win column, and it's a chance to get some guys (namely Wake) a chance to get healthy.
Wow that is fascinating. Just thinking like a scientist, what other explanations could there be: - bad running teams use play action less often and so therefore it's more of a surprise when they do? The theory here is that good running does help a play action, but that good running teams over do it and thus the surprise factor gets diluted. - the signal is there but too weak to show up in such a broad category as top 10 vs bottom 10 team scenarios. It might be true for a few teams and still not show up under those metrics... - perhaps the signal needs a combination of other factors to show: optimal play action effectiveness might require an average passing game, low utilization of play action, and a strong running game. I say average passing game because a great passing game would cause the defense to have to avoid keying on the run, while a crappy passing game might not even be able to capitalize.
If the ravens win their division, at this point, we can control our own destiny..lol..beat the bengals, titans, jets..
I place blame for our singlemost pressing issue, the O-line, squarely on Turner. Ultimately he was asked at some point early on, to evaluate their abilities, and determine whether or not we had sufficient talent to protect the QB, and compete into the post season. Taking into account the high profile departure of Long, along with his questionable replacement, I find it hard to fathom we would have ignored an inadaquate assessment by Turner, much less if he had raised any red flags, whereby we would throw caution to the wind, and enter the season based soley upon a thumbs up presumption by Ireland. Whether or not Turner failed to adaquately foresee these issues, or over-estimated his ability to coach them up, his blame ultimately resides on Sherman's head.
On the first point, you're correct in that there's a 39.6% correlation between number of play-action attempts and tailback yards per carry. In other words, the more effective your ground game the more likely teams were to use play-action. HOWEVER, there essentially a zero correlation (-1.8%) between number of play-action attempts and the premium I mentioned on play-action passer ratings versus normal ratings. In other words, using play-action less did not necessarily make the play-action passes you did use more likely to produce better results than your normal passing. In fact, when you correlate the play-action attempts with the pure play-action rating (not the premium of one versus the other, just the rating), there's a +25.7% correlation which means that the more you dropped back for play-action passes the BETTER you did, not the other way around. It seems to point to teams THINKING that they can't use play-action effectively unless they have an effective ground game, but being wrong about it. Or at least, they have no data to support that theory, but they operate by it nonetheless. As for the signal to noise issue with the top and bottom ten, like I said I ran a correlation of the entire array not just quoting top and bottom ten data. The correlation was practically zero, slightly negative in fact. And I would THINK that if effective play-action passing were to be given by a combination of statistics, that there would at least be some amount of correlation with those statistics individually. You say perhaps it's a combination of low utilization and high running efficiency but those two stats correlate poorly in the way that you would think on an individual basis with play-action rating and play-action premium.
We had the opportunity to get it done many times aduring the game, and definitely at the end, and we blew it. Settled for field goals. Dropped balls. Couldn't block. Three and outs. 36 minutes to 23 minutes time of possession edge to the other team. Don't be misled by the final score and the defensive TD. We were beaten soundly. What I absolutely cannot fathom is Philbin saying he's going to stand pat with what he's got over rhe bye, and make no changes. There goes this season.
Why would Philbin throw specific players and coaches under the bus while detailing our precise plans going forward...to the press?
Because I don't think he's blowing smoke up the reporters' you-know-what. I think he means exactly what he says. He's going to give everything he's got now the rest of the season to either work or not. He may be right. He may be able to make chicken salad out of chicken poop. Who am I to second guess an NFL coach? I still don't like it.
Because it would appease the fans. Which is oh so important. Who needs professionalism when the fans are angry and stomping their feet?
True, there would have to be some amount of anti-correlation the other way for my idea to hold. Thinking from an X's and O's perspective, it seems play action's greatest benefit is drawing in the safeties playing deep zone. Which suggests the biggest gains from play-action should come on the deep ball---short passing game might not really benefit much. So you might need teams with good deep accuracy and OCs willing and able to dial up the bomb on play action to use it effectively....
I know it I said it too many times on here and yes the O line sucks but I still can't feel bad being 3-2 coming out of those first five games. My biggest worry is what this coaching staff can do to fix the OL and install plays to roll out Tannehill, if they do that I think we still have a chance at the playoffs.