1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Fourth Quarter Play-Calling

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by Tannephins, Sep 21, 2015.

  1. Tannephins

    Tannephins Banned

    1,818
    572
    0
    Dec 23, 2014
    My point has been only that, previously in the game, it was associated with that difference. The only sample of data that we have, and will ever have, in that regard (the first three quarters) suggests that the team should've kept its balance in the area of play-calling. We don't have the sample of data of "what would've happened" had they done things differently in the fourth quarter. So surely you can base your opinion on what you believe would've happened, but realize that it's inconsistent with what actually did happen during the first three-fourths of the game.
     
  2. Tannephins

    Tannephins Banned

    1,818
    572
    0
    Dec 23, 2014
    And all that came to a crashing halt just as soon as the frequency of passing went from 63% to 94%. At that point Tannehill and the passing game functioned in a way that would be among the league's worst if extrapolated to a whole season.
     
  3. Undisputed

    Undisputed Banned

    416
    159
    0
    Mar 2, 2015
    He sure is desperate to be right. Must not happen much.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  4. Tannephins

    Tannephins Banned

    1,818
    572
    0
    Dec 23, 2014
    I'd say something about myself in response, but I'm really not all that interesting. Certainly not as interesting as the team, which is what we're here to talk about. Glad to see you're reading along and following intently though. :)
     
  5. Undisputed

    Undisputed Banned

    416
    159
    0
    Mar 2, 2015
    This is just so hard for certain people to understand.
     
  6. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Tann, you're really stretching to make the argument that the threat of a gain of 1.7 yards was causing the defense to focus on the run. You seem desperate to prove this balance thing, but in this game, the run game wasn't keeping the defense honest. It could be stuff other than the defense that caused the offense to sputter in the fourth. Like Cameron being gone, for instance. But let's act like the 1.7 ypc was a bigger deal than losing Cameron.
     
    Undisputed likes this.
  7. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,651
    67,546
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    anyone see what belicek did against the bills, I believe at one time there was 51 passes and 11 runs..but they had a purpose and plan..we did out of neccesity..

    I see both sides here because when your last 5 possessions are 95% passes and you dont score, its all uneffective..

    I see no real consistent misdirection to this offense, and it all starts with the lack of moving the pocket when you have an athletic qb..it should start there..but it doesn't...making our qb almost completely one dimensional, which is the fault of the coordinator..

    lazor/sherman have taken a true dual threat qb and turned him into a pocket qb..


    hows that been going for the past 4 years?
     
    Undisputed and resnor like this.
  8. Tannephins

    Tannephins Banned

    1,818
    572
    0
    Dec 23, 2014
    Again, it's not the success or the lack thereof, but the frequency of run versus pass. The "desperation" you're seeing is a reflection less of me and more of the fact that a 94% passing frequency is just so extreme and so uncalled-for that it warrants a big and unyielding spotlight. It makes me wonder whether these coaches (in this case Lazor) really have any idea what they're doing. If you've scored 20 points and had nearly 10 YPA through the first three quarters, why change anything, and if so, why change it to such an extreme?
     
  9. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    It's really not a huge extreme, though, as far as the change. You go from averaging 3 runs by a back per quarter for the first 3 quarters, to 1 for the fourth. Percentages says it's big, like 33% drop, but the actual number is not big.
     
  10. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    I saw that. Then I saw the Bills almost come back and win partly do to them not even running the ball.
     
  11. Tannephins

    Tannephins Banned

    1,818
    572
    0
    Dec 23, 2014
    We can debate whether it was extreme, but again, why change anything? When your offensive YPA is nearly 10, keep doing what you're doing! :yes:
     
  12. Puka-head

    Puka-head My2nd Fav team:___vs Jets Club Member

    8,605
    6,743
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Slightly left of center
    I don't know if we CAN run the ball or not. I know we WON"T run the ball.

    I haven't watched the replay yet but did Tannehill line up under center at all in the second half?
     
  13. bran

    bran Senior Member

    4,525
    1,505
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    New Hampshire
    i think once to run a PA(IIRC) which is kind of funny.
     
  14. atomdomb

    atomdomb Banned

    118
    18
    0
    Mar 23, 2010
    This is exactly the reason you run even if there is no threat of any production.
     
  15. Tannephins

    Tannephins Banned

    1,818
    572
    0
    Dec 23, 2014
    Precisely. And just as soon as you stop running because you aren't successful at it, when the game situation doesn't dictate the need to, then you've let the opposing defense and coaching staff "win" the game in that area. Not only have they been stopping your running game all day, but now they've become successful at making you one-dimensional in the area of play-calling, as well.

    You shouldn't surrender that much power to the opposing team, and certainly not when the offensive balance you've had in the game has made the offense function to the tune of nearly 10 YPA and 20 points through three quarters. It was an absolutely absurd decision.
     
  16. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Again, I don't think that the 3 runs per quarter had anything to do with the offensive success. You are disregarding Albert going out, Cameron going out, and other things that would have had more to do with the offense failing in the fourth, than the threat of 1.7 yards on the ground.
     
  17. Tannephins

    Tannephins Banned

    1,818
    572
    0
    Dec 23, 2014
    You're describing things there that would argue for more running, not less.
     
  18. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Listen, man, I understand your point, I really do. We need to run the ball more. However, in the fourth, when your ground game, even WITH Albert, has only been getting 1.7 yards a carry, there is little blame for a coach to go away from the run. It isn't working, and the defense isn't afraid of it.

    1.7 ypc. 1.7 ypc. 1.7 ypc.

    Maybe if I say it enough times, it will sink in just how fruitless it is. You might actually lose fewer yards if Tannehill just snapped the ball and knelt it everytime there was a run play called.
     
  19. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    They had already made us one dimensional, this idea that balanced play calling gets you something is false, and you haven't yet told us what this gets you.

    exapmle; 1st down run for no yards.

    How does that help? Now it's 2nd and 10, you've just wasted a down, so tell me, how is it now more feasible to pass, since the other team knows that you HAVE TO pass now, and they are lining up in the same D, you haven't affected them at all, except for the fact that they only have to stop you on 2 downs now.

    So tell us how the mechanics of this works.
     
    BigNastyDB13 and resnor like this.
  20. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Balanced play calling doesn't work in a vacuum.

    Just because your play calling is balanced doesn't automatically mean it will be successful. Of course its preferable to keep the defense guessing, but if the defense can stop one phase of your offense without special scheming then that phase is of little good to you.
     
    resnor likes this.
  21. VManis

    VManis Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    5,753
    9,844
    113
    Nov 10, 2010
    Why abandon the run in the fourth quarter?

    A) it hasn't worked all game and
    B) your starting RB left with an ankle injury and his backup is Damien Williams.

    But I agree with Dupree that if you are going to abandon the run why keep using PA. All that does is make the play develop slower and allow their pass rush to take advantage of our OL. I would have preferred to see them go to a 4 WR set, force Jax into a nickle or dime package and then run some designed draws for RT or sweeps for Landry.
     
    Canad-phin, resnor and Finster like this.
  22. dolphin25

    dolphin25 Well-Known Member

    6,338
    2,400
    113
    Nov 22, 2014
    I have to agree I think we should have run more. The jags did look to totally abandon trying to stop the run. That is when we should have run :) our OC doesn't seem to get that.
     
  23. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Question, 25, when did the Jags ever look to be trying to stop the run? I.E., did you see something different from the rush or type of defense that was different in the 4th? I didn't get to see the 4th, so I really don't know. But, from the first half, they weren't doing anything special to try to stop the run.
     
  24. Tannephins

    Tannephins Banned

    1,818
    572
    0
    Dec 23, 2014
    See below:

     
  25. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Did you just use my post that counters what you've been saying because you think it proves what you've been saying?

    Wow.
     
    resnor likes this.
  26. Tannephins

    Tannephins Banned

    1,818
    572
    0
    Dec 23, 2014
    And that (keeping the defense guessing) focuses only on the other team. There are also benefits to your own team of being balanced.
     
  27. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    This is where your theory comes off the rails, they weren't guessing, they didn't have too, their basic D was enough to stop the run, they were in short pass D the entire game.

    As I and others have said, this theory only works if you are getting the other team to play the run, as in, keeping them honest, we weren't, so more running would just lead to more negative plays with no benefit.

    The whole idea behind it is so that when the other team lines up in run D, you can hit them with a pass as a surprise play, the entire PA theory is also based on that principal, which is why teams that run well always have good PA.

    If your not getting the other team guessing, then your run game is useless, it does nothing but hinder your teams chance for success by throwing away downs.
     
  28. Tannephins

    Tannephins Banned

    1,818
    572
    0
    Dec 23, 2014
    Only the portion I boldfaced.
     
  29. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Ahh so you just called some poo faced?
     
  30. Tannephins

    Tannephins Banned

    1,818
    572
    0
    Dec 23, 2014
    I'm sure you're aware that regardless of the defense that's called, defensive linemen and linebackers react to a pass play much differently than they do a run play. It's in keeping those defenders from pinning their ears back in pursuit of the quarterback that balance on offense is beneficial, especially with regard to the offensive line whose play many have complained about here. Notice Tannehill took two sacks during that portion of the game, when he'd taken none previously.
     
  31. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    You mean once Albert was out?

    Again, your theory is true, but only when you are actually getting the D to react, they were not reacting, they were playing the short passing game all day, running the ball WAS NOT keeping them honest, so then the theory no longer works.
     
    resnor likes this.
  32. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Finster, if you've thought that arguing with myself or Fin D was frustrating...welcome to the world of Tannephins. We will never change his mind. He will just keep repeating the same thing over and over, no matter how much evidence to the contrary you give him.
     
  33. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Again, you are taking a result, and trying to correlate it to something and prove it to be causation. Correlation is NOT causation. Far more likely is the problem in the 4th was the missing players. The Jags were coming with 4 all game, and getting to Tannehill. They didn't care about the run game, because they were disrupting every run with only the four man rush. The run game wasn't affecting the defense at all in the first 3 quarters. No matter how many times you say that it was, it doesn't make it true. They did nothing special to stop the run. They played the short pass all day, and got beat by it for 3 1/2 quarters. Even missing those players in the 4th, there was literally no point in trying to run the ball.
     
  34. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    Well, if it makes any difference, your far easier to debate with than D, 68 or cd.

    :knucks:

    Wait... too far right?

    :lol:
     
    resnor likes this.
  35. Tannephins

    Tannephins Banned

    1,818
    572
    0
    Dec 23, 2014
    Defensive linemen and linebackers (and to some extent even safeties) react to a run regardless of whether it's been working previously, and that reaction is different from their reaction to a pass.

    This is why middle screens for example can work very well. You let the linemen and linebackers pin their ears back and rush the QB, and then you throw a touch pass just over their heads and take them out of the play. On the Dolphins' drives in the fourth quarter Sunday, they did nothing to stop the Jaguars' defenders from being in that mode and attacking the QB.
     
  36. Canad-phin

    Canad-phin Active Member

    466
    89
    28
    Oct 17, 2012
    Yes keeping them guessing is better. Better run play calling is better. 2nd and 8 is better than 2nd and 10. Never should we give up running. even if people think its wasted play. Its not. Especially when we are wasting the motion of PA even after they knew we'd stop running. In the 4th quarter they had it easy and zone blitzed or dropped easily into their Cover 3 zone. Not one false step of worry that we could break a run. That had nothing to do with their base D stopping it. They knew we wouldn't do it. That was the entire 4th quarter which is just stupid. Call read options if you avhe to but make them hestitate is exactly what we needed.
     
    dolphin25 likes this.
  37. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Here's something interesting. If you look at either pass or run efficiency as a function of the ratio of pass attempts to rushing attempts, they both go down (so the more you pass relative to how much you run, the worse both pass and run efficiency get). HOWEVER.. if you look at overall offensive efficiency as a function of the same thing (pass to run attempts), it goes UP as a function of more pass attempts relative to run attempts. The result isn't paradoxical once you think about it..

    First the data. This first graph shows run efficiency (measured by yards per attempt) plotted as a function of the ratio of pass attempts to run attempts, for all teams from 2002-2014. Each dot represents a team's average run efficiency per game for that year (so one dot per year, not per game):
    http://postimg.org/image/ezrvgu3c3/

    As you can see.. there is a slight downward trend there. The higher the ratio of pass attempts to run attempts, the worse rushing Y/A gets. To quantify how much worse it gets, I fitted a line to it and the slope is -0.61. What that means is that if you increase the ratio of pass attempts to run attempts by 1, on average you expect rushing Y/A to go down by 0.61.

    Similar graph for passing Y/A:
    http://postimg.org/image/wb681tnfl/

    The trend is weaker than for rushing, but there is a slight negative trend there too. The slope is -0.11 there, so almost nothing, but still negative.

    Now look at the graph for overall offensive pass efficiency, measured by "yards per play", which pro-football-focus (where I'm getting the data from) defines as (Rush + Pass yards)/(Rush attempts + Pass attempts + Times sacked):
    http://postimg.org/image/bu1ce6ayn/

    Once again, almost no trend, but when you fit the line the (weak) trend is positive at 0.17.

    So this is interesting. As you pass more (relative to rush attempts per game), both rush and pass efficiencies decrease, but overall offensive efficiency increases! The reason for this is that you are passing more, and since average Y/A for passing is much higher than for rushing (~7 Y/A for passing vs. ~4.2 Y/A for rushing), you can have a higher overall "yards per play" even if both numbers decrease. There's obviously a small possibility that "sack" number might be confounding things, but sacks tend to affect overall yards per play very little, and if anything the more you pass the more you get sacked, so if anything that should hurt overall yards per play.

    Anyway, just wanted to put that out there because that would show from a pure statistics point of view that it's not a bad idea to pass more.
     
    Tannephins likes this.
  38. dolphin25

    dolphin25 Well-Known Member

    6,338
    2,400
    113
    Nov 22, 2014
    pass to setup the run is how the Dolphins can run. problem is they forget to do the run part.
     
  39. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    No. The problem is that the run was getting 1.7ypc, even though Tannehill was slinging the ball around.
     
  40. Tannephins

    Tannephins Banned

    1,818
    572
    0
    Dec 23, 2014
    By that logic, you should also say there was no point in trying to run the ball in quarters two and three, when the offense played very well and the team erased a deficit. Why was there any point in running the ball then? There was a point in it then, when the team was behind, but not in the fourth quarter, in a tie game?
     

Share This Page