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. keypusher

    keypusher Well-Known Member

    1,351
    448
    83
    Nov 29, 2007
    Incidentally, the play by play is here.

    http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201509200jax.htm

    We actually had two runs called in the 4th quarter before garbage time. We got flagged for holding on the other (on a second and one, for crying out loud).

    I don't think there was really any change in strategy. We just kept getting in long-yardage situations. First drive, holding. Second drive, sack (on first down) plus delay of game. Third drive, holding (on a running play). Fourth drive, sack on first down.
     
    BigNastyDB13 and resnor like this.
  2. Tannephins

    Tannephins Banned

    1,818
    572
    0
    Dec 23, 2014
    The two bolded plays are problems. Sacks are usually drive stallers. Those were pass plays called on first down, and the starting left tackle and move tight end were out. Tannehill hadn't been sacked previously in the game. So on critical drives in putting a nail in the Jaguars' coffin, pass plays were called on first down, amidst a passing game personnel shortage, and that resulted in drive-stalling sacks. Not smart.
     
  3. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    But your contention is that we should have run the ball, behind a line in shambles? Statistically, we were more likely to get positive yards by passing than by running

    BTW, missing Albert and Cameron hurts the run blocking also.
     
  4. Rock Sexton

    Rock Sexton Anti-Homer

    2,553
    1,793
    113
    Mar 14, 2015
    Cameron is not an in-line blocker bruh.
     
  5. DonRamon

    DonRamon New Member

    5
    0
    0
    Sep 15, 2015
    Obviously the people that say Miami should have run more were not at the game. Our O-line folded hard on run plays. I don't care who our running back was(insert best running back of all time here), they would have gotten shut down. Running would just have been a waste of a down. The penalties did not help the situation either. There were at least 2 penalties more that were obvious that would have cost us another 50 yards that the refs didn't call on defense. Miami shot themselves in the foot this week. Time to move on.
     
  6. Tannephins

    Tannephins Banned

    1,818
    572
    0
    Dec 23, 2014
    How'd the two sacks look in person?
     
  7. Tannephins

    Tannephins Banned

    1,818
    572
    0
    Dec 23, 2014
    Again, how do you feel about the sacks? Those were negative yards on pass plays, and drive-stallers. Runs for zero yardage, or even slightly negative yardage, would've been less damaging, obviously. So, you're saying one thing was "more likely," and that flies in the face of what actually happened. What was "likely" was what we actually saw!

    Statistically, a team is always more likely to get positive yards by passing than by running (see cbrad's analysis above for the actual data, i.e., pass plays are typically longer than run plays), but when you consider that the team's YPA during this period of time was a mere 4.9, and you consider that the team's net YPA (which includes lost yardage due to sacks) was even worse, and then you consider how strongly net YPA is related to winning, the team essentially put itself into a worse position in terms of winning by passing the ball than by running it.

    The net YPA it exhibited during that period of time is almost always (like 95+ percent of the time) associated with losing, whereas the team's lowly yards per carry during the game has nowhere near as strong a relationship with winning or losing. Notice for example that the offense functioned very well and erased a deficit on the scoreboard amidst exactly that level of success in the run game.

    Given the injuries you mentioned, it might've even been better to try to bleed clock and hope the Jaguars made a game-losing mistake than to beat oneself with sacks and leave more time on the clock for the Jaguars' offense by calling so many pass plays. That's a very conservative approach, obviously, and anybody who prides himself on being "macho" isn't going to like it (and people who like football are likely to be of that ilk, which can cloud their judgment), but there are times when conservativism is the best choice.

    Dropping back to pass 94% of the time with your backup left tackle in the game is probably one of them.
     
  8. DolphinGreg

    DolphinGreg Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    5,227
    6,527
    113
    Dec 7, 2014
    I guess the reasons that you're getting resistance Tannephins is that your theory is counter-intuitive and also based on certain assumptions which may kill it.

    The counter-intuitive part I don't mind. I understand how running can at least keep a defense honest and with as badly as some of the passes were, may running might've been a decent option.

    The assumptions though are where I think your opponents may have good points. For one, Res basically argued that correlation does not equal causation. The higher YPA earlier in the game may not have had anything to do with how many rushing attempts there were. We don't know. The sample size is also small and the environment (i.e. situational factors) are likely VERY important so there are other parameters which should give us pause before we get too entrenched.

    Secondly, while it's common sense that a good rushing attack will help a good passing attack (I think somewhere you cited NFL averages), we can't really say unless we do more research that a bad rushing attack would've helped Tannehill and the passing attack. The crux of your argument is really that more (bad) running would've helped, but that may actually be totally false.

    Also, you never really addressed the correctness of my first response which pointed out that the only success Miami had in week 1 was with up-tempo passing in their 2-minute offense. Knowing that his O-line was falling apart and (arguably) playing worse in the 2nd half, he probably defaulted to that later in the game.

    I find that totally understandable.
     
    resnor and Tannephins like this.
  9. Tannephins

    Tannephins Banned

    1,818
    572
    0
    Dec 23, 2014
    Right, but in the absence of data that can refute the causal link between the percentage of rushing attempts and the offensive success, and in the presence of the fact that the success of the offense declined to a degree proportionate to the extremity of the emphasis on the pass, we probably ought to go with that causal explanation in the absence of complete certainty.

    We're never going to know the causal link for certain, but this is about as definitive of evidence we're ever going to get in support of an idea that the team should've done one thing instead of another. If you proposed that the team should've run the ball in that situation, you're probably going to be right the vast majority of the time, because when they didn't run the ball, look what happened. The only direction to go for them was up, and so you're very unlikely to be wrong in saying they should've run the ball more.

    You can always raise the issue that correlation doesn't equal causation, but there are times when the data involved in the analysis don't require that level of complication. If the Dolphins would've performed even somewhat better offensively in the fourth quarter, there would be room for more alternative explanations, but when they changed what they were doing to such an extreme, and their performance immediately tanked to a very similar extreme (which was very poor), the explanation is pretty ready-made.
     
  10. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Sacks are sacks. Doesn't mean we weren't running enough. I don't like sacks. Doesn't mean I attribute the sacks to the lack of running.

    I just feel that the worse output and the sacks are a result of key players missing, and a continuation of poor fourth quarter play that we've seen pretty much Philbin's entire tenure here. Sacks in the fourth have been a problem his whole time as Miami's coach.
     
  11. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Again, going from 3 rushes a quarter to one is not an extreme change.
     
  12. Tannephins

    Tannephins Banned

    1,818
    572
    0
    Dec 23, 2014
    Obviously, though, if you run the ball, you can't possibly be sacked.
     
  13. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Um......no.
     

Share This Page