From the article: That doesn't make sense to me. I think that even if you pass 100% of the time the play action pass would still prove beneficial. One thing I've noticed is "athletic" QBs like Wilson and Kaepernick running the read option tend to have inflated passer ratings. My theory is that is because when they break outside the pocket it has the same effect as a playaction pass. Not to take anything away from them, yards per attempt is still yards per attempt and what they do is still as valuable as any traditional pocket passer, maybe even more valuable, but if you want to increase passer rating stats, and I don't know why anybody wouldn't, just run more playaction regardless of how often you rush the ball and run more read option type plays.
Hold the phone. You provided exactly jack and **** to counter my argument in any post you made in response to me. You didn't provide in any reply to me any articles, links or anything until this post. I don't need to prove that statistically, you can just actually see that you didn't. Sure they can be interpreted that way, anything can. Hell, I can interpret your stats how I interpret stats saying 100% of all people have one testicle is somehow an accurate representation of people and their testicles. Common sense is common sense. I don't need to prove the concept that says if the QB is **** at passing then he must pass more, as logic already does that. If you need numbers to prove the stupidity of that, I'm not the problem. This wasn't a stat fight. You made it one. You're the one working differently from what you just called "intelligent debate". All you've proven is that your stat shows you what your stat shows you as a stat. It doesn't mean anything accurate in the real world just because it did that. Again, 100% of all people have one testicle doesn't prove that everyone has one nut. This is literally no different. No one is tracking the effect a run play at certain times effects the next pass play, because #1 no one has the time to get that much info and #2 it would be incomplete because of the sheer amount of variables you literally cannot account for to have meaningful data. You are flat out wrong for putting the entire proving process solely on the shoulders of stats, just as someone does the same thing with tape. Your math doesn't tell you everything just a scout's eyes don't tell him everything. When your only tool is a hammer all your problems look like nails, after all.
Ignore it all. Insult me to other people in other posts. Say you provided stuff you didn't. Then you accuse me of all that. Funny. What's the stats on beating me with the same tired playbook that so many others have failed to use effectively? I've dealt with everything you've said to me or about me, while you ignore most. That means one of us is hitting close to home and the other.....keeps using that same hammer.
Yeah, one piece of information is missing: how closely is YPA for the same team correlated with itself in two different conditions. I've done analyses like that before and you rarely get as high as 0.62. Just an example: if you look at how Brady's YPA is correlated with itself by quarter (so how YPA in the 1st quarter is correlated with YPA in 2nd, or 1st vs. 3rd, or 2nd vs. 4th, etc..), on average you get a correlation of 0.4. This is over 14 years (leaving out 2000 and 2008 when he was injured). That's fairly typical. So getting as high as 0.62 is at least based on experience indicative of some underlying relationship.
I'd think it depends more on how often you can keep the defense guessing. If you pass 100% of the time, I bet overall pass efficiency decreases because the defense adjusts. Mobile QB's like Wilson and Kaepernick would perform way worse than average if they broke the pocket all the time. But as long as you have the ability to increase uncertainty on the defensive side, you should see passing/running efficiency improve.
Since 1940, up until the time of this chart, 61% of Super Bowl winners are top 3 in passer rating differential. 96% were in the top 10 in passer rating differential. Pass well, stop the pass, you win. Running game is cherry on top, but not essential.
What I'm saying is even if you pass 19 times in a row and playaction on the 20th the defense will still react to the playaction. I think there is a belief among coaches that you need to run a lot for the playaction to be effective. I don't believe thats true.
The Patriots offense changed in 2007 you know that. We ran the ball 344 times which is obviously low, but it's not 150 less than the Patriots. They are regularly in the high 300's and low 400s. Save for a year or two (especially 2008 when it was Matt Cassel). In 2011 they ran it 411 vs 612 passing. Dolphins ran it 37% of the time. The Patriots have ran it roughly 40-42% with as high as 45% when they had someone who ran it well (stevan ridley's best year). Are we low? Yes, but by about 3%-5%. So if you are arguing we need to run it 2-3 more times a game and Tanny will be successful then ... Generally, the worse the quarterback, the more you need to run it essentially. The packers have ran it 41% as well generally, give or take a few. We need to run it more, but let's not act like its 10 carries a game. It's like 2-3 to match the good passing offenses.
Dude, they ran it less than 450, I believe, once in the last 10 years. That one time was last season. They were usually around 450 attempts a season.
I feel like this loop never gets broken.... Our passing game has a significant problem. Its called a ****ty oline. QBs have certain tools available to them to circumvent that problem. They don't have to use all these tools to solve that problem. Tool: Running game. They need to be able to run the ball to keep the defense honest. The defense needs to guess what's gonna happen. That's easier to do when...you know...you don't have to guess cause its a pass. Side note: The same people acting like keeping the defense guessing isn't necessary are the same people that complained that "Go vs Go Go" a literal split second before the ball snapped was so really bad cause, get this.....it kept the defense form guessing. Tool: Being able to audible. Same reasons as the running game for the most part. How do we keep the defense from pinning their ears back? Well, maybe being able to change the play at the line will allow a QB to do that. Is that so crazy? And no, I don't mean the piddly little that Thill was allowed to do, I mean changing the play, formation, everything, proper like a QB. Tool: Scrambling/pocket maneuverability. Thill is deficient in this. I don't know why, it could be a flaw in him or could be a flaw in his previous staff. Its hard to tell because the raw athleticism is there, and he's not someone who plays scared. Tool: Clever Gameplanning. This can take many forms. You can give guys help on the line, rollout the QB, you can call some running plays, you can call some misdirection, etc. All we really did was call plays short of the sticks and all bunched to one side. Which can be effective, if its not your only approach. virtually everyone, agrees Thill can throw great on the move...yet how many rollouts were called? So...of the 4 ways to counter a bad oline, he lacks one and has had the other 3 taken from him for reasons that either make no sense or because we simply aren't privy to. Again, he doesn't need all 4. He needs maybe 2. OR fix the oline. That's not too much ask. And if it is too much to ask, once again, please list for us the QBs that have overcome crap olines and don't have any of those tools.
You are not understanding my point. This is a blanket comparison, you are ASSUMING that because his OL was healthy he got good protection. You are also assuming that when it was not....he automatically got poor protection. Please take the steps to understand what I'm saying before you toss out some ignorant BS like me "trolling" this topic. Better for everyone, ya know. Of course you thought 2013 Ryan Tannehill was a top 6 in the league, so it may just be you clinging to save face on a laughable comment.
But they pass it more. You can't use raw numbers (well I know why you are). Is it balanced if they ran it 450 and passed it 650? No, it's not. You have to calculate the percentages but that doesn't support your claim. They ran it 40%, 44.9%, 42.8%, 41.5%. If we ran it just 2-3 more times a game, we'd be right in that range.
You know why I did? I didn't use percentages, because, to be honest, I didn't think about it. Of course, your calculations don't factor in extended drives. How many drives did we have, last season for instance, that were three and outs? If you extrapolated out, and evened out our drives with theirs, how many more throws would Tannehill have had? The fact is, we had many short drives, and we were very of variance in playcalling. There are alot of reasons we should have ran more, and low on the list for me is the perceived success of Tannehill. Perhaps you are devious in your posting, but I'm not. Stop trying to attribute things to me.
Play action efficiency derives more from total rush attempts than efficiency per rush. Quick example. You play the Phins and you know they'll rush 10-12 times per game for 5.5 yards a rush. You play the Steelers who'll rush 25-30 times a game for 4.0 yards a rush. Which team do you have to devote more defensive resources to stopping the rush? Which team will have a more effective play action passing game? Successful play action is based on fooling the defenses' pattern recognition, and you have to set up a pattern first before you can fool pattern recognition.
Passer rating also includes Ints. So using passer rating as a measure of comparison is saying that if you score more TDs and have fewer TOs than your opponents you are more likely to win. I really like passer rating as a stat. But if we are looking at a way for determining whether passing efficiency is determinate of predicting winners and losers then yards/attempt is a purer measure of passing efficiency.
Psychologically what you are trying to do with a misdirection play (play action, trap, counter, screen etc.) is that you are trying to get your opponent to react incorrectly. The reason the opponent reacts incorrectly is because they are reacting to a pattern that they recognise. In order for the opponent to react to the pattern you have to establish the pattern with your base plays first. Also if you overuse the misdirection play your opponents will get better at identifying the misdirection. This is probably a function of % of misdirection plays to % of base plays, not total number of misdirection plays called. For example the bubble screen to Landry was pretty effective at the beginning of the year, by before halfway through the season our opponents were diagnosing it and shutting it down without difficulty. Yes play action can be successful even if you don't establish the run first. But any misdirection play should have a higher chance of success if (a) a pattern is established first and (b) it isn't overused.
For those wondering about RT''s correlation between passer rating, YPA and run/pass ratio here's something I prepared earlier: http://www.thephins.com/forums/showthread.php?88889-RT17-and-the-run-game
Why would you want to stop your opponent from gaining 4 yards per play??? You would have the best defense in the league, by a wide margin if you could accomplish that. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
How is that obtuse? It is precisely my point that refutes his - defenses aren't going to make adjustments to stop teams from rushing, because rushing is less efficient than passing when it comes to scoring points. The instances where teams will try to stop run is when time is working against them. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Which team will be more effective passing? Come on, man, it rarely happens when a coach says "Screw stopping the rush." Whether you can correlate it to winning or not, it's clearly important for reasons other than simply killing clock, as teams run a great variety of run plays, and scheme to stop the run. I mean, I know guys on here are arguing that the run game isn't important, but what I see on the field every fall tells me different, and NFL coaches seem to have a different belief than you.
No it doesn't refute it at all. a) Play action is a misdirection play. Misdirection plays require 2 elements to be successful a direction (or pattern) that the opponent recognises and the opponent not to recognise that it is misdirection. If the opponent successfully diagnoses your play action as a pass play it would have been better to call a regular pass play in the first instance, which was the basis for Dan Marino and Jimmy Johnson's famous falling out. b) a reliable rushing attack does positive things for your overall game. It helps manage down and distance, so you can sustain longer drives and face fewer third and longs. It means you have fewer three and outs and your opponent will have fewer opportunites to start drives. c) Rushing also allows you better control over variability of outcomes. Rush plays are low risk low reward, passing is high risk high reward. If you only look at football in terms of efficiency of yards per play you are missing the significance of time management, management of possession and risk management.
Gotta be a bit careful with just stating what the average YPA is in certain contexts. Certainly goes for this discussion about average rushing yards per carry. Here's the distribution of rushing yards and passing yards in 2011: http://outsidethehashes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/110125_rushpassdistribution1.gif The most likely outcome was 2 rushing yards per carry even though the average was 4 YPC. The reason is because the distribution is skewed to the right. That is, the average is being influenced a lot by low probability events where the running back rushes for a lot of yards. Passing distributions as you can see are bi-modal because so many are incomplete (that peak around zero). Point is, passing has a higher average YPA but is far riskier, while rushing is less risky but is still unlikely to net you 10 yards reliably with 3 straight rushes (when you randomly draw from that rushing distribution 3 times it's more often than not less than 10 total yards even though the average per carry is 4). In other words, the calculus is more complex than just looking at YPC or YPA.
I have cited time management numerous times. But again, what data supports the theory that rushing leads to pass efficiency? Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Right, and which one leads to scoring points? First downs are useless if they are not resulting in points, unless you have time on your side. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Question: if there isn't a stat that tracks how rushing affects passing, does that mean the relationship doesn't exist? I'm basically arguing that common sense tells you that if a defense knows you're always going to pass, that they will defend you better than if they don't know if it's a run or a pass.
That's a bit too complex to answer! What we do know is that passing efficiency is more important than rushing efficiency if you want to get into the playoffs and win that prize the Dolphins keep failing to win. Anyway, all I was saying is that you can't really just look at YPC/YPA and figure out what the offense or defense should do. Gotta look at the distributions and simulate from them.
But in reality, the question is whether rushing more or less helps the passing game, not whether not rushing at all is a good idea. Answering that question is more tricky. The problem with rushing attempt stats is you can seriously question what the causal relation there is. I mean did the team run more because it was ahead, or did running more actually help the team win. It's even more complex with rushing efficiency because that can be affected by passing efficiency too. Anyway, without delving into details I doubt we'll find in published stats (though maybe a play-by-play parsing would help), I don't think you can really answer this through a statistical argument.
The FO link I posted addressed the causal relationship. Either way, where the argument falls flat is when rushing efficiency ends up being completely irrelevant to winning. If the theory that running the balls forces the defense to react in a manner that makes the passing game more efficient, then that effect would be more pronounced for teams that run more efficiently. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
The problem is that you cannot defend a running clock. To take it to an extreme - how do you stop a kneel down? Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Why did we decide that rushing EFFICIENCY is the magic stat that tells us if there's a relationship or not between rushing and passing?
Yes this is exactly what I think most NFL coaches philosophy is concerning how often to use the playaction. I think this philosophy is wrong and they robbing themselves of value.
Rushing efficiency doesn't have to be relevant, on its own, to winning, to have an effect on passing.
Here's your link again: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2003/establishment-clause First shock: Miami is a good team haha. It's from the 2002 season. Anyway, the only causal relationship they find evidence for is the idea that you run more when ahead. Of course we knew that, but they don't answer the question of whether running more helps during the rest of the game, or rushing efficiency helps during the rest of the game. First thing they show are the 5 teams that established the run early the most, and 5 the least. 3 playoff teams in the top 5 list, and 2 in the bottom 5. Then they showed best rushing teams.. all between 7-9 and 9-7 (more 9-7). For worst rushing teams it was worse, but mostly because Cinci was a 2-win team. I don't see any causal links through that, and if anything provides evidence you should have at least a decent running game (but it's weak evidence). Just because A helps B doesn't mean that's your best choice. Maybe improving B without improving A is a better option. Also, maybe A does help B but only up to a point. Like I said, I don't see the efficiency stats settling this issue.
