It's not a current active element of discussion, but the idea of "respect" vs. the run and the pass game has been much discussed here. In the context of the Dolphins, there was the idea that the Dolphins running game suffered because of a lack of respect in the passing game, that Reggie Bush was drawing consistent single high safety looks that weren't being taken advantage of Dolphins passing threats.
Well, Pro Football Focus did the statistics on how frequently rushers faced 8+ defenders in the box:
https://www.profootballfocus.com/bl...e-box/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook
Reggie Bush ended up at 34th among rushers with 100+ carries, seeing additional defenders 13.66% of the time. The league leaders in this area saw safeties closer to the line of scrimmage more than three times as frequently as Bush did. It's also almost half as often as the league average of 23.25%
This is problematic for some of the popular ideas on this forum. The idea that Reggie Bush was held back by a lack of a passing game is a hard sell given these numbers. In fact, it's arguable from the data that the reverse was true- Reggie Bush was not a significant enough rushing threat to bring safeties down in the box(I would argue this is fundamentally because Bush was easy to defend and inept on "most" carries, and his big play production was not enough to make up for it).
The idea that Brian Hartline performed in some sort of bizarre vacuum where he received no attention from opposing defenses besides primary cornerback coverage is also problematic. As the only real deep threat on the offense, it's pretty logical to infer that he also saw a greater degree of scrutiny.
Another idea that this also does damage to is the concept of the safeties position correlating with "respect" or "fear" of opposing passing games or run games. Looking at teams who had the most and least % of extra defenders does not suggest a strong link between the two things. There are passing games that are successful or prolific at the top of the list, and passing attacks that are relatively modest with rushers having less frequent attention.
This also makes the Dolphins moves this off-season contrary to popular opinion(re-sign Hartline, let Bush walk) in a bit clearer a context.
tl;dr= up yours *****es I was right
-
Pandarilla, Stitches, surferosa and 10 others like this.
-
This isn't surprising to me at all. Teams respect what Hartline does on the field. His peers voted him a Pro Bowl alternate, and now we have evidence that teams disproportionately placed defenders outside of the box. Thanks for sharing this.
The reality is that defenses very rarely change what they do based on who they are playing. Rex Ryan defenses are going to play a lot of man, Tampa 2 teams aren't, etc. IMO this is a case of fans placing too much emphasis on individual players, rather than schemes.Pandarilla and Anonymous like this. -
Not really, for example safeties may not have had to been in the box for the defense to penetrate and stop the run just from base defenses.
It also did not take into account run blitzes etc -
Basically, when offenses went with 1 Wr formations, guess who put 8 into the box?
49ers were in that formation 46% of the time when CKap started games.
37% when Smith was in the game
Shonn Greene faced the 2nd most 8 men in the box looks for the Jest. -
Yeah that's right *****es, I told you bush was messin our run game up all last year, also told you we would get rid of him..lol.....that felt good.
Would of loved a Montee ball or an Eddie lacy, but I'll take the skillsets of Lamar, Daniel and mike G over another year of Bush.mbsinmisc likes this. -
Sure, that's valid. Safety position isn't the only thing defenses use to increase or decrease emphasis on the run by any means.
That's not really the argument that's been made or that I'm addressing. There's no reason for me to argue(or someone to even study) the idea that Brian Hartline got a free ride because opposing personnel packages featured a 2-down run specialist defensive tackle more or less than league average for example. -
Yea but then you have Dallas, New Orleans, Pittsburgh, Indy, Atlanta in top 10 of the list too - mostly singleback passing teams who spread you out and have vertical threats.
With so many other variables that would impact the stat (quality of QB, OLine, pass-first, etc.) I'm not sure you can draw any large league conclusions from this (one I kinda see is that small fast RBs, even the best ones, don't draw guys into the box). But it's interesting for looking at Miami specifically, imo, and some of the myths the OP suggested. -
Larryfinfan 17-0...Priceless Club Member
Points well made, but it's a bit more complicated than "opposing D's put 8 in the box to stop Reggie, knowing our WRs were average". That, I agree, is the "standard belief" amongst many fans. Logically thinking that adding a Wallace-type receiver will combat what opposing D's were doing...
The problem is that having a weak group of WRs AND having a run game that was more smoke and mirrors than substance enhanced the general opinion of most fans... But if we can do both...improve the run game with a better OL and add the threat of a Wallace type that can take the cover off the top will do things like make Hartline's abilities be enhanced as well as open things up for Gibson, Miller, Keller underneath.
Last season, if teams could stop Bush (whether that be with 8 in the box or controlling the WRs), they could limit the options Tanny had. He didn't have a Keller type TE as an outlet and arguably, Bess was hampered by the back for at least the second half of the season and arguably, the one area that you would have thought that Bush would be helpful in (the dump-off passes) he was least effective with..,
The additions we've put in place, I think will give Tanny a few options he didn't have last season (Keller, Miller out of backfield, Clay perhaps, Wallace and Gibson underneath). Naturally the key is how the OL comes together...I know it's a broken record, but you can trace our last few seasons demises back to the OL... Here's to Martin, JJ, RI, Pouncey, Louis, Thomas, Garner, Yeatman, etal... -
Which leads me to ask did PFF do an analysis on the number of times a WR was double-covered?Pandarilla likes this.
-
Pittsburgh had Wallace, Brown, Sanders, and Heath Miller, all of whom are certainly competent, and their RBs are both near the top.
I just don't see any real general 'rules' to be derived from this; but it's helpful to look at single teams like the OP did, imo, and see how the offense functioned together and what specific offenses are dictating to the defense. Look at Baltimore: arguably the best 1-2 backfield in the League and they seldom ran against loaded boxes - both being in the bottom half/third of that list is a really great sign and probably had something to do with why they won it all.bakedmatt likes this. -
This was always my biggest complaint.
I like Hartline. I like Bess. But a passing offense cannot survive when those are your only viable options.
And let's face it: Fasano isn't a Miami Dolphin because we were looking to upgrade our pass-catching abilities at the TE position. This is evidenced by letting Fasano walk at an asking price of 4 year 18 million and pursuing Jared Cook at almost 4 year 27 million.
And finally the void at a 3rd WR was my biggest gripe.
p.s. Since like week 3, Reggie Bush was clearly a problem with his drive killing runs for losses. -
I'm not at all suprised by the results, but not for the reasons you suggest. The reason IMO is what Stringer said, which is that defenses don't change what they do all that much based on the personnel they are playing. In other words, the "respect" concept is virtually meaningless in terms of how often teams play 8 men in the box in terms of both who the RB is and who the WRs are. A quick look at the PFF numbers shows that, IMO. The notion the low percentage of 8-in-the-box looks was due to some kind of disrespect for Reggie Bush goes out the window unless one is willing to argue that defenses similarly lack respect for CJ Spiller (and his 6.0 ypc average), Jamaal Charles (and his 1500+ yards and career 5.8 ypc), LeSean McCoy and Chris Johnson. I'd like to think nobody is going to argue that, but you never you . . . Similarly, the notion that 8-in-the-box numbers are connected to the deep threat of the offense's receivers looks similarly dubious when you consider that teams like Dallas and Atlanta faced high percentages of 8-in-the-box despite having several significant receiving threats. Backs that carry in short yardage situations see more 8-in-the-box because the defense is expecting a run and inear the goal-line there is no deep safety. That is why small but dangerous backs like Bush, Charles and Spiller don't see high percentages of 8-in-the-box but relative plodders like Bilal Powell, Shonn Greene, Mark Ingram, Vick Ballard and Isaac Redman do. I agree that the notion that defenses ignored Hartline and played 8-in-the-box against us because we had no deep threat is bunk, but the low percentages for Reggie Bush carries can't be taken as any indication of inordinate deep threat fear for Brian Hartline either.Disgustipate likes this.
-
I don't think they have, but I think that's a bit problematic or would require some nuance. Most double teams in the NFL aren't a result of defensive coordinators highlighting a specific player, but rather a result of the play selections from the opposing offense and defense. "True" double teams are pretty rare.
The results of such analysis I think would not show a very useful pattern. The true "elite" wide receivers like Calvin Johnson and co. would almost certainly be at the top, but I think at a certain point there would be a lack of correlation. I would expect there to be solid players seeing significantly more double teams than really good players simply because the solid guy faced more opponents playing cover-2 man. The really good guy would get some double teams depending on opposing game-plan, but the solid guy would get double teamed just because of the opposing defensive scheme and his route tree.
It's the same general problem with the whole safety in the box thing. Calvin Johnson means you don't have a lot of safeties in the box, but beyond that? It depends on the defenses you are facing. Some teams will give throw a lot of single high looks regardless because that's a fundamental part of what they do, and it isn't them at all sacrificing deep coverage for run stuff. -
it's not a matter of personnel, it's a matter of scheme and tendencies .... it doesn't matter if you have a superstar WR on the field if you don't target him.
PIT and the JESTS are primarily running teams .... PIT can throw the ball - and does at times very well, but it clearly likes to run. Conversely, the JESTS could barely throw the ball, so stopping the run was the priority.
we can have Wallace/Hartline all we want, but if they aren't targeted often enough -- or only on obvious situations .... it becomes a moot point.Pandarilla likes this.