Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

New School Hurry-Up Offense Vs. Old School Run-First Offense
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL General
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
squire12


Joined: 15 Mar 2013
Posts: 1745
PostPosted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 1:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

squire12 wrote:
Food for thought on this discussion

http://www.twominutewarning.com/correlations2.htm


If you have not looked at this site and some of the analysis, I suggest you do so.

Top Correlation to winning: Points per drive at .92
4 of the other top 10 are offensive pass related stats.

Time of Possession per drive comes in at .64 correlation to winning.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jazzaloha


Joined: 20 Nov 2013
Posts: 1025
PostPosted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 2:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

squire12 wrote:
squire12 wrote:
Food for thought on this discussion

http://www.twominutewarning.com/correlations2.htm


If you have not looked at this site and some of the analysis, I suggest you do so.

Top Correlation to winning: Points per drive at .92
4 of the other top 10 are offensive pass related stats.

Time of Possession per drive comes in at .64 correlation to winning.


Does this mean that aggressive, pass first offenses do the best at scoring points per drive?

I didn't really understand all of the statistics, how they came up with the numbers, what they represented, etc. But looking at the Super Bowl teams they listed (according to the article it was the last five Super Bowl winners, so I assume the article was written in 2004):

1998 Denver (ppd rank: 2)
1999 St. Louis (rank: 1)
2000 Baltimore (rank: 2)
2001 New England (rank: 7)
2002 Tampa Bay (rank: 3)
2003 New England (rank: Cool

Of these teams, only St. Louis and Tampa Bay are the more pass-first teams. St. Louis almost lost to a run-first Tennessee Titans (not a great offense--actually, not that great of a team, to me. On the other hand, St. Louis had a potent offense). TB played the Raiders, who basically ran Jon Gruden's pass-first offense (I'm not sure if they qualify as a really aggressive pass first team, too--probably closer to Walsh's original WCO.)

In 2000, I don't recall that Baltimore had a really aggressive pass-first offense--just the opposite, really. This was the team quarterbacked by Trent Dilfer, so I'm pretty sure they didn't have an aggressive passing attack.

I believe Denver still had Terrell Davis, so that was more the run-first type of team I had in mind.

New England, at that point, wasn't a very aggressive pass-first team yet, if I recall correctly.

In this season, Seattle has one of the higher ppd. (Denver has the highest, I believe.)

What this suggests is that you can have a more run based offense and score points. And I do think scoring points is important, but, as I said, I think you have to be able to have long drives to eat up the clock. (I might have mentioned earlier that I don't really care for the TOP statistic--honestly, I don't really look at that. I just watched the games and get a sense of how good teams are producing long drives.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AlexGreen#20


Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Posts: 4597
PostPosted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 2:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jazzaloha wrote:
squire12 wrote:
squire12 wrote:
Food for thought on this discussion

http://www.twominutewarning.com/correlations2.htm


If you have not looked at this site and some of the analysis, I suggest you do so.

Top Correlation to winning: Points per drive at .92
4 of the other top 10 are offensive pass related stats.

Time of Possession per drive comes in at .64 correlation to winning.


Does this mean that aggressive, pass first offenses do the best at scoring points per drive?

I didn't really understand all of the statistics, how they came up with the numbers, what they represented, etc. But looking at the Super Bowl teams they listed (according to the article it was the last five Super Bowl winners, so I assume the article was written in 2004):

1998 Denver (ppd rank: 2)
1999 St. Louis (rank: 1)
2000 Baltimore (rank: 2)
2001 New England (rank: 7)
2002 Tampa Bay (rank: 3)
2003 New England (rank: Cool

Of these teams, only St. Louis and Tampa Bay are the more pass-first teams. St. Louis almost lost to a run-first Tennessee Titans (not a great offense--actually, not that great of a team, to me. On the other hand, St. Louis had a potent offense). TB played the Raiders, who basically ran Jon Gruden's pass-first offense (I'm not sure if they qualify as a really aggressive pass first team, too--probably closer to Walsh's original WCO.)

In 2000, I don't recall that Baltimore had a really aggressive pass-first offense--just the opposite, really. This was the team quarterbacked by Trent Dilfer, so I'm pretty sure they didn't have an aggressive passing attack.

I believe Denver still had Terrell Davis, so that was more the run-first type of team I had in mind.

New England, at that point, wasn't a very aggressive pass-first team yet, if I recall correctly.

In this season, Seattle has one of the higher ppd. (Denver has the highest, I believe.)

What this suggests is that you can have a more run based offense and score points. And I do think scoring points is important, but, as I said, I think you have to be able to have long drives to eat up the clock. (I might have mentioned earlier that I don't really care for the TOP statistic--honestly, I don't really look at that. I just watched the games and get a sense of how good teams are producing long drives.)


So in other words: [inappropriate/removed] the evidence, my eyes tell me ____________

You've now seen too statistical studies (admittedly, mine was janky as [inappropriate/removed]) that say average drive time means nothing. And you're still rolling with this.

At this point I'm forced to conclude that there is no evidence that will change your mind.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bobikus


Joined: 07 Jun 2009
Posts: 8001
PostPosted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 8:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jazzaloha wrote:

Does this mean that aggressive, pass first offenses do the best at scoring points per drive?


No, it means whatever offense best suits your players do the best at scoring more points per drive, but pass-heavy offenses are far more effective now than they were in 98-03.
_________________
FIRE TODD HALEY
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
squire12


Joined: 15 Mar 2013
Posts: 1745
PostPosted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 4:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I guess if you cannot follow the links to read how they describe what the numbers mean, then I cannot offer much more assistance for you.

http://www.twominutewarning.com/correlations.htm

Offensive numbers on a play by play basis: Description: correlation to winning
Rush play success rate: .31
Rush play big gain %: .19
Rush average yards per carry: .31
Rush overall effectiveness: .34
Pass play success rate: .61
Pass play big gain %: .50
Pass average yards per attempt: .60
Pass overall effectiveness: .65

The passing to rushing statistic is nearly double across the board in correlation to winning.



Quote:
here are three main classes of data we examine below:
Drive Chart stats: a look at how NFL teams perform on a 'drive by drive' basis
Play-by-Play ratings: a breakdown of team performance at the play-by-play level of detail
Down-by-Down stats: primarily the PBP numbers taken in context of the specific down
Let's go to the numbers at hand: this reflects final regular season statistics from 1998 to 2002, with the stat in question being correlated with team wins during the sixteen game campaign. The higher the correlation value, the more pronounced that stat's effect on a team's regular season wins.
Play success rate:
1st down picking up 40% of yardage needed to achieve 1st down
2nd down picking up 60% of remaining yardage needed to achieve a 1st down
3rd down picking up the required yardage to achieve a 1st down or a potential FG attempt
Big play:
Run of 10+ yards
Pass of 20+ yards
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jazzaloha


Joined: 20 Nov 2013
Posts: 1025
PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 8:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bobikus wrote:
Jazzaloha wrote:

Does this mean that aggressive, pass first offenses do the best at scoring points per drive?


No, it means whatever offense best suits your players do the best at scoring more points per drive, but pass-heavy offenses are far more effective now than they were in 98-03.


Well, except for first year GMs/HCs, I think teams can choose the personnel they want, so the question is not choosing an offense to fit your personnel, but deciding on what type of offense you want, and then going out and getting the players that match that.

I do think scoring is important--I don't want to give the impression that I just think long drives is all that matters. But I'm saying that these long, time-consuming drives matter quite a bit--and not just in the closing minutes of the game. And if all your concerned about is scoring points, that can come back to haunt you. I think the Cowboy-Packer game is an example of that. The Cowboys not only threw the ball a lot when they had a big lead, but they had some very aggressive passes, which weren't necessary.

Contrast that to the way the Chargers played the Broncos. In the third quarter the Broncos had a quick three and out. The Chargers started from their own end zone and only drove the ball to midfield. However, they consumed almost the entire quarter, and they were able to punt the ball to the Denver 11.

I don't know how long the Charger defense was on the field in the 3rd, but it wasn't very long at all. The Chargers aren't a conventional run-first offense, but they can eat up the clock. And I think this really helped them win the game--keeping Denver's potent offense off the field, and enabling the Charger defense to have the energy it needed to contain the Broncos in the 4th quarter.

(I do agree that that pass heavy offenses are more effective now than when that article was written.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jazzaloha


Joined: 20 Nov 2013
Posts: 1025
PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 8:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

squire12 wrote:
I guess if you cannot follow the links to read how they describe what the numbers mean, then I cannot offer much more assistance for you.

http://www.twominutewarning.com/correlations.htm


Well, I understand you not wanting to help any further. I must confess that I'm not a numbers/statistics person (if its not obvious already). To really try and understand the procedures and data listed on that original site (and I did go to at least one of the links) would be a lot of work for me--and not really the enjoyable type of work. (But if I do check it out and examine it more, I'll try to post my comments later.)

Quote:
Offensive numbers on a play by play basis: Description: correlation to winning
Rush play success rate: .31
Rush play big gain %: .19
Rush average yards per carry: .31
Rush overall effectiveness: .34
Pass play success rate: .61
Pass play big gain %: .50
Pass average yards per attempt: .60
Pass overall effectiveness: .65

The passing to rushing statistic is nearly double across the board in correlation to winning.


Let me say a couple of things:

1. For what it's worth, I'm not keen on arguments that lay out numbers like this and arriving at a simple conclusion. I don't think numbers tell the whole story. It often leaves out key contextual information. One of the links on the address you listed gives a good example of that:

Perhaps most importantly conventional statistics don't weight a team's numbers by the situation. If it's 3rd down and 20 to go and I run a draw play that picks up 8 yards, that's in no way a sign of a good rushing play, more a fact of the defense happily giving up the yards to force the punt. On paper though it shows up as a carry for 8 yards and a good gain. On the other hand, if it's fourth and goal at the one-yard line and I power my way into the end zone for a touchdown, I get credited with a carry for a measly one yard. Multiply this effect several times, and the team picking up cheap yardage on the third and long draw play can end up looking like a better rushing team than the powerhouse fullback club.

I agree with that. Have the authors now come up with stats that address this problem? I have no idea. To answer that with any confidence, I'd have to really analyze their methods and results and then watch some of the teams/games they've gotten the stats from. Honestly, that's more work (and not very pleasant work) than I'm willing to put in. This is not meant as an excuse, but I'm just letting you know where I'm coming from.

2. If we suppose that passing statistics are more important than rushing statistics, does that mean we should conclude that the aggressive pass-first offenses are vastly superior to run-first, old school offenses? My sense is that that's not necessarily the case.

I'm not saying that passing is unimportant. I just think building the pass off the run is preferable than the other way around. I also think that being able to have long drives that eat up time and keep your defenses off the field is something really valuable.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bobikus


Joined: 07 Jun 2009
Posts: 8001
PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 8:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jazzaloha wrote:

2. If we suppose that passing statistics are more important than rushing statistics, does that mean we should conclude that the aggressive pass-first offenses are vastly superior to run-first, old school offenses? My sense is that that's not necessarily the case.


How well you pass has pretty much always been more important than how well you run, but pass-heavy offenses weren't widespread until recently because of the more high risk/reward nature of passing. Good running ability has situational value and is needed to keep defenses from solely playing against the pass, but passing effectiveness (as in efficiency and production per dropback moreso than bulk volume) has been more important than running effectiveness since like, the leather helmet days.
_________________
FIRE TODD HALEY
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AlexGreen#20


Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Posts: 4597
PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 9:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jazzaloha wrote:
2. If we suppose that passing statistics are more important than rushing statistics, does that mean we should conclude that the aggressive pass-first offenses are vastly superior to run-first, old school offenses? My sense is that that's not necessarily the case.

I'm not saying that passing is unimportant. I just think building the pass off the run is preferable than the other way around. I also think that being able to have long drives that eat up time and keep your defenses off the field is something really valuable.


The best and frankly all offenses at the moment are option and match up based. They're not using one thing to set up the other. They establish a personnel grouping and then allow the QB to read the defense from there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
squire12


Joined: 15 Mar 2013
Posts: 1745
PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 11:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jazzaloha wrote:
squire12 wrote:
I guess if you cannot follow the links to read how they describe what the numbers mean, then I cannot offer much more assistance for you.

http://www.twominutewarning.com/correlations.htm


Well, I understand you not wanting to help any further. I must confess that I'm not a numbers/statistics person (if its not obvious already). To really try and understand the procedures and data listed on that original site (and I did go to at least one of the links) would be a lot of work for me--and not really the enjoyable type of work. (But if I do check it out and examine it more, I'll try to post my comments later.)

Quote:
Offensive numbers on a play by play basis: Description: correlation to winning
Rush play success rate: .31
Rush play big gain %: .19
Rush average yards per carry: .31
Rush overall effectiveness: .34
Pass play success rate: .61
Pass play big gain %: .50
Pass average yards per attempt: .60
Pass overall effectiveness: .65

The passing to rushing statistic is nearly double across the board in correlation to winning.


Let me say a couple of things:

1. For what it's worth, I'm not keen on arguments that lay out numbers like this and arriving at a simple conclusion. I don't think numbers tell the whole story. It often leaves out key contextual information. One of the links on the address you listed gives a good example of that:

Perhaps most importantly conventional statistics don't weight a team's numbers by the situation. If it's 3rd down and 20 to go and I run a draw play that picks up 8 yards, that's in no way a sign of a good rushing play, more a fact of the defense happily giving up the yards to force the punt. On paper though it shows up as a carry for 8 yards and a good gain. On the other hand, if it's fourth and goal at the one-yard line and I power my way into the end zone for a touchdown, I get credited with a carry for a measly one yard. Multiply this effect several times, and the team picking up cheap yardage on the third and long draw play can end up looking like a better rushing team than the powerhouse fullback club.

I agree with that. Have the authors now come up with stats that address this problem? I have no idea. To answer that with any confidence, I'd have to really analyze their methods and results and then watch some of the teams/games they've gotten the stats from. Honestly, that's more work (and not very pleasant work) than I'm willing to put in. This is not meant as an excuse, but I'm just letting you know where I'm coming from.

2. If we suppose that passing statistics are more important than rushing statistics, does that mean we should conclude that the aggressive pass-first offenses are vastly superior to run-first, old school offenses? My sense is that that's not necessarily the case.

I'm not saying that passing is unimportant. I just think building the pass off the run is preferable than the other way around. I also think that being able to have long drives that eat up time and keep your defenses off the field is something really valuable.


In general, if you want to discuss things, then you need to do some leg work to be able to present and discuss your points. Anyone can say they think one thing or another is more important, but with statistical information your point is strengthening/weakened accordingly.

As for your picking up meaningless yards by running for 8 yards on 3rd and 20, that is what the play success rate is about.
Quote:
here are three main classes of data we examine below:
Drive Chart stats: a look at how NFL teams perform on a 'drive by drive' basis
Play-by-Play ratings: a breakdown of team performance at the play-by-play level of detail
Down-by-Down stats: primarily the PBP numbers taken in context of the specific down
Let's go to the numbers at hand: this reflects final regular season statistics from 1998 to 2002, with the stat in question being correlated with team wins during the sixteen game campaign. The higher the correlation value, the more pronounced that stat's effect on a team's regular season wins.
Play success rate:
1st down picking up 40% of yardage needed to achieve 1st down
2nd down picking up 60% of remaining yardage needed to achieve a 1st down
3rd down picking up the required yardage to achieve a 1st down or a potential FG attempt
Big play:
Run of 10+ yards
Pass of 20+ yards


The information is from 5 or 6 years of games over the full 16 game season, so it is a rather large sample size.

On your point #2: I do not think you can state vastly superior across the board for any given type of offense/defense. But as the statistical information provided, the correlation to winning (which I believe is a pretty important for the competitive game of football) is higher with the passing metrics vs the running metrics. Granted whether it will be effective in the playoffs (small sample size) will always be subject to a game by game dynamics, but at some point, you either play the percentages or a hunch.

Quote:
I'm not saying that passing is unimportant. I just think building the pass off the run is preferable than the other way around. I also think that being able to have long drives that eat up time and keep your defenses off the field is something really valuable.


I am glad you feel it is really valuable, but an offense certainly can build the run off the pass and be pretty successful at it. Showing passing formation/personnel is a great way to get the defense into nickel/dime personnel and then run against 6 in the box...a more favorable running option than against 7-8 in the box.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jazzaloha


Joined: 20 Nov 2013
Posts: 1025
PostPosted: Tue Dec 17, 2013 1:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

squire12 wrote:
In general, if you want to discuss things, then you need to do some leg work to be able to present and discuss your points. Anyone can say they think one thing or another is more important, but with statistical information your point is strengthening/weakened accordingly.


I believe in giving detailed arguments for my opinions, but if you're saying the only valid arguments are the ones based heavily on stats, I'm not going to be able to deliver on those grounds. If that's what you need in order for this conversation to be meaningful, I'm probably not the best guy to talk to.

As for your picking up meaningless yards by running for 8 yards on 3rd and 20, that is what the play success rate is about.[/quote]

My point was that the example shows that stats are often incomplete and that you need to look below the surface. Whether the authors solve this problem with the "success rate," I can't say, because, as I mentioned, I haven't really dissected the their methodology and data. And, honestly, that's not something I'm motivated to do. If I do find the time and motivation to "go under the hood," I'll try to post back those comments. (The type of example about the draw play is the type of information and details one would find when one goes under the hood of statistics, but, again, that takes time and I'm not sure I'm willing to put in that time.)

Quote:
On your point #2: I do not think you can state vastly superior across the board for any given type of offense/defense. But as the statistical information provided, the correlation to winning (which I believe is a pretty important for the competitive game of football) is higher with the passing metrics vs the running metrics.


What we're discussing is two types offenses--and whether one is better than the other--particularly in the playoffs. How does this relate to the passing and running statistics you've cited? If you're saying it proves that the aggressive, pass-first offenses are superior in the playoffs, at this point, I honestly can't answer that because I haven't analyzed those stats.

I will say that passing the ball effective is a very important to winning. You can't just run the type of offense that Tebow ran in Denver and expect to win the Super Bowl. The type of good run-first teams I've mentioned have good passing games as well--and they wouldn't be good if they didn't.

Quote:
Granted whether it will be effective in the playoffs (small sample size) will always be subject to a game by game dynamics, but at some point, you either play the percentages or a hunch.


I do feel like statistics are significantly limited when we're talking about the playoffs (playoff statistics would be better), but I don't think the alternative is to really on "hunches." To me, I think there are patterns and consistent elements about the playoffs that we can draw conclusions from. Now, I haven't read research on this, but I think the conclusions aren't arbitrary or irrational. I've tried to site some of these trends in previous posts, so I don't really want to go into them in too much detail now, but to be brief, here are few I've noticed:

>Playoffs tend to be more physical and intense. This seems to be the case because a) the stakes are higher; b) referees tend to call a looser game.

>Players experience greater degree of pressure, primarily because the stakes are higher. I believe that pressure affects different aspects of the game differently. The aspects of the game that rely on skill, timing, coordination of players and a mental component are more susceptible to adverse affects of pressure than the aspects that are more physical in nature. (This is not only true in football, but other sports as well.)

>Teams with aggressive, pass-first type of offenses tend not to have good defenses, while teams with good defenses tend to have an offense with ball control capabilities.

Now, we can discuss whether we think these are valid points or not, but if they are true, then we can make some generalizations about styles of offense that are more fit for the playoffs and which ones are not.


Quote:
I am glad you feel it is really valuable, but an offense certainly can build the run off the pass and be pretty successful at it. Showing passing formation/personnel is a great way to get the defense into nickel/dime personnel and then run against 6 in the box...a more favorable running option than against 7-8 in the box.


I think that's true. Pass-first offenses have developed decent run games, but these run games, in my opinion, are not as reliable in crucial playoff situations--like protecting a lead in the latter part of the game. I haven't thought about this deeply, but off the top of my head, one of the reasons this approach may not be so effective is that it's predicated on the threat of passing--especially aggressive passing. When these teams stop doing this, the run game is no longer as effective. The defense doesn't have to respect the passing game as much so they can key on the run. If I'm not mistaken this is sort of happened in last year's Super Bowl. Now the Ravens weren't really the pass-first team that I have in mind. But their vertical game was a crucial, and potent, part of the offense. At some point in the second half, they got really, really conservative, and their offense got a lot less effective.

I think this is true of other high-powered offenses. Once they take their foot off the peddle, the running game isn't as effective and in big games with the lead, these offenses have a hard time keeping their foot on the peddle (lest they run into the problem Dallas had yesterday).

Run-first offenses are ideally suited for this time of the game--because it's the foundation of the their offense is their running game. One of their strategic objectives is to wear down the defense, and here in the latter part, that strategy can pay off big time. It's not cleverness, speed, exquisite pass execution, but power that will defeat the opponent. And unlike those other qualities, power/physicality is something that doesn't really drop off under pressure.

A short, safe passing game can complement the running game in these moments--e.g., sending out the fullback or TE on play action on power formations. I've seen Seattle do this effectively and I remember Jimmy Johnson's Cowboy's doing this effectively as well. It's not necessarily scoring leading to points, but it does move the chains methodically, while eating up the clock. (In the meantime, it's preserving the your defense, putting them in the best position from your opponent's mounting a comeback.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bobikus


Joined: 07 Jun 2009
Posts: 8001
PostPosted: Tue Dec 17, 2013 11:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Even in the playoffs, efficient passing results in victory more often than the ability to run the ball.
_________________
FIRE TODD HALEY
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AlexGreen#20


Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Posts: 4597
PostPosted: Tue Dec 17, 2013 11:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jazzaloha wrote:
squire12 wrote:
In general, if you want to discuss things, then you need to do some leg work to be able to present and discuss your points. Anyone can say they think one thing or another is more important, but with statistical information your point is strengthening/weakened accordingly.


I believe in giving detailed arguments for my opinions, but if you're saying the only valid arguments are the ones based heavily on stats, I'm not going to be able to deliver on those grounds. If that's what you need in order for this conversation to be meaningful, I'm probably not the best guy to talk to.

As for your picking up meaningless yards by running for 8 yards on 3rd and 20, that is what the play success rate is about.


My point was that the example shows that stats are often incomplete and that you need to look below the surface. Whether the authors solve this problem with the "success rate," I can't say, because, as I mentioned, I haven't really dissected the their methodology and data. And, honestly, that's not something I'm motivated to do. If I do find the time and motivation to "go under the hood," I'll try to post back those comments. (The type of example about the draw play is the type of information and details one would find when one goes under the hood of statistics, but, again, that takes time and I'm not sure I'm willing to put in that time.)

Quote:
On your point #2: I do not think you can state vastly superior across the board for any given type of offense/defense. But as the statistical information provided, the correlation to winning (which I believe is a pretty important for the competitive game of football) is higher with the passing metrics vs the running metrics.


What we're discussing is two types offenses--and whether one is better than the other--particularly in the playoffs. How does this relate to the passing and running statistics you've cited? If you're saying it proves that the aggressive, pass-first offenses are superior in the playoffs, at this point, I honestly can't answer that because I haven't analyzed those stats.

I will say that passing the ball effective is a very important to winning. You can't just run the type of offense that Tebow ran in Denver and expect to win the Super Bowl. The type of good run-first teams I've mentioned have good passing games as well--and they wouldn't be good if they didn't.

Quote:
Granted whether it will be effective in the playoffs (small sample size) will always be subject to a game by game dynamics, but at some point, you either play the percentages or a hunch.


I do feel like statistics are significantly limited when we're talking about the playoffs (playoff statistics would be better), but I don't think the alternative is to really on "hunches." To me, I think there are patterns and consistent elements about the playoffs that we can draw conclusions from. Now, I haven't read research on this, but I think the conclusions aren't arbitrary or irrational. I've tried to site some of these trends in previous posts, so I don't really want to go into them in too much detail now, but to be brief, here are few I've noticed:

>Playoffs tend to be more physical and intense. This seems to be the case because a) the stakes are higher; b) referees tend to call a looser game.

>Players experience greater degree of pressure, primarily because the stakes are higher. I believe that pressure affects different aspects of the game differently. The aspects of the game that rely on skill, timing, coordination of players and a mental component are more susceptible to adverse affects of pressure than the aspects that are more physical in nature. (This is not only true in football, but other sports as well.)

>Teams with aggressive, pass-first type of offenses tend not to have good defenses, while teams with good defenses tend to have an offense with ball control capabilities.

Now, we can discuss whether we think these are valid points or not, but if they are true, then we can make some generalizations about styles of offense that are more fit for the playoffs and which ones are not.


Quote:
I am glad you feel it is really valuable, but an offense certainly can build the run off the pass and be pretty successful at it. Showing passing formation/personnel is a great way to get the defense into nickel/dime personnel and then run against 6 in the box...a more favorable running option than against 7-8 in the box.


I think that's true. Pass-first offenses have developed decent run games, but these run games, in my opinion, are not as reliable in crucial playoff situations--like protecting a lead in the latter part of the game. I haven't thought about this deeply, but off the top of my head, one of the reasons this approach may not be so effective is that it's predicated on the threat of passing--especially aggressive passing. When these teams stop doing this, the run game is no longer as effective. The defense doesn't have to respect the passing game as much so they can key on the run. If I'm not mistaken this is sort of happened in last year's Super Bowl. Now the Ravens weren't really the pass-first team that I have in mind. But their vertical game was a crucial, and potent, part of the offense. At some point in the second half, they got really, really conservative, and their offense got a lot less effective.

I think this is true of other high-powered offenses. Once they take their foot off the peddle, the running game isn't as effective and in big games with the lead, these offenses have a hard time keeping their foot on the peddle (lest they run into the problem Dallas had yesterday).

Run-first offenses are ideally suited for this time of the game--because it's the foundation of the their offense is their running game. One of their strategic objectives is to wear down the defense, and here in the latter part, that strategy can pay off big time. It's not cleverness, speed, exquisite pass execution, but power that will defeat the opponent. And unlike those other qualities, power/physicality is something that doesn't really drop off under pressure.

A short, safe passing game can complement the running game in these moments--e.g., sending out the fullback or TE on play action on power formations. I've seen Seattle do this effectively and I remember Jimmy Johnson's Cowboy's doing this effectively as well. It's not necessarily scoring leading to points, but it does move the chains methodically, while eating up the clock. (In the meantime, it's preserving the your defense, putting them in the best position from your opponent's mounting a comeback.)[/quote]

How many times do we have to blow your points apart before you concede on one of any of them? Just about every single argument you have has been shut down based on factual backing. That you choose to ignore these based on either an effort to maintain ignorance, "I haven't studied these" or by dismissing them via hypotheticals that are actually accounted for, "Facts don't tell the whole story" is your problem and shows either laziness or intellectual dishonesty.

If you want to have a discussion about this topic. Post less, and read what people are saying in response to you. You might learn something.

If you can't rely on probability, what the hell are you supposed to rely on? Every single decision you make is based on probability.

Playoffs being more physical is neither here nor there, nor is that refs call games looser. Those are opinions that you haven't backed up. If you had done some research about flags thrown per game in the playoffs or regular season or something like that, you might have ground to stand on, but you're just stating opinions and cliches with nothing to back them up.

Do you have some proof that it's harder to pass in the playoffs? Come up with some sort of backing other than an opinion and people will take you seriously but just stating this opinion like a fact is worthless.

Again, factual backing. Teams that throw the ball are just as capable of having elite defenses. Your simply stating this is worthless in any sort of discussion unless you back it up.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
squire12


Joined: 15 Mar 2013
Posts: 1745
PostPosted: Tue Dec 17, 2013 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
do feel like statistics are significantly limited when we're talking about the playoffs (playoff statistics would be better), but I don't think the alternative is to really on "hunches." To me, I think there are patterns and consistent elements about the playoffs that we can draw conclusions from. Now, I haven't read research on this, but I think the conclusions aren't arbitrary or irrational. I've tried to site some of these trends in previous posts, so I don't really want to go into them in too much detail now, but to be brief, here are few I've noticed:

>Playoffs tend to be more physical and intense. This seems to be the case because a) the stakes are higher; b) referees tend to call a looser game.

>Players experience greater degree of pressure, primarily because the stakes are higher. I believe that pressure affects different aspects of the game differently. The aspects of the game that rely on skill, timing, coordination of players and a mental component are more susceptible to adverse affects of pressure than the aspects that are more physical in nature. (This is not only true in football, but other sports as well.)

>Teams with aggressive, pass-first type of offenses tend not to have good defenses, while teams with good defenses tend to have an offense with ball control capabilities.

Now, we can discuss whether we think these are valid points or not, but if they are true, then we can make some generalizations about styles of offense that are more fit for the playoffs and which ones are not.


Quote:
I am glad you feel it is really valuable, but an offense certainly can build the run off the pass and be pretty successful at it. Showing passing formation/personnel is a great way to get the defense into nickel/dime personnel and then run against 6 in the box...a more favorable running option than against 7-8 in the box.


I think that's true. Pass-first offenses have developed decent run games, but these run games, in my opinion, are not as reliable in crucial playoff situations--like protecting a lead in the latter part of the game. I haven't thought about this deeply, but off the top of my head, one of the reasons this approach may not be so effective is that it's predicated on the threat of passing--especially aggressive passing. When these teams stop doing this, the run game is no longer as effective. The defense doesn't have to respect the passing game as much so they can key on the run. If I'm not mistaken this is sort of happened in last year's Super Bowl. Now the Ravens weren't really the pass-first team that I have in mind. But their vertical game was a crucial, and potent, part of the offense. At some point in the second half, they got really, really conservative, and their offense got a lot less effective.

I think this is true of other high-powered offenses. Once they take their foot off the peddle, the running game isn't as effective and in big games with the lead, these offenses have a hard time keeping their foot on the peddle (lest they run into the problem Dallas had yesterday).

Run-first offenses are ideally suited for this time of the game--because it's the foundation of the their offense is their running game. One of their strategic objectives is to wear down the defense, and here in the latter part, that strategy can pay off big time. It's not cleverness, speed, exquisite pass execution, but power that will defeat the opponent. And unlike those other qualities, power/physicality is something that doesn't really drop off under pressure.

A short, safe passing game can complement the running game in these moments--e.g., sending out the fullback or TE on play action on power formations. I've seen Seattle do this effectively and I remember Jimmy Johnson's Cowboy's doing this effectively as well. It's not necessarily scoring leading to points, but it does move the chains methodically, while eating up the clock. (In the meantime, it's preserving the your defense, putting them in the best position from your opponent's mounting a comeback.)


So you are going to throw out some thoughts and expect others to take them as factual, when you provide no supportive basis other than what you think you see? You are making the claim that the old school run oriented offenses fair better in the post season vs the pass oriented offenses. I will await your supportive data/information. I have already stated my case to this point with numbers gathered over 6 years of game analysis.

I will agree the playoff games stakes are higher, which leads to a need to execute better. You seem to be implying that only a passing offense would be subject to mental errors due to the pressure, but the defense would not be subject to coverage and communication errors to allow for big gains and TD via passing. Also, running offenses could just as easily miss assignments and adjustments that the defense might make and negate a potential running play. It can and would affect all plays no matter what the play is, run or pass, offense or defense.

Bringing up the Dallas vs GB game from sunday is a 1 game analysis...it is foolish to draw conclusions from a small sample size. For every one of those games, it could be easy to find the reverse situation to hold true (nearly every Denver victory this year)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jazzaloha


Joined: 20 Nov 2013
Posts: 1025
PostPosted: Tue Dec 17, 2013 3:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

squire12 wrote:
So you are going to throw out some thoughts and expect others to take them as factual, when you provide no supportive basis other than what you think you see?


No, I'm not expecting others to take my opinions as factual--I acknowledge that they're opinions. But I also try to explain why I believe what I do. It sounds like you're saying that unless I can cite statistics then my opinions have no value. I respect that opinion, but I don't really agree with it. Personally, I think opinions about football can value even if the person with the opinions don't cite a lot of stats. Morever--and more importantly--I think interesting discussions about football need not be heavily reliant on stats. That's my opinion, and it's cool that you don't agree with it. I don't think discussing the topic with me is going to be so fruitful at this point (unless I find the time and energy to dig deeper into the stats you've cited.)

Quote:
I will agree the playoff games stakes are higher, which leads to a need to execute better. You seem to be implying that only a passing offense would be subject to mental errors due to the pressure, but the defense would not be subject to coverage and communication errors to allow for big gains and TD via passing. Also, running offenses could just as easily miss assignments and adjustments that the defense might make and negate a potential running play. It can and would affect all plays no matter what the play is, run or pass, offense or defense.


Yes, I am saying that pressure affects the passing more adversely than the running game or defense. The key word is "more." In my experience (of both watching and playing sports), pressure seems to affect more skill-based endeavors rather than those that are more physical in nature. Defense involves a mental component--and defenses can make mental errors. Same with the running game. But I do think it's significantly less than the passing game.

Earlier I tried to use the example of two people throwing the ball to each other versus the two people running after each other. Add pressure to the situation and I think throwing the ball becomes significantly more difficult than chasing/running. This doesn't definitively prove what I'm saying, but I do think it supports my claim.

I also think that the passing game depends a lot more on getting into a groove or flow than the running game or defense. And pressure makes getting into the flow more difficult because pressure tends to make players more tight and hesitant.

This is an opinion, of course--which you can agree or disagree. Discussing these opinions is what makes the conversation interesting. But if you're going to demand that I use statistics or "fact"--then you're not going to enjoy talking to me.

Quote:
Bringing up the Dallas vs GB game from sunday is a 1 game analysis...it is foolish to draw conclusions from a small sample size. For every one of those games, it could be easy to find the reverse situation to hold true (nearly every Denver victory this year)


Sure, it's only one example--and I don't think it definitively proves my point. It's one example. If we got into it we could discuss more examples and try to analyze them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL General All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 5 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group