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

Balance, Playcalling, Offensive Success
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Arizona Cardinals
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
khodder


Moderator - MVP
Joined: 19 Dec 2005
Posts: 50176
Location: New New York
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 6:12 pm    Post subject: Balance, Playcalling, Offensive Success Reply with quote

The fallacy of balance in playcalling;

Example 1 - San Francisco 49ers;

477 passing drop backs (Attempts+Sacks), 492 rushing attempts - 969 offensive plays

49% pass, 51% run.

First three quarters of the game; 379 passing drop backs 313 rushing plays. 692 offensive plays 55% pass, 45% run.

Fourth Quarter; 91 passing drop backs, 165 rushing plays = 256 offensive plays 36% pass, 64% run.

The San Fransico 49ers are thought of as one of the most run heavy teams in the NFL, but the fact is that many of their rushing attempts come in the fourth quarter of games in which they are looking to close out the game. For the large portion of the game even the 49ers are a team that are a pass balanced team.

What makes the 49ers so efficient on offense (And this goes for other balanced teams like say, Seattle and Washington) and even less balanced teams (like a New England) is that they are able to both run or pass the ball with success in situations that determine that is what they need to do.

We saw this come and bite the Broncos in the behind this weekend, they could not convert on 3rd and short on the ground. The reason the 49ers have been able to have as much success as they have in the fourth quarter of closing out games is because they have been able to pound teams on the ground and continue to advance the ball with first downs. The Patriots might be a very pass heavy team, but they were 26/37 running the ball on 3rd and 2 or less to go a 70% success rate, better than their 12/19 in the air in the same situations. (And far better than our 9/18 in 3rd and 2 or less to go on the ground)

Basically, if you want offensive success you need to play matchup football, not balanced football. Create mismatches with your personnel and take advantage of those mismatches. Continue to go back to those mismatches until a team shows they can stop it. If that means passing 8 or 10 times in a row, you do it, if it means running vs a 6 man front 6-8 times in a row, you do that. If you can run the same play over and over and over and keep getting 6-12 yard chunks you keep running that same play over and over and over until the opposition show they can stop you.

Balance is not the key on offense, the ability to create mismatches and then take advantage of them is the key on offense. The ability to gameplan, to find and exploit weaknesses is the key on offense.
_________________
FFMD 2014 - ARIZONA CARDINALS GM - CLICK ME - YOU KNOW YOU WANT TO
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address MSN Messenger
stchamp98


Most Valuable Poster (3rd Ballot)

Joined: 11 Apr 2005
Posts: 52978
Location: Havre, Montana
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 6:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You lost me. Your example that balance has nothing to do with success is a team that's 55-45 thru 3 quarters (And of course, you don't count how many of those 4th quarter runs came in games that were close score wise. You simply assume they're running out a win)? That's pretty damn balanced man.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khodder


Moderator - MVP
Joined: 19 Dec 2005
Posts: 50176
Location: New New York
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 6:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stchamp98 wrote:
You lost me. Your example that balance has nothing to do with success is a team that's 55-45 thru 3 quarters (And of course, you don't count how many of those 4th quarter runs came in games that were close score wise. You simply assume they're running out a win)? That's pretty damn balanced man.


But it is not balance for balances sake. It is balance because that is where the mismatches were.

It really is just a ramble to get some thoughts out onto "paper" at this stage. Just basically saying that you don't need to be 52% pass, 48% run to be a successful and efficient offense, but you need to be able to pass the ball well enough to keep yourself in games where you fall behind and run the ball well enough to convert those short yaradage "power" plays and to help to milk clock at the back end of games you are winning.

Offense is about creating and exploiting mismatches, defensive is about preventing mismatches and attacking weakness.

But just to throw this out there;

When Behind SF 99 runs 145 passes.
When Ahead SF 300 runs, 200 passes.
_________________
FFMD 2014 - ARIZONA CARDINALS GM - CLICK ME - YOU KNOW YOU WANT TO
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address MSN Messenger
Yibbyl


Joined: 21 Apr 2011
Posts: 2296
Location: Redding, CA
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 6:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

khodder wrote:
stchamp98 wrote:
You lost me. Your example that balance has nothing to do with success is a team that's 55-45 thru 3 quarters (And of course, you don't count how many of those 4th quarter runs came in games that were close score wise. You simply assume they're running out a win)? That's pretty damn balanced man.


But it is not balance for balances sake. It is balance because that is where the mismatches were.

It really is just a ramble to get some thoughts out onto "paper" at this stage. Just basically saying that you don't need to be 52% pass, 48% run to be a successful and efficient offense, but you need to be able to pass the ball well enough to keep yourself in games where you fall behind and run the ball well enough to convert those short yaradage "power" plays and to help to milk clock at the back end of games you are winning.

Offense is about creating and exploiting mismatches, defensive is about preventing mismatches and attacking weakness.

But just to throw this out there;

When Behind SF 99 runs 145 passes.
When Ahead SF 300 runs, 200 passes.

To the bolded...would you expect anything different?
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khodder


Moderator - MVP
Joined: 19 Dec 2005
Posts: 50176
Location: New New York
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 6:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yibbyl wrote:
khodder wrote:
But just to throw this out there;

When Behind SF 99 runs 145 passes.
When Ahead SF 300 runs, 200 passes.

To the bolded...would you expect anything different?


No. But what I am saying is that you call plays to take advantage of matchups and weakness, not to create balance.
_________________
FFMD 2014 - ARIZONA CARDINALS GM - CLICK ME - YOU KNOW YOU WANT TO
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address MSN Messenger
stchamp98


Most Valuable Poster (3rd Ballot)

Joined: 11 Apr 2005
Posts: 52978
Location: Havre, Montana
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 6:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A balanced offense can has caused mismatches and weaknesses in a number of areas.

Sorry, I don't see the point personally. Sounds kinda generic too boot.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khodder


Moderator - MVP
Joined: 19 Dec 2005
Posts: 50176
Location: New New York
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 6:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stchamp98 wrote:
A balanced offense can has caused mismatches and weaknesses in a number of areas.

Sorry, I don't see the point personally. Sounds kinda generic too boot.


I am not entirely sure how to interpret that it seems like it is missing something in that sentence to complete it (an and between can and has?), but overall;

I continually hear, we need to be balanced, we need to run the ball more, we need to do this we need to do that. We don't need to do any of those things. We need to put ourselves in a better position to create and exploit mismatches. We don't need to run the ball more, we need to run the ball more effectively.

That means we need to find a quarterback who can exploit the numerous mismatches we can create with Floyd, Housler and Fitzgerald. That means we need to build an offensive line that is going to create holes vs 6 man boxes.

I see far too much emphasis and Coach X runs a balanced offense or Coach Y passes too much. The emphasis should be on usage of personnel, the emphasis should be on ability to dictate what the defense is going to do, the emphasis should be on running when you are favored to run, passing when you are favored to pass based on what the defense shows you and being able to take advantage of those via personnel.

If the defense continually shows you 8 in the box, throw the ball, you have advantages in coverage. If the defense continually shows you 6 in the box run the ball, you have advantages in blocking.
_________________
FFMD 2014 - ARIZONA CARDINALS GM - CLICK ME - YOU KNOW YOU WANT TO
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address MSN Messenger
stchamp98


Most Valuable Poster (3rd Ballot)

Joined: 11 Apr 2005
Posts: 52978
Location: Havre, Montana
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 6:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

khodder wrote:
stchamp98 wrote:
A balanced offense can has caused mismatches and weaknesses in a number of areas.

Sorry, I don't see the point personally. Sounds kinda generic too boot.


I am not entirely sure how to interpret that it seems like it is missing something in that sentence to complete it (an and between can and has?), but overall;

I continually hear, we need to be balanced, we need to run the ball more, we need to do this we need to do that. We don't need to do any of those things. We need to put ourselves in a better position to create and exploit mismatches. We don't need to run the ball more, we need to run the ball more effectively.

That means we need to find a quarterback who can exploit the numerous mismatches we can create with Floyd, Housler and Fitzgerald. That means we need to build an offensive line that is going to create holes vs 6 man boxes.

I see far too much emphasis and Coach X runs a balanced offense or Coach Y passes too much. The emphasis should be on usage of personnel, the emphasis should be on ability to dictate what the defense is going to do, the emphasis should be on running when you are favored to run, passing when you are favored to pass based on what the defense shows you and being able to take advantage of those via personnel.

If the defense continually shows you 8 in the box, throw the ball, you have advantages in coverage. If the defense continually shows you 6 in the box run the ball, you have advantages in blocking.


Bolded: Why would a defense continually show you one of these things if you're not a balanced offense?

Sorry but I disagree with this entire premise and don't at all see how you're making this argument with the team example you're giving, a team that very much is balanced thru 3 quarters.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khodder


Moderator - MVP
Joined: 19 Dec 2005
Posts: 50176
Location: New New York
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 6:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stchamp98 wrote:
Bolded: Why would a defense continually show you one of these things if you're not a balanced offense?


Think early game vs the Patriots, you are going to see them going 1 back, two TE, two WR's usually with a TE split out. If they show you 7 in the box and try to leave Hernandez uncovered you have your matchup advantage. If they split a guy out to cover him then again, you have your (6 in the box) matchup advantage.

Teams against the Patriots who was a pass heavy team often show them 6 in the box, and they take advantage by running the ball, when they push the seventh guy back into the box they take advantage via the air. Now they still obviously pass a fair bit vs those 6 man boxes too.

The Patriots are far from a balanced offense, but they consistently get shown 6 man boxes.

The entire first post right now is pretty much and irrellevant ramble. Balance for the sake of balance is stupid.
_________________
FFMD 2014 - ARIZONA CARDINALS GM - CLICK ME - YOU KNOW YOU WANT TO
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address MSN Messenger
stchamp98


Most Valuable Poster (3rd Ballot)

Joined: 11 Apr 2005
Posts: 52978
Location: Havre, Montana
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 7:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

khodder wrote:
stchamp98 wrote:
Bolded: Why would a defense continually show you one of these things if you're not a balanced offense?


Think early game vs the Patriots, you are going to see them going 1 back, two TE, two WR's usually with a TE split out. If they show you 7 in the box and try to leave Hernandez uncovered you have your matchup advantage. If they split a guy out to cover him then again, you have your (6 in the box) matchup advantage.

Teams against the Patriots who was a pass heavy team often show them 6 in the box, and they take advantage by running the ball, when they push the seventh guy back into the box they take advantage via the air. Now they still obviously pass a fair bit vs those 6 man boxes too.

The Patriots are far from a balanced offense, but they consistently get shown 6 man boxes.

The entire first post right now is pretty much and irrellevant ramble. Balance for the sake of balance is stupid.


1. In what world is 6 in the box an offensive advantage? That's 6 on 6, which by my calculations is a tie. A 6 on 6 look is all about who wins the individual matchup which has nothing to do with playcalling or balance or anything else. That's about personnel quality. How good is the guy you put in the individual matchup? How good is your guard compared to their defensive tackle? How good is Rob Gronkowski off the line (You said this was 2 TE) compared to the LB or corner or safety who will pick him up? How good is Aaron Hernandez compared to the guy lined up across from him? That's what that's about, personnel.
2. Last sentence, I still completely disagree. 110%. The whole point of the game is confusion. How confused is the defense when you're offense is on the field and vice versa. If you throw 60 times a game and run the ball 10 times a game, nobody's confused. That's why good offenses, like San Francisco, run an offense that is close to it's self playcalling wise. Balanced playcalling confuses coaches.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khodder


Moderator - MVP
Joined: 19 Dec 2005
Posts: 50176
Location: New New York
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 7:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stchamp98 wrote:
2. Last sentence, I still completely disagree. 110%. The whole point of the game is confusion. How confused is the defense when you're offense is on the field and vice versa. If you throw 60 times a game and run the ball 10 times a game, nobody's confused. That's why good offenses, like San Francisco, run an offense that is close to it's self playcalling wise. Balanced playcalling confuses coaches.



But if you are throwing the ball 40 times and running it 15 a game and having success why change it. Balance for the sake of Balance is stupid. If, like the 49ers, you can have succes both running and passing the footbal then yeah, balance is not a bad option, but if you are going to arbitrarily decide you are going to have a very balanced offense you are going to have a bad time.
_________________
FFMD 2014 - ARIZONA CARDINALS GM - CLICK ME - YOU KNOW YOU WANT TO
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address MSN Messenger
stchamp98


Most Valuable Poster (3rd Ballot)

Joined: 11 Apr 2005
Posts: 52978
Location: Havre, Montana
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 7:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

khodder wrote:
stchamp98 wrote:
2. Last sentence, I still completely disagree. 110%. The whole point of the game is confusion. How confused is the defense when you're offense is on the field and vice versa. If you throw 60 times a game and run the ball 10 times a game, nobody's confused. That's why good offenses, like San Francisco, run an offense that is close to it's self playcalling wise. Balanced playcalling confuses coaches.



But if you are throwing the ball 40 times and running it 15 a game and having success why change it. Balance for the sake of Balance is stupid. If, like the 49ers, you can have succes both running and passing the footbal then yeah, balance is not a bad option, but if you are going to arbitrarily decide you are going to have a very balanced offense you are going to have a bad time.


The question is, why are you having success throwing 40 times and running 15 and can you sustain that success over a 16 game season and beyond?

I'm pretty sure the answer to the latter is no.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khodder


Moderator - MVP
Joined: 19 Dec 2005
Posts: 50176
Location: New New York
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 7:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stchamp98 wrote:
khodder wrote:
stchamp98 wrote:
2. Last sentence, I still completely disagree. 110%. The whole point of the game is confusion. How confused is the defense when you're offense is on the field and vice versa. If you throw 60 times a game and run the ball 10 times a game, nobody's confused. That's why good offenses, like San Francisco, run an offense that is close to it's self playcalling wise. Balanced playcalling confuses coaches.



But if you are throwing the ball 40 times and running it 15 a game and having success why change it. Balance for the sake of Balance is stupid. If, like the 49ers, you can have succes both running and passing the footbal then yeah, balance is not a bad option, but if you are going to arbitrarily decide you are going to have a very balanced offense you are going to have a bad time.


The question is, why are you having success throwing 40 times and running 15 and can you sustain that success over a 16 game season and beyond?

I'm pretty sure the answer to the latter is no.


The Patriots are. I am sure that has a lot to do with their QB, but they are doing it. The Saints did it pretty well in 2010, again QB probably plays a part, but then how much does having the likes of Lynch and Gore play into the ability of the 49ers and Seahawks to run a "balanced" offense.

It all comes back to personnel and what you can do with it, cannot force balance that is backwards.
_________________
FFMD 2014 - ARIZONA CARDINALS GM - CLICK ME - YOU KNOW YOU WANT TO


Last edited by khodder on Tue Jan 15, 2013 7:28 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address MSN Messenger
stchamp98


Most Valuable Poster (3rd Ballot)

Joined: 11 Apr 2005
Posts: 52978
Location: Havre, Montana
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 7:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

khodder wrote:
stchamp98 wrote:
khodder wrote:
stchamp98 wrote:
2. Last sentence, I still completely disagree. 110%. The whole point of the game is confusion. How confused is the defense when you're offense is on the field and vice versa. If you throw 60 times a game and run the ball 10 times a game, nobody's confused. That's why good offenses, like San Francisco, run an offense that is close to it's self playcalling wise. Balanced playcalling confuses coaches.



But if you are throwing the ball 40 times and running it 15 a game and having success why change it. Balance for the sake of Balance is stupid. If, like the 49ers, you can have succes both running and passing the footbal then yeah, balance is not a bad option, but if you are going to arbitrarily decide you are going to have a very balanced offense you are going to have a bad time.


The question is, why are you having success throwing 40 times and running 15 and can you sustain that success over a 16 game season and beyond?

I'm pretty sure the answer to the latter is no.


The Patriots are. I am sure that has a lot to do with their QB, but they are doing it.


Top 5 in rushing attempts. And I watched their game Sunday, those weren't all 4th quarter runs.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khodder


Moderator - MVP
Joined: 19 Dec 2005
Posts: 50176
Location: New New York
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 7:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stchamp98 wrote:
Top 5 in rushing attempts. And I watched their game Sunday, those weren't all 4th quarter runs.


668 pass dropbacks 523 pass attempts 56%-44%. I would also love to go rewatch that and look at how many of those running plays were checks at the line, and how many of those running plays were against 6 man boxes.

They made the Superbowl last year; 644 pass dropbacks, 438 rushing plays; 59.5% pass 40.5% run. Or a 39 pass 16 run game over 65 offensive plays.
_________________
FFMD 2014 - ARIZONA CARDINALS GM - CLICK ME - YOU KNOW YOU WANT TO


Last edited by khodder on Tue Jan 15, 2013 7:33 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address MSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Arizona Cardinals All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
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