Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

My head is spinning. That all felt kind of ambiguous. Rush-Rush-Pass is a weak sequence, yet good teams can execute it well. Right. If you have good players, your sequence doesn't matter as much. We have a 43% success rate with R-R-P. The Rams? 60% KC? 53%. Someone like New England has a 39% because they never R-R-P. They're constantly throwing on 1st down. Their frequency is at the bottom (along with other good teams). If you have a stellar line and RB, then you can R-R-P to your heart's content. 

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, quinnearlysghost88 said:

My head is spinning. That all felt kind of ambiguous. Rush-Rush-Pass is a weak sequence, yet good teams can execute it well. Right. If you have good players, your sequence doesn't matter as much. We have a 43% success rate with R-R-P. The Rams? 60% KC? 53%. Someone like New England has a 39% because they never R-R-P. They're constantly throwing on 1st down. Their frequency is at the bottom (along with other good teams). If you have a stellar line and RB, then you can R-R-P to your heart's content. 

I get what you're saying, but the thesis isn't team specific. The article is more about probability and statistics than it is about football. As you stated, every team has a unique set of circumstances.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
1 hour ago, DCOrange said:

Not really all that surprising but here’s another one of those articles that bucks the standard coaching philosophies. 

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/you-called-a-run-on-first-down-youre-already-screwed/

 

Those are some very granular analytics, which I’m in no position to dispute.

 

To me, rush-rush-pass sounds like the old Chuck Knox philosophy, obviously very outdated in today’s NFL.

 

Mike Leach would never rush on 1st down.  

 

Nor 2nd, 3rd, or 4th. ?

.

 

Posted

When I played softball, I remember the coach always telling us never to swing on a 3-0 or 3-1 pitch; force the pitcher to throw consecutive strikes. Statistically speaking that's probably a good philosophy, as it likely results in more walks than outs. But if you never swing on those pitches, then the pitcher is just going to serve up one or two fat ones right down the middle. As a hitter, I liked to keep the pitcher honest, so my conventional wisdom is "rarely swing on a 3-0 or 3-1 pitch." (I finally convinced my coach of that when I swung on a 3-0 pitch and knocked in two runs.)

 

Likewise, a R-R-P pattern works best when used more often than not, but sometimes you have to take advantage of the fact that they're expecting a run, and sling it on first down.

 

 

Posted

Looked at all data from 2009 - 2018. 

 

People make fun of sites like 538 and PFF. But they take the time to crunch math on every play of every game.

 

A majority of fans watch the game once with a beer in their hand and a sandwich in the other. 

 

I’ll take the engineering mindset all day over emotional fans. 

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Thank you (+1) 4
Posted

I love stats but this seems empty of validity. The stats do not take into consideration anything about the make up of the team, the situations in which these calls are made, turnovers, field position, so many variables that i found nothing of interest here. It reminds me of the people who say you should always go for it on 4th since you have 60% chance of making it historically speaking- no context.

Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, Elite Poster said:

"A lot of things will get you into the playoffs and then a good QB will knock you out..." - Bruce Arians

Remove:  ‘Good’

Substitute:  ‘Your crazy’

Welcome to Bruce’s world.

Edited by Ridgewaycynic2013
Tinkered it a bit...
Posted
25 minutes ago, Foxx said:

i guess the Ravens are kinda screwed, huh?

well, by the looks of that playoff game..yes!

 

I did not read the article just yet, will later. But, in short with a conventional 3 down mindset, I can understand the thesis. My question would be if coaches start to understand the numbers better and adopt a 4 down mindset, does running then become a more viable option on all downs?

Posted
1 minute ago, plenzmd1 said:

well, by the looks of that playoff game..yes!

 

I did not read the article just yet, will later. But, in short with a conventional 3 down mindset, I can understand the thesis. My question would be if coaches start to understand the numbers better and adopt a 4 down mindset, does running then become a more viable option on all downs?

Great point.  I’ve always felt that a coach with a 4-down mindset has a built-in advantage.  Many more options are available to you on 3rd and 4, etc, especially if the defense is operating from a 3-down mindset.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
19 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

well, by the looks of that playoff game..yes!

 

I did not read the article just yet, will later. But, in short with a conventional 3 down mindset, I can understand the thesis. My question would be if coaches start to understand the numbers better and adopt a 4 down mindset, does running then become a more viable option on all downs?

a 4 down mindset could only be employed on the other side of the 50 or late in games that you are down in. a 4 down mindset on your side of the fifty is a recipe for disaster.

Posted
35 minutes ago, Foxx said:

a 4 down mindset could only be employed on the other side of the 50 or late in games that you are down in. a 4 down mindset on your side of the fifty is a recipe for disaster.

That’s a common misperception.  From a statistical standpoint, the four-down mindset makes sense all game long, almost everywhere in the field, although there are of course plenty of situations where punting is the right call, depending on down and distance, field position and of course the score.

×
×
  • Create New...