Historical Aggressiveness Index of Coaches

[Reader]

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2021/historical-aggressiveness-index-1983-2020

 

Not sure how much to trust this...they ranked Jauron 30th out of 130 coaches.

[GunnerBill]

It almost as though "being aggressive" has no correlation with winning..... 

[CorkScrewHill]

It really comes down to the QB .. John Harbaugh goes for it all the time now because he has Lamar and not Joe Flacco. Josh gets a yard and a half just by falling forward and good luck stopping him from that. If Josh gets hurt, McDermott would almost certainly be less aggressive.

[TBBills]

"being aggressive" has a correlation with talent you are aggressive with. That is what I see.

[Mr. WEO]

10 minutes ago, CorkScrewHill said:

It really comes down to the QB .. John Harbaugh goes for it all the time now because he has Lamar and not Joe Flacco. Josh gets a yard and a half just by falling forward and good luck stopping him from that. If Josh gets hurt, McDermott would almost certainly be less aggressive.

 

Doesn't explain Stefanski, Rhule, Pederson, Nagy, Kitchens.....

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

18 minutes ago, Reader said:

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2021/historical-aggressiveness-index-1983-2020

 

Not sure how much to trust this...they ranked Jauron 30th out of 130 coaches.

Jauron was weird. He was actually very aggressive in situations that called for caution, and then ultra cautious in situations that called for aggression. 
 

For example, I think this was Jauron, but I remember him rolling out JP Losman late in a game with a lead for a pass before the 2-minute warning against the Jets. The cautious and normal approach was to run and kill the clock. Instead, he was weirdly aggressive, and Losman was strip sacked, jets recovered and scored, and we lost. 

[Shaw66]

6 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

It almost as though "being aggressive" has no correlation with winning..... 

Interesting comment. 

 

I've often said that a related subject - play calling - is much less important than fans make of it.   I mean, of course there's occasionally a really stupid call, just like there's occasionally a really stupid decision to go for it or not.  But most of the time, the decision is reasonably justifiable - there may be arguments either way, but it one decision or the other isn't the obvious choice.  It's only in retrospect that a commentator says it was a great play call (because it worked) or a fan says it was a stupid call by his coach (because it didn't).   The fact is that plays work or don't work for all kinds of reasons in all kinds of situations, and the measurement of whether play calling is effective or ineffective is extremely difficult, if not impossible. 

 

So too, "going for it."   Whether to go for it is one decision of hundreds, maybe thousands, that coaches make during a game.  Whether going for it works is dependent on all kinds of factors, not simply whether it was a good decision or not.  So, it isn't surprising that someone's measure of aggressiveness in deciding whether to go for it does not correlate with winning.  Winning is the culmination of weeks and months of preparation, game plan design and implementation, coaching, execution, weather, bad calls, all sorts of things.  Attempts at statistical analysis of someone's decision making in this respect are pretty meaningless. 

 

Now, that's not to say that analytics doesn't have a role.  It IS knowable whether a coach going for it is consistent with what analytics suggest.   That comparison may be meaningful, but even that has its flaws.  After all, Billy Beane's analytics changed over time, as do the analytics of all coaches.  The game evolves, and what worked two seasons ago doesn't work now.  

[BruceVilanch]

8 minutes ago, Miyagi-Do Karate said:

Jauron was weird. He was actually very aggressive in situations that called for caution, and then ultra cautious in situations that called for aggression. 
 

For example, I think this was Jauron, but I remember him rolling out JP Losman late in a game with a lead for a pass before the 2-minute warning against the Jets. The cautious and normal approach was to run and kill the clock. Instead, he was weirdly aggressive, and Losman was strip sacked, jets recovered and scored, and we lost. 

I remember losing my absolute S*** when that happened, there was absolutely no reason for that play at that time. DJ had some real head scratching moments with his clock management.

[MJS]

I would be willing to bet that conservative coaching is correlated more with success than aggressiveness...

[msw2112]

Most of the coaches at the top of this list are current, active coaches.  That says to me that the use of analytics has played a role in this.

[Thurman#1]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

Interesting comment. 

 

I've often said that a related subject - play calling - is much less important than fans make of it.   I mean, of course there's occasionally a really stupid call, just like there's occasionally a really stupid decision to go for it or not.  But most of the time, the decision is reasonably justifiable - there may be arguments either way, but it one decision or the other isn't the obvious choice.  It's only in retrospect that a commentator says it was a great play call (because it worked) or a fan says it was a stupid call by his coach (because it didn't).   The fact is that plays work or don't work for all kinds of reasons in all kinds of situations, and the measurement of whether play calling is effective or ineffective is extremely difficult, if not impossible. 

 

So too, "going for it."   Whether to go for it is one decision of hundreds, maybe thousands, that coaches make during a game.  Whether going for it works is dependent on all kinds of factors, not simply whether it was a good decision or not.  So, it isn't surprising that someone's measure of aggressiveness in deciding whether to go for it does not correlate with winning.  Winning is the culmination of weeks and months of preparation, game plan design and implementation, coaching, execution, weather, bad calls, all sorts of things.  Attempts at statistical analysis of someone's decision making in this respect are pretty meaningless. 

 

Now, that's not to say that analytics doesn't have a role.  It IS knowable whether a coach going for it is consistent with what analytics suggest.   That comparison may be meaningful, but even that has its flaws.  After all, Billy Beane's analytics changed over time, as do the analytics of all coaches.  The game evolves, and what worked two seasons ago doesn't work now.  

 

 

Good stuff. Makes a ton of sense.

[Shaw66]

5 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Good stuff. Makes a ton of sense.

Thanks.  We've all gotten so into statistics, and there's all this hype about analytics, and I'm sure the right stats and the right analytics are valuable tools within organizations.  We, and I include myself, see some stat that some geek somewhere cooked up, and we tend to ascribe a lot more meaning to the stat than it deserves.  In fact, sometimes there's no meaning to it all.  

 

And while I'm on the subject, what really bugs me is when the announcers tell us that if Smith throws at least two touchdown passes in today's game, he will become the first QB in the history of the league to have gotten at least X completions, Y yards, and Z touchdowns before reaching age 24.  They say as though it's a record some keeps, like you can look up the ages of all players at the time they hit X, Y, Z.   That's not a record.   And it's also more or less meaningless, because although Smith did that, Jones was the QB in history to A rushing touchdowns, B wins, with a passer rating C before age 25.   I mean, who cares?   They just go to all the stat lists and come up with some combination of stats that make the guy look good.  

 

I think the emphasis on stats leads us to misperceive what actually drives success in the league.  There's a lot of truth when someone ways the only stats that matter are Ws and points.  Everything else is fun to talk about, but a lot of it doesn't correlate with success.  

[CorkScrewHill]

2 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Doesn't explain Stefanski, Rhule, Pederson, Nagy, Kitchens.....

I was actually trying to explain why Harbaugh changed from very passive to very aggressive and my guess is McDermott would be less aggressive if he did not have a lumberjack for a QB. I could be wrong, but I suspect I am not.

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

3 hours ago, BruceVilanch said:

I remember losing my absolute S*** when that happened, there was absolutely no reason for that play at that time. DJ had some real head scratching moments with his clock management.

it was a clever play call, if you actually have the players to do it. You throw right before the 2-minute warning because the clock will stop anyway. But in that game, Losman was terrible

and the line was horrible. You have to know your players.

 

I remember a similar move I think with Jauron against the Broncos. It may have been the game when Elam rushed onto the field as time expired to win. I think we were icing the clock, but then he inexplicably called a deep

bomb as a kill shot— which missed terribly, stopped the clock, and allowed the Broncos to get the ball with time and score.

 

you then take these bizarre aggressive play calls, and you pepper in there the numerous times he would punt from the opponent’s 35-yard line or not go for fourth and inches. 
 

Jauron was a good coach at coaching up some bad talent into mediocre 7-9 teams. But he didn’t know how to coach to win, or how to take a team to a successful level (except for 1 flukey year in Chicago). 

[Mr. WEO]

11 hours ago, CorkScrewHill said:

I was actually trying to explain why Harbaugh changed from very passive to very aggressive and my guess is McDermott would be less aggressive if he did not have a lumberjack for a QB. I could be wrong, but I suspect I am not.

 

You stated that, in regard to  HC "aggressiveness", "it really comes down to QB" and gave 2 examples to support your comment.  I gave several that contradict your conclusion.

[SoCal Deek]

14 hours ago, Miyagi-Do Karate said:

Jauron was weird. He was actually very aggressive in situations that called for caution, and then ultra cautious in situations that called for aggression. 
 

For example, I think this was Jauron, but I remember him rolling out JP Losman late in a game with a lead for a pass before the 2-minute warning against the Jets. The cautious and normal approach was to run and kill the clock. Instead, he was weirdly aggressive, and Losman was strip sacked, jets recovered and scored, and we lost. 

Ha! There’ve been a bunch of really bad losses over the decades but like you, that’s one I’ll always remember! Absolutely horrible. I can still hear myself screaming “WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?!” 😖

[Saxum]

17 hours ago, TBBills said:

"being aggressive" has a correlation with talent you are aggressive with. That is what I see.

 

Absolutely - if your FG kicker is limited you take more chances on 4th down.

[Brennan Huff]

17 hours ago, Miyagi-Do Karate said:

Jauron was weird. He was actually very aggressive in situations that called for caution, and then ultra cautious in situations that called for aggression. 
 

For example, I think this was Jauron, but I remember him rolling out JP Losman late in a game with a lead for a pass before the 2-minute warning against the Jets. The cautious and normal approach was to run and kill the clock. Instead, he was weirdly aggressive, and Losman was strip sacked, jets recovered and scored, and we lost. 

Oh god, my brain had this memory blocked. I hate you. I now remember this whole entire sequence. And here’s a video for those that don’t remember 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rigotz]

The main reason I don't like this statistic is it doesn't account for how good/bad a team is offensively.

 

When Andy Reed goes for it on 4th and 5 with Pat Mahomes and throws to Travis Kelce or Tyreek Hill... is that aggressive? 

When Dick Jauron goes for it on 4th and 3 with JP Losman throwing to Josh Reed and Robert Royal ... is that less aggressive?

 

Of course McDermott, Andy Reid, etc. are going to seem more "aggressive" when they have Offenses that they have faith in.

Remember when everyone said McDermott was way too old school and wanted to run too much and played like a wimp? That was fun.

 

This is exactly why statistics are garbage.

Edited May 20, 2021 by Rigotz

[JGMcD2]

23 minutes ago, Rigotz said:

The main reason I don't like this statistic is it doesn't account for how good/bad a team is offensively.

 

When Andy Reed goes for it on 4th and 5 with Pat Mahomes and throws to Travis Kelce or Tyreek Hill... is that aggressive? 

When Dick Jauron goes for it on 4th and 3 with JP Losman throwing to Josh Reed and Robert Royal ... is that less aggressive?

 

Of course McDermott, Andy Reid, etc. are going to seem more "aggressive" when they have Offenses that they have faith in.

Remember when everyone said McDermott was way too old school and wanted to run too much and played like a wimp? That was fun.

 

This is exactly why statistics are garbage.

I mean I wouldn't say statistics are garbage... fans want super specific information that takes everything into account. That's not what statisticians do in sports... they try and see what happens over the course of time to help make better decisions in those situations. They take the names out of it and just focus on what's most likely to happen. 

 

Statistics can't be as the sole source of information to make your decisions.  It should be a conglomerate of things that you weigh to make an informed decision - including statistics. A good decision maker understands what the numbers are telling them, factors in the game, their players, etc. and makes an informed decision.

 

I.e. (The numbers are completely fabricated to illustrate my point)

 

The numbers say that 4th and 7 from your own 47 is converted 70% of the time when you run the ball. 

 

McDermott gets that info and goes "ok, it's a high percentage play AND we have one of the most dangerous running QBs in the league AND we've been gashing these guys all day with designed QB runs" BUT OH WAIT the ATC just came over and told McDermott that Josh Allen has a high ankle sprain, it won't affect him in the pocket but it may inhibit his ability to run. 

 

So now he weighs all of that and makes a decision... 

 

Statistics aren't garbage... it's how the statistics are used that can be garbage.