Three Downs to Total 10 Yards or Three Tries to Get 10 yards

[Chaos]

No team pursues a single strategy on offense 100% of the time.  However there seems to be two competiting philosophies on the fundamental approach to moving the ball up the field and scoring:
 

1. Three plays designed to total 10+ yards.   The prevailing "Woody Hays three yards a cloud of dust" philosophy which dominated football for decades. 
2. Three chances to gain 10+ yards.  We had the misfortune of watching Tom Brady run the greatest and most consistent offense for 20 years.  There are no running backs of particular note (maybe I am forgetting someone) for that entire time.  During this era my impression was the Patriots core offense was based on running plays designed to go 10 yards or more if they succeeded, almost all the time.  And the Patriots maintained the same rythm on 3rd and 10, as they did on first and ten.  (side note, they never seemed to take negative plays and their line did not seem to generate many penalties.   

 

Two seasons ago, I thought the Bills prevailing philosophy was "Three chances to gain 10+ yards".   This season I feel like they have no prevailing philosophy.  Maybe this is good because it keeps the defenses guessing.  Maybe it is bad because the team seems to struggle establishing a rythm against the better defenses.  

Within a single four down series It appears to me to be counter productive to switch back and forth between the philosophies.  As a fan, this frustrates me in the second and 10 scenarios, after an incomplete pass, where the team runs a running play that even if successful seems designed to gain 4 yards, leaving a third and 6.  Converting third and 6, is not much different than converting third and 10, so it seems like a squandered opportunity to gain more on second down.   A similar frustration is invoked when the team runs on first and second down, and gets to third and 2 or 3, and third down become a passing down.  I get that third and 2 or 3, is easier to convert overall than third and 10,  and I always feel like the 7 yards gained on first and second down, does not serve any particular utility. 

I don't think it matters what strategy the Bills pursue against the average and poor defenses, their talent level simply overwhelms the defense, but against the better defense, I feel like the Bills, on a particular drive, or at least series of downs, would benefit from a more consistent philosophy. 

Edited October 13, 2023 by Chaos

[Shortchaz]

I seem to remember patriots games where they barely passed and games where they primarily passed. It was often said they would game plan against the opponent’s weakness. 

[Long Suffering Fan]

Good stuff, Chaos.  I have a very similar take.

 

Right now, in the passing game, we can almost pick up 6-7 yards at will.  The problem is, if you toss in a run for no game during a set of downs, then you have to be money on third down and all it takes is a dropped pass, a blown assignment by an olineman, etc. and you are punting. This is what happened against the jags.  A lot of punting on 4th and less than 2 because of a dropped pass or a bad run earlier in the set of downs.  It is also important to realize that not all run games are created equal.  I'm not saying don't run.  I'm saying that SF can run when they are behind the sticks, but we should only do that rarely.  

 

And please stop that junky delayed, shotgun handoff to Cook.  

[Matt_In_NH]

9 minutes ago, Shortchaz said:

I seem to remember patriots games where they barely passed and games where they primarily passed. It was often said they would game plan against the opponent’s weakness. 

That is exactly what they did, no idea what this thread is about.   The Patriots did not win all those SB's because they had an unstoppable offense.  There are no offensive systems designed to get 3.33 yard per play or any that attempt to get 10 years  at least one every three, that is just not at all how to think about it.  A running play is not "designed" to gain 4 yards.  You gameplan based on what you do well and what the opponent does not, you try to exploit matchups.   

 

27 minutes ago, Chaos said:

Converting third and 6, is not much different than converting third and 10

Do you have data to support this?

[skibum]

I never understood why teams run the ball so often on first down. A first down in football should be like a first serve in tennis. Go for broke, because you still have 2-3 more downs if the pass doesn't connect. Best time to chuck it long, that's what I say. 

[PatsFanNH]

1 hour ago, Chaos said:

No team pursues a single strategy on offense 100% of the time.  However there seems to be two competiting philosophies on the fundamental approach to moving the ball up the field and scoring:
 

1. Three plays designed to total 10+ yards.   The prevailing "Woody Hays three yards a cloud of dust" philosophy which dominated football for decades. 
2. Three chances to gain 10+ yards.  We had the misfortune of watching Tom Brady run the greatest and most consistent offense for 20 years.  There are no running backs of particular note (maybe I am forgetting someone) for that entire time.  During this era my impression was the Patriots core offense was based on running plays designed to go 10 yards or more if they succeeded, almost all the time.  And the Patriots maintained the same rythm on 3rd and 10, as they did on first and ten.  (side note, they never seemed to take negative plays and their line did not seem to generate many penalties.   

 

Two seasons ago, I thought the Bills prevailing philosophy was "Three chances to gain 10+ yards".   This season I feel like they have no prevailing philosophy.  Maybe this is good because it keeps the defenses guessing.  Maybe it is bad because the team seems to struggle establishing a rythm against the better defenses.  

Within a single four down series It appears to me to be counter productive to switch back and forth between the philosophies.  As a fan, this frustrates me in the second and 10 scenarios, after an incomplete pass, where the team runs a running play that even if successful seems designed to gain 4 yards, leaving a third and 6.  Converting third and 6, is not much different than converting third and 10, so it seems like a squandered opportunity to gain more on second down.   A similar frustration is invoked when the team runs on first and second down, and gets to third and 2 or 3, and third down become a passing down.  I get that third and 2 or 3, is easier to convert overall than third and 10,  and I always feel like the 7 yards gained on first and second down, does not serve any particular utility. 

I don't think it matters what strategy the Bills pursue against the average and poor defenses, their talent level simply overwhelms the defense, but against the better defense, I feel like the Bills, on a particular drive, or at least series of downs, would benefit from a more consistent philosophy. 

A few things about the Pats with Brady:

 

1. in the early years he had Corey Dillon as a RB that helped a lot.

 

2. for most of the time he was in NE he played smart and took what the D gave him and minimized turnovers. This was key because the Pats usually had a good D as well.

 

3. The Pats IMO had the best OLine coach ever in Scar and he just was able to make almost anyone work on his line. I say the dynasty truly ended when he retired after their last SB win. Their O line been average to down right bad since. 
 

4. IMO what made NE good was the fact they could win by Brady’s ability or by defense or even by special teams making a big play in a game. 
 

Also back with Brady every game plan was designed uniquely to attack that team. One week it be heavy pass the next be running it down your throat, and sometimes it be okay safe and don’t turn the ball over and let the D win the game with a big turnover or making them punt deep in their own end zone. (Thinking the Pats v Rams SB)

[uninja]

3 minutes ago, PatsFanNH said:

A few things about the Pats with Brady:

 

1. in the early years he had Corey Dillon as a RB that helped a lot.

 

2. for most of the time he was in NE he played smart and took what the D gave him and minimized turnovers. This was key because the Pats usually had a good D as well.

 

3. The Pats IMO had the best OLine coach ever in Scar and he just was able to make almost anyone work on his line. I say the dynasty truly ended when he retired after their last SB win. Their O line been average to down right bad since. 
 

4. IMO what made NE good was the fact they could win by Brady’s ability or by defense or even by special teams making a big play in a game. 
 

Also back with Brady every game plan was designed uniquely to attack that team. One week it be heavy pass the next be running it down your throat, and sometimes it be okay safe and don’t turn the ball over and let the D win the game with a big turnover or making them punt deep in their own end zone. (Thinking the Pats v Rams SB)

 

The thing I 'appreciated' (if you can put it that way lol) about watching the BB/Brady Pats was patience. They rarely had games get away from them because they were willing to be patient in all 3 phases to wait for the right moment, let an opponent commit an unforced error, and capitalize.

[Billsfan1972]

1 hour ago, Long Suffering Fan said:

Good stuff, Chaos.  I have a very similar take.

 

Right now, in the passing game, we can almost pick up 6-7 yards at will.  The problem is, if you toss in a run for no game during a set of downs, then you have to be money on third down and all it takes is a dropped pass, a blown assignment by an olineman, etc. and you are punting. This is what happened against the jags.  A lot of punting on 4th and less than 2 because of a dropped pass or a bad run earlier in the set of downs.  It is also important to realize that not all run games are created equal.  I'm not saying don't run.  I'm saying that SF can run when they are behind the sticks, but we should only do that rarely.  

 

And please stop that junky delayed, shotgun handoff to Cook.  

With this offense it is 3 chances to gain 10 yards+, but Dorsey is experimenting with 3 plays to get 10 yards and don't like it at all.

 

I said this over and over after the Jaguars game that we gave away plays and weren't at all aggressive.  The first two series were inept.  Why after a 6 yard run do you throw a 2 yard pass to Diggs that was short of the first down and no chance of getting it.  Then a dropped pass and punt.

 

Possession two, lined up and everyone knew a run and stuffed for -1 yards, followed by two 5 yard passes and half a yard short.

 

Completely unimaginative and again counterproductive.

 

Then later after a 9 yard pass play another -6 yard run.  Just get the first down and establish some rhythm.  

 

Thank you Dorsey. 

 

 

Edited October 13, 2023 by Billsfan1972

[LeGOATski]

The Pats often used their passing game as a pseudo running game with pass plays designed to get 3-5 yards. I don't agree with your interpretation that all of their plays were designed to get 10+ yards.

[Ethan in Cleveland]

Good thread.

I think you are forgetting the West Coast offense however. That would fall into the 3 downs to get 10 yards just replacing the short run with the short high percentage pass. Much more than 3 yards and a cloud of dust. 

I think as others have said it is about the opponent.  If they are going to blitz a lot then you are looking for that opportunity to exploit it and get a big play. If they play two deep shell all game then you need to dink and dunk and run methodically down the field committing few errors. 

[beebe]

I think most teams utilize the run (especially 1st down runs) way too often on their own side of the field when the most important thing should be third-down avoidance. 3rd-and-2 from your own 30-yard line is a "favorable" position to be in, but you're a stuffed run or a batted down pass away from punting. There's almost zero third-down situations in your own territory that I would desire, and if you have multiple 3rd-and-shorts in your own territory on a single drive, the odds of multiple conversions is less than 50-50. Yet most coaches live for such opportunities. 

 

Once you cross the 50, the run game - especially first-down runs - should become far more prominent. You now have four downs to work with instead of 3. No modern team with a good offense like Buffalo is going to punt on 4th-and-3 from the opponent 41 these days. 

 

 

[WotAGuy]

1 hour ago, skibum said:

I never understood why teams run the ball so often on first down. A first down in football should be like a first serve in tennis. Go for broke, because you still have 2-3 more downs if the pass doesn't connect. Best time to chuck it long, that's what I say. 

For the Bills run game, sending Cook up the middle and trying to get 4 yards is “going for broke”. The Bills must have the least creative run game in the league. 

[Yobogoya!]

19 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

The Pats often used their passing game as a pseudo running game with pass plays designed to get 3-5 yards. I don't agree with your interpretation that all of their plays were designed to get 10+ yards.

 

I think in a normal offense those plays are expected to generate 3-5, but those Patriots teams / Tom Brady executed the offense so well you could be forgiven for thinking they were designed to generate 10+ yards each time. 

[34-78-83]

The run for 3 to 5 yards on second and ten seems to only be understood by those who have played/coached. The main reason (although there are others) is that in the passing game, the more of a QB drop you have to take (5 or 7 step vs a 3 step) vs a defense that is quite sure you are passing creates more risk, allowing the defense to "Tee off" and get home on your QB. So while its no guarantee of success/failure, it allows for additional risk. This is the "staying ahead of the sticks" concept.

[Prospector]

24 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

The Pats often used their passing game as a pseudo running game with pass plays designed to get 3-5 yards. I don't agree with your interpretation that all of their plays were designed to get 10+ yards.

Agreed, Edelman was made to get 5 yards a catch, and was used to do that all game every game.

[LeGOATski]

1 minute ago, Yobogoya! said:

 

I think in a normal offense those plays are expected to generate 3-5, but those Patriots teams / Tom Brady executed the offense so well you could be forgiven for thinking they were designed to generate 10+ yards each time. 

I don't think so. This seems more like an exaggerated history. Like a tall tale meant to immortalize the subject.

 

They basically reinvented the dink and dunk offense for the modern era. At the time no one was thinking those plays were meant to go 10+ yards. They were patient, Brady was super accurate and good at picking his spots.

 

They also consistently broke the rules with receiver pick plays, blocking down field, deflated balls, internal radio tampering, etc.

[beebe]

2 minutes ago, 34-78-83 said:

The run for 3 to 5 yards on second and ten seems to only be understood by those who have played/coached. The main reason (although there are others) is that in the passing game, the more of a QB drop you have to take (5 or 7 step vs a 3 step) vs a defense that is quite sure you are passing creates more risk, allowing the defense to "Tee off" and get home on your QB. So while its no guarantee of success/failure, it allows for additional risk. This is the "staying ahead of the sticks" concept.

 

Understood. But you're essentially calling a sacrifice bunt (running a play unlikely to convert a first down) in favor of setting up a 3rd-and-5 (which teams convert 44% of the time.) 

[Don Otreply]

I would think that what adding “or score aTD” is applicable to each scenario, 

[K D]

I personally see running the football as a complete waste of time when the look the defense gives is a heavy front in order to stop the run. I would audible out of that every time to a pass. I really don't understand how 2nd and 8 is much easier to get than 2nd and 10?

 

Statistics show that a good QB completes 2 of every 3 passes. So it's almost a guarantee that you will complete 2 passes and those 2 passes will equal more than 10 yards.

 

What the Bills did from the K-Gun was they gave a pass look every play and the defense would drop in coverage and they would hand off to Thurman for an easy 5 yards. I would run in that situation. I would almost never run otherwise unless it was 4th and 1. That's my opinion and math's opinion.

[34-78-83]

6 minutes ago, beebe said:

 

Understood. But you're essentially calling a sacrifice bunt (running a play unlikely to convert a first down) in favor of setting up a 3rd-and-5 (which teams convert 44% of the time.) 

That's pretty accurate, yes. That's often a prevailing coaching mindset due to success rates.

 

Now, when you have a really good pass protecting O-line or a thoroughbred like Josh at the helm, it does alter those odds of course and you can take more calculated risks.