Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Run/Pass ratio in terms of winning probability
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
Pages: 1, 2
Zero
I like this blog because it usually reminds me of how the effect of 40+ years of introducing alcohol to my brain really does have a lasting effect. This guy frequently leaves me skimming for concepts that I can digest but he has serious potential. I wonder if he likes beer.

Anyway, this entry offers some optimism that a run first offense may not be passe in the NFL. I know the long ball is fun but not nearly as satisfying for many as the snot-bubbling, concussion inducing, plodding and time consuming running attack. Keep on passing, Andy.
QUOTE
In an NFL where passing and quarterback play are held in higher regard, these results are counter-intuitive. They indicate that, for our Eagles, running the ball more often will result in more victories. But these results must be taken with a grain of salt. The regression does not control for increased rushing attempts when protecting a lead, or increased passing attempts when playing from behind. However, these phenomena may offset each other. Also, this is a historical analysis with a relatively small sample size. And since Andy Reid is no longer the head coach, these results may not project to Chip Kelly's team. But the NFL is also cyclical. For example, if history is any indication, the 2013 Billy Davis/Tom Gamble tandem will bode well (During Bill Davis and Harry Gamble's first year together, the Eagles drafted Keith Jackson and Eric Allen). It's also exciting to consider that, for a head coach with a fondness for science, these results may foretell the next trend in Eagles football. And it just so happens we have one of the best running backs in the league currently on the roster.
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE (Zero @ Mar 3 2013, 08:16 AM) *
Anyway, this entry offers some optimism that a run first offense may not be passe in the NFL.


Good article, with some extra statistical analysis for those that continue to deny the obvious truth. Also, over in KC, we'll get to see Jamaal Charles waste away while Andy lets Alex Smith pass 50 times a game.
nephillymike
WARNING. NUMBERS ALERT!!

You know me, I'm a run the damn ball Andy kind of guy, but also as a numbers guy, he misses the boat, IMO.

He is measuring the right things, and using the right stats, but his sample is all wrong.

As far as I know, I have never seen anyone measure this the correct way.

One the one hand, you want to measure the probability of wins or losses. So that is the end result you're trying to predict.

But OTOH, you can only measure the choice to run or pass at times of the game where the choice to do so is relatively independent to the score. I know he mentions that limitation of his analysis, but to do so, makes the entire thing unreliable. For example, playing devils advocate, suppose by one defensive TD, one ST TD and one "normal" TD, I find myself milking a 21 point lead. At that time, odds of me winning the game with a 21 point lead are enormous. The later in the game, the bigger my odds of victory. NFL coaches not named Andy would run run run to milk the clock and run the ball. They would probably hve a 2-1 to 3-1 ratio of runs to passes to do so. His analysis would show a great correlation of run ratio to victory in this example, and there would be a correlation, but the greatest factor in determining victory for my team, is the 21 point lead I had, not the decision to run the ball at a 3-1 clip after I had it! I would imagine, running the ball in this case, increases your odds of winning with a 21 point lead as opposed to passing the ball at a 2-1 clip with a 21 point lead, and THAT is the only thing that is material to the situation. But that correlation is probably way less statistically significant.

Here's what he needs to do and I don't know how difficult these stats are to get.

1. Define the parameters of score and time remaining in the game where it is fair to assume that the choice to run the ball is somewhat independent of game condiitions. Here's my guess at something reasonable:

A. Within 14 points in the first three quarters
B. Within 7 points in the fourth quarter. Exclude the last four minutes of the fourth quarter.

In almost every other scenario outside this score range, your decision to run or pass is score related and not a true reflection of how well you run it or pass it. I think that if he did the same type of analysis of only the game score and time remaining periods that meet the above criteria, he would have a result with far less statistical relevance as a predictor of wins or losses. Then you can see if running the ball or passing the ball is the more accurate statistic in the prediction of wins.

2. As a separate stat, he can predict the normal win % once a team achieves A & B above and compare that win% with the correaltion of run-pass mix AFTER achieving those leads.

For example, maybe when you are up by 14 or more points after three quarters, you win the game 80% of the time. But maybe with a run=pass ratio of 2.0 or more, your winning "hold" percentage increases to 90%, and with a more "balanced" run=pass ratio of 1.0, your winning hold % drops to 60%.

The combination of these two stats would tell you:

1. The winning percentage of run-pass ratios based on play selection while the game is still competitive. So maybe if my run-pass ratio during the competitive phases of the game is .85, my winning % is 60% or more or whatever it may be.

2. The winning "hold" percentage once a "good" lead is established is x% based on my run-pass ratio of y.

IMO, these would be meaningful stats, worthy of devising your game plan or roster around within the rules of the NFL in the 2010's.
Jeromesfriend
Thanks so much for posting my article; glad you enjoyed it. And I indeed like (love?) beer.
Jeromesfriend
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Mar 3 2013, 10:15 AM) *
WARNING. NUMBERS ALERT!!

You know me, I'm a run the damn ball Andy kind of guy, but also as a numbers guy, he misses the boat, IMO.

He is measuring the right things, and using the right stats, but his sample is all wrong.


This is a great comment. Give me some time to digest and I can respond better. I do want to try to remove the fourth quarter attempts to control for playing with the lead/playing from behind. See how that changes the odds ratio. Thanks again for reading.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Jeromesfriend @ Mar 3 2013, 10:32 AM) *
This is a great comment. Give me some time to digest and I can respond better. I do want to try to remove the fourth quarter attempts to control for playing with the lead/playing from behind. See how that changes the odds ratio. Thanks again for reading.



Good stuff and Good luck.

My guess is that you would need to go to the Gamebooks that are on-line for past games to differentiate between the play selection of score relevant data vs, non score relevant selections.

Let us know what you find out.

Always good to hear from a fellow stat geek!!
Zero
We need to charge admission for this one:

Mikey "Numbers" vs Jeromesfriend aka "the Brain"


Let's get ready to ruuummmmmmblllllllle. biggrin.gif

The winner gets to write a thesis on the accumulated affects of excessive alcohol on Zero's brain. Experimentation welcomed. cool.gif
nephillymike
Not an adversary, not at all.

He's got the right idea, just needs tinkering.

Now if he came out in defense of Andy's passoholic offense, now thems would be fighting words!!

Speaking of beer, which I will be having some later tonight, maybe one or two, which are your beers of choice these days?
mcnabbulous
I think simply using score and time to analyze run/pass ratio is flawed logic. It completely disregards situational playcalling, which largely influences that ratio.

I think you have to consider times in which we ran the ball successfully, thus found ourselves in more running downs (2nd and short, 3rd and short) contributed to the ratio as much as score. That along with sacks taken and completion percentage (thus resulting in more passing downs.)

Those factors, along with score contribute to those ratios. Simply looking at the ratio itself doesn't offer much context.
Zero
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Mar 3 2013, 12:23 PM) *
Not an adversary, not at all.

He's got the right idea, just needs tinkering.

Now if he came out in defense of Andy's passoholic offense, now thems would be fighting words!!

Speaking of beer, which I will be having some later tonight, maybe one or two, which are your beers of choice these days?

I just finished a case of Sam Adams Winter Lager ... not sexy but nice. Harpoon Winter Warmer was also tasty and I still like River Horse's Tripel Horse. Ever try Ommegang Hennepin? Every day standby of course is Yuengling.
Jeromesfriend
I've been drinking Amstel Wheat. Like it a lot. I'm also a fan of IPAs. Nodding Head in the city has some great ones.

Context is really difficult to control for because context itself is subjective, which I think you guys have demonstrated. But let me play around with it, try to glean some more data.

What I did was a form of non-linear regression. I can also do some linear regression in the opposite direction to see which way the correlations are most meaningful.

Cheers guys. Nice forum.
Zero
QUOTE (Jeromesfriend @ Mar 3 2013, 02:46 PM) *
I've been drinking Amstel Wheat. Like it a lot. I'm also a fan of IPAs. Nodding Head in the city has some great ones.

Context is really difficult to control for because context itself is subjective, which I think you guys have demonstrated. But let me play around with it, try to glean some more data.

What I did was a form of non-linear regression. I can also do some linear regression in the opposite direction to see which way the correlations are most meaningful.

Cheers guys. Nice forum.


Yo, Jerome. Did you happen to notice that new posters are required by law to buy everyone responding to your posts at least one round at Chickies? Crab legs are optional, btw but the crab fries are a part of the deal. biggrin.gif
nephillymike
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Mar 3 2013, 12:43 PM) *
I think simply using score and time to analyze run/pass ratio is flawed logic. It completely disregards situational playcalling, which largely influences that ratio.

I think you have to consider times in which we ran the ball successfully, thus found ourselves in more running downs (2nd and short, 3rd and short) contributed to the ratio as much as score. That along with sacks taken and completion percentage (thus resulting in more passing downs.)

Those factors, along with score contribute to those ratios. Simply looking at the ratio itself doesn't offer much context.


I hear you but I think you leave that out b/c is you pass more and throw incomplete on 1st down, you're into 2nd and ten that perpetuates the pass. The 2nd and ten is a function of passing, as opposed to maybe a 2nd and 7 if you run. Much of the down and distance is a result of the choice of play call prior. A pass happy team shoud not be exmpt from having a 2nd and ten pass play being called and the resultant success or failure of that call which was to some extent a function of passing incomplete on first down.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Zero @ Mar 3 2013, 01:18 PM) *
I just finished a case of Sam Adams Winter Lager ... not sexy but nice. Harpoon Winter Warmer was also tasty and I still like River Horse's Tripel Horse. Ever try Ommegang Hennepin? Every day standby of course is Yuengling.



I have one Weissbier left that i'm drinking now and a bunch of Warstiener Dunkel's in reserve.

I'll get back to you with some other favorites!
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Mar 3 2013, 05:38 PM) *
I hear you but I think you leave that out b/c is you pass more and throw incomplete on 1st down, you're into 2nd and ten that perpetuates the pass. The 2nd and ten is a function of passing, as opposed to maybe a 2nd and 7 if you run. Much of the down and distance is a result of the choice of play call prior. A pass happy team shoud not be exmpt from having a 2nd and ten pass play being called and the resultant success or failure of that call which was to some extent a function of passing incomplete on first down.


Well, several variable, not just incomplete passes result in such things. A run play with a holding call, etc. I'd be curious to see any deviations between our situational play calling vs. the rest of the league. Or situational play calling in wins vs. losses.

Jeromesfriend
QUOTE (Zero @ Mar 3 2013, 04:02 PM) *
Yo, Jerome. Did you happen to notice that new posters are required by law to buy everyone responding to your posts at least one round at Chickies? Crab legs are optional, btw but the crab fries are a part of the deal. biggrin.gif


I'm a law abiding citizen.
Jeromesfriend
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Mar 3 2013, 04:48 PM) *
Well, several variable, not just incomplete passes result in such things. A run play with a holding call, etc. I'd be curious to see any deviations between our situational play calling vs. the rest of the league. Or situational play calling in wins vs. losses.


And this is why context is subjective. Maybe if we start first with football games in a vacuum...
Jeromesfriend
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Mar 3 2013, 04:43 PM) *
I have one Weissbier left that i'm drinking now and a bunch of Warstiener Dunkel's in reserve.

I'll get back to you with some other favorites!


Ever have an Eisbock? For the season, strong and sweet and really good.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Jeromesfriend @ Mar 3 2013, 09:04 PM) *
And this is why context is subjective. Maybe if we start first with football games in a vacuum...


It doesn't have to be subjective if you're comparing teams on the same criteria. Run/pass ratio on first and ten, second and 7-10, 2nd and 3-6, second and less than 3...etc.

That's the type of stuff I'm talking about. I think it's a bit more relevant than just score and time. Keep in mind I'm not expecting you to do this legwork. Just saying I think those numbers would be interesting and I would bet Reid doesn't stray too far from the norm.
Jeromesfriend
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Mar 3 2013, 10:36 AM) *
Good stuff and Good luck.

My guess is that you would need to go to the Gamebooks that are on-line for past games to differentiate between the play selection of score relevant data vs, non score relevant selections.

Let us know what you find out.

Always good to hear from a fellow stat geek!!


Hey there fellas... Here is my follow up. I came up with a new conclusion. Hope you like it and would love to see you debate the findings.

http://phillyinferno.wordpress.com/2013/03...king-a-balance/
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE (Jeromesfriend @ Mar 6 2013, 12:10 PM) *
Hey there fellas... Here is my follow up. I came up with a new conclusion. Hope you like it and would love to see you debate the findings.

http://phillyinferno.wordpress.com/2013/03...king-a-balance/


Your work is interesting, and of course I agree with the conclusion.

I guess I just chuckle at the fact that it takes this kind of in-depth analysis to convince some people, and of course there's a couple here that still wont be convinced no matter what. We have all seen with our eyes the complete bias towards the pass under Reid, and the results of establishing and committing to a running game. It's one of the more simple things most Eagles fans should be able to accept, whether you agree with his philosophy or not.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Jeromesfriend @ Mar 6 2013, 12:10 PM) *
Hey there fellas... Here is my follow up. I came up with a new conclusion. Hope you like it and would love to see you debate the findings.

http://phillyinferno.wordpress.com/2013/03...king-a-balance/



If I understand the conclusions of your revised study:

It is statistically significant that the closer you are to a balanced run/pass ratio thru three quarters, the greater your chance of winning the game.

I did not post this but my theory was that the closer you were to balance, the better the odds of winning. You may be able to refine it to getting the "optimum" run/pass mix. For example, if you pass two times more than run during the first three quarters, does THAT give you better results? My guess is that a slight, very slight pass bias is optimum, only b/c it is suck a QB league and the rules have been changed to allow that.

One caveat though. If you used just the Eagles games, running may have been more favorable to them b/c everyone was defending against the expectation of Andy passing all the time. However, trying to do all teams is way to much work.

Great analysis. Thanks for sharing and make sure you stop back around (once you have paid the obligatory round at Chickies!!)
Jeromesfriend
QUOTE (HOUSEoPAIN @ Mar 6 2013, 05:30 PM) *
It's one of the more simple things most Eagles fans should be able to accept, whether you agree with his philosophy or not.


You would think... thanks for reading!
Jeromesfriend
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Mar 6 2013, 07:22 PM) *
Great analysis. Thanks for sharing and make sure you stop back around (once you have paid the obligatory round at Chickies!!)


Will do, and thanks for the input.

I was born and raised in the NE but live within spitting distance of the new Chickie's in Delco. I'll post to let you know when I'm at either.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Jeromesfriend @ Mar 7 2013, 08:36 AM) *
You would think... thanks for reading!


The problem with HoP is that he can't have a conversation without sounding like a pompous asshat.

I think that everyone can agree that balance is good. The difference is how people think we achieve balance. Your (and his) argument appears to be that when we are balanced we play well and win. I tend to think that it's more likely that when we play well, we are able to maintain more balance.

Which is why I don't think looking at purely at run/pass ratio in a vacuum makes too much sense.
D Rock
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Mar 7 2013, 03:12 PM) *
The problem with HoP is that he can't have a conversation without sounding like a pompous asshat.

I think that everyone can agree that balance is good. The difference is how people think we achieve balance. Your (and his) argument appears to be that when we are balanced we play well and win. I tend to think that it's more likely that when we play well, we are able to maintain more balance.

Which is why I don't think looking at purely at run/pass ratio in a vacuum makes too much sense.

Your point is far too nuanced for an asshat like HOP.
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE (Jeromesfriend @ Mar 7 2013, 08:36 AM) *
You would think... thanks for reading!


laugh.gif

And Exhibit A & B drive my point home.....if Fantasy Fan decides to chip in, it'll be a clean sweep!

Who knows, maybe we can eventually get Stephen Hawking to come on the board and lecture these guys about the pros and cons of a predictable, one-sided offense. Again, you did some good work, interesting read.
Jeromesfriend
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Mar 7 2013, 10:12 AM) *
I think that everyone can agree that balance is good. The difference is how people think we achieve balance. Your (and his) argument appears to be that when we are balanced we play well and win. I tend to think that it's more likely that when we play well, we are able to maintain more balance.

Which is why I don't think looking at purely at run/pass ratio in a vacuum makes too much sense.


Fair enough. It's about correlation after all, not causation.

House of Pain is an asshat? How unfortunate for him. Must be stinky...

And I think Stephen Hawking is a Cowboys fan.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Jeromesfriend @ Mar 7 2013, 05:46 PM) *
Fair enough. It's about correlation after all, not causation.

Like I said earlier, I'm curious what situational league averages are and how much Reid deviates from those. I'd bet it's not much.

I think the Jeff Garcia days are the case study people should use as an expectation for his stint in KC with Alex Smith.

QUOTE
House of Pain is an asshat?

You're giving him too much credit. He's a pompous asshat.

Here's to hoping you stick around a bit

cheers.gif
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE (Jeromesfriend @ Mar 7 2013, 04:46 PM) *
House of Pain is an asshat? How unfortunate for him. Must be stinky...


Yeah, its a tough and thankless task to constantly pound indisputable facts into the heads of Reid groupies for the purpose of educating people about the game - or as it's known to some here, being an 'asshat.' It's taken awhile, but I think all but 1 or 2 people get it. The fight will continue.

If Reid uses Smith as a game manager he can probably turn the Chiefs into a good team pretty fast. If he passes 50 times a game, he'll be looking at another high draft pick next year.
mcnabbulous
And you think 2005-2009 Donovan was capable of being a game manager despite the fact that he couldn't consistently complete 10 yard passes. Same with Vick.

When Reid has had that guy, history indicates that's exactly what he does with them. The problem with the other two guys is that they are boom or bust. Which doesn't lend itself towards winning 3-4 straight games in January and February.

Early Donovan was a game manager because he used his legs to compensate for his inability to complete those throws.
Phits
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Mar 8 2013, 05:08 PM) *
And you think 2005-2009 Donovan was capable of being a game manager despite the fact that he couldn't consistently complete 10 yard passes.

Yes, because McNabb excelled with the screen pass and the Eagles were a great screen pass team. He also utilized his TE's with great efficiency. Of course when a team doesn't have to strategize to stop a running game it makes it easier to exploit a weakness.

QUOTE
When Reid has had that guy, history indicates that's exactly what he does with them. The problem with the other two guys is that they are boom or bust. Which doesn't lend itself towards winning 3-4 straight games in January and February.

Especially when the D plays scared. For example, the 2008 NFCCG our heralded D allowed 24 first half points to a Cardinals team that we sacrificed at the alter weeks earlier. It signaled the end of the Dawkins era and demonstrated another team melt down on a grand stage. The team always seemed ill prepared when they were in the spotlight. That's an indication of poor coaching and leadership.

QUOTE
Early Donovan was a game manager because he used his legs to compensate for his inability to complete those throws.

Don't forget that early in his career the team wasn't so pass happy and utilized the run game.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Phits @ Mar 8 2013, 06:53 PM) *
Don't forget that early in his career the team wasn't so pass happy and utilized the run game.


Sometimes you seem so oblivious. Don't you see that we were more balanced because Donovan was more capable of moving the chains because of his running ability. Thus we were in fewer passing situations.
Once Donovan lost that ability, he could either throw a screen pass or a bomb. Consistently expecting him to move the chains was not an option.
That was the difference. Not Reid's philosophy. The Jeff Garcia season is a perfect example of that.
The topic should be tabled until we see how he uses Alex Smith. Which I would wager will be exactly how he used Garcia. And he'll have success.
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Mar 8 2013, 06:51 PM) *
The topic should be tabled until we see how he uses Alex Smith. Which I would wager will be exactly how he used Garcia. And he'll have success.


He will have success if he uses Smith as a game manager as he did Garcia, no doubt. But you didn't address our two games against the Cardinals that year, the year I decided The Walrus needed to be set free. We absolutely destroyed that team on Thanksgiving, with a balanced attack, with Donovan running the offense. 2 months later, he decides to pass-pass-pass - and we STILL almost won, but of course lost. In his last season here, 'the fraud' led an 11-5 team that should've been 12-4 with a first round bye. Except in 2 games against the Cowboys, to close the season and in the playoffs, he called something like 80% pass plays in both games. And we got embarassed.
mcnabbulous
You can live in your revisionist bubble all you want. We threw 8 more passes in the NFCCG than the regular season. That's about right for a team that goes into the half down 24-6. Donovan shit the bed in the first half of that game. That was the difference. If he had played in the first half like he did in the second, we win that game going away. Remember it would have been even worse if Desean didn't force a fumble after Don's awful first half pick. For whatever reason, you want to give him a pass for that.

And the Cowboys were better than us in 2009. They beat us 3 times that year. They were better.
TGryn
QUOTE (Phits @ Mar 8 2013, 02:53 PM) *
Don't forget that early in his career the team wasn't so pass happy and utilized the run game.

Actually, if you remove McNabb's scramble attempts from the early years' stats, the Eagles' run/pass ratio was among the highest of the Reid era in '01/'02. To be sure, some of those "scrambles" were planned runs for McNabb, but most were plays where he made something happen when nobody was open, and that pumped up those run totals a significant amount: for example, in 2003, roughly 20% of all of the Eagles' rushing attempts were by McNabb.

Compliments to Jeromesfriend, BTW. Nice use of logistic regression, and respect for revisiting it and revising your conclusion.
TGryn
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Mar 8 2013, 04:12 PM) *
If he had played in the first half like he did in the second, we win that game going away.

You can say the same thing about JJ's defense, which had Larry Fitzgerald's cleat marks all over it in the first half. Except for the Carolina NFCC game, Johnson's defenses tended to wither in big games. That's something that's been conveniently thrown down the memory hole with JJ's canonization as an Eagles' legend.
Phits
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Mar 8 2013, 06:51 PM) *
Sometimes you seem so oblivious. Don't you see that we were more balanced because Donovan was more capable of moving the chains because of his running ability. Thus we were in fewer passing situations.

In other words, when Reid called an appropriate amount of running plays we were more effective. When he deviated and became more pass happy we were less successful. I'm sure it helped that we had a 3 headed monster rushing attack. Nonetheless, I'm glad you finally came around.

QUOTE
The Jeff Garcia season is a perfect example of that.

Yes, that season proved that Westbrook was more valuable to the team than non-Philly fans thought. It helped validate the argument that Westy was indeed a running back and not just a receiver out of the back field, like Reid had grown accustomed to using him.

I would say we could wait and see how Reid uses his current team, except the comparison is apples to oranges. The offense has established RB's, WR's and QB's. We already know what they have to offer and they have been productive on an NFL level
Phits
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Mar 8 2013, 07:12 PM) *
You can live in your revisionist bubble all you want. We threw 8 more passes in the NFCCG than the regular season. That's about right for a team that goes into the half down 24-6. Donovan shit the bed in the first half of that game. That was the difference. If he had played in the first half like he did in the second, we win that game going away. Remember it would have been even worse if Desean didn't force a fumble after Don's awful first half pick. For whatever reason, you want to give him a pass for that.

Nobody gets a 'pass'. Our (future) HOF'er, Weapon X, looked ready for the pasture. It made his departure more palatable for some of us. He looked like he lost more than a step or two. JJ's defensive game plan was exploited, and our future DC couldn't adjust until it was too late. We won the 2nd half, but couldn't overcome our deficiencies to win the game.

Equal blame goes to both the offense and defense. Both sides were ill prepared for a championship game. When your entire team is not ready for a football game, the head of the team is the one who is held responsible. Much like what happened this past season.
Phits
QUOTE (TGryn @ Mar 8 2013, 08:25 PM) *
Actually, if you remove McNabb's scramble attempts from the early years' stats, the Eagles' run/pass ratio was among the highest of the Reid era in '01/'02. To be sure, some of those "scrambles" were planned runs for McNabb, but most were plays where he made something happen when nobody was open, and that pumped up those run totals a significant amount: for example, in 2003, roughly 20% of all of the Eagles' rushing attempts were by McNabb.

Compliments to Jeromesfriend, BTW. Nice use of logistic regression, and respect for revisiting it and revising your conclusion.

Nice TG. Thanks for the work.
nephillymike
"Among the highest of the Reid Era"??

Since Reid has the highest pass to run ratio in th ehistory of the NFL for coaches over 5 (?) years, I think a little clarification is needed.!!! tongue.gif
TGryn
For what its worth, here's how the overall league run/pass ratio has changed over time:

YEAR/AVER # PASS / AVER # RUN / % PASSING
2012 555.9 435.2 56.1%
2011 544.1 436.6 55.5%
2010 539.7 435.0 55.4%
2009 532.3 440.3 54.7%
2008 516.4 441.2 53.9%
2007 532.7 437.1 54.9%
2006 512.2 451.5 53.1%
2005 514.5 449.2 53.4%
2000 526.5 441.2 54.4%
1995 556.6 440.0 55.8%
1990 482.7 444.4 52.1%
1985 515.1 487.0 51.4%
1980 489.5 513.7 48.8%
1978 422.5 574.1 42.4% 1977-1978: major rule changes regarding passing (5-yd contact limit, etc.)
numbers via http://www.pro-football-reference.com
Zero
Wow, about 7% more pass since 1980! I'm guessing most of that is in response to rule changes. If there's a regression to the running game it will need to be a different kind of run than the smash mouth era gave us.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (TGryn @ Mar 8 2013, 08:37 PM) *
You can say the same thing about JJ's defense, which had Larry Fitzgerald's cleat marks all over it in the first half. Except for the Carolina NFCC game, Johnson's defenses tended to wither in big games. That's something that's been conveniently thrown down the memory hole with JJ's canonization as an Eagles' legend.


The difference being expectatations. We went into that game knowing that our defense would likely struggle. Fitzgerald was the best receiver in the game, in the midst of his best season as a pro. The Cardinals offense was the third highest scoring in the league and had put up 30+ in their 2 previous playoff games.

Their defense, on the other hand, was one of the league's worst and needed to be exploited if we were gonna win the game. And the bs argument that a balanced attack would have helped is just that. In the second half, when Donovan lit them up, we threw about 3 times as much as we ran. When the defense didn't have to worry about the run because we started the half down by 17.

Donovan failed to show up in the first half. To the tune of 11 for 20, 109 yards, 0 TD's, 1 pick, 1 sack, 1 intentional grounding, and a 24-6 deficit. Blaming anyone but him is a cop out.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Phits @ Mar 8 2013, 08:38 PM) *
In other words, when Reid called an appropriate amount of running plays we were more effective. When he deviated and became more pass happy we were less successful. I'm sure it helped that we had a 3 headed monster rushing attack. Nonetheless, I'm glad you finally came around.

No, you don't get it. It wasn't about "calling" anything. It was about being in position to have a balanced attack. When Donovan was no longer capable of routinely moving the chains, we found ourself in more passing situations because he was so boom or bust.

Early in his career, he made up for that mid-range deficiency by running. Which TGryn pointed out.

QUOTE
I would say we could wait and see how Reid uses his current team, except the comparison is apples to oranges. The offense has established RB's, WR's and QB's. We already know what they have to offer and they have been productive on an NFL level

I'm not following. Did we not have established pieces at the end?
mcnabbulous
Also, TG, awesome stuff. Thanks for posting that again.
Phits
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Mar 9 2013, 12:24 PM) *
Blaming anyone but him is a cop out.

Blaming it on him, solely, is ignorant.
TGryn
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Mar 9 2013, 09:24 AM) *
The difference being expectatations. We went into that game knowing that our defense would likely struggle. Fitzgerald was the best receiver in the game, in the midst of his best season as a pro. The Cardinals offense was the third highest scoring in the league and had put up 30+ in their 2 previous playoff games.
And JJ's defense was 4th best in points given up in 2008 and 3rd best in yards given up. Those were higher rankings than our offense. We'd held the Giants 3rd-best scoring offense to 11 points the week before, and Minnesota's 12th best offense to 14 points the week before that. The Cards were tied with the Giants for 3rd best scoring offense that year, yes, but after holding Arizona to only 20 points earlier in the year there was no reasonable expectation that we'd collapse quite so spectacularly on D that day. We also held Fitzgerald to "only" 5 catches, 65 yards, and 2 TDs in the previous game, so it was fair to expect the D to limit him to similar numbers. Instead, he blistered the secondary for 9 receptions, 152 yards, and 3 TDs.

There's no doubt that McNabb struggled in the first half of that game, but so did the defense. Given their higher ranking, more was expected of the D, and that first half they just didn't show up. Things dramatically reversed in the 2nd half on both counts, but unfortunately the D couldn't hold on to the one lead we had in the game and the Cards drove 70 yards to win the game.

Cards were just the better team that day. We were too inconsistent in all aspects to deserve that win.
Phits
QUOTE (TGryn @ Mar 9 2013, 05:52 PM) *
And JJ's defense was 4th best in points given up in 2008 and 3rd best in yards given up. Those were higher rankings than our offense. We'd held the Giants 3rd-best scoring offense to 11 points the week before, and Minnesota's 12th best offense to 14 points the week before that. The Cards were tied with the Giants for 3rd best scoring offense that year, yes, but after holding Arizona to only 20 points earlier in the year there was no reasonable expectation that we'd collapse quite so spectacularly on D that day. We also held Fitzgerald to "only" 5 catches, 65 yards, and 2 TDs in the previous game, so it was fair to expect the D to limit him to similar numbers. Instead, he blistered the secondary for 9 receptions, 152 yards, and 3 TDs.

There's no doubt that McNabb struggled in the first half of that game, but so did the defense. Given their higher ranking, more was expected of the D, and that first half they just didn't show up. Things dramatically reversed in the 2nd half on both counts, but unfortunately the D couldn't hold on to the one lead we had in the game and the Cards drove 70 yards to win the game.

Cards were just the better team that day. We were too inconsistent in all aspects to deserve that win.

jumpclap.gif jumpclap.gif
mcnabbulous
We'll have to agree to disagree. When your offense is as poor as ours was in the first half of that game, it adds to any strain on the defense. Kurt Warner and Larry Fitzgerald are capable of going off at any moment. What we needed was an offensive performance to put up points and keep them off the field.

Your argument is that our good defense should have been better against their good offense. My argument is that our good offense should have been better against their terrible defense.

There was one weak unit that played in that game, the Cardinals defense. They needed to he exploited. Instead, they manhandled McNabb.

Yes, Dawkins was exploited, but he was an aging safety. Donovan was at an age where he should have been physically and mentally in his prime. Instead, he put up a pathetic first half performance against one of the worst defenses in football.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.