Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Run the damn ball, Pederson!!!
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
Pages: 1, 2
Zero
39 to 24, 58 total yards rushing. 62% of the plays called were passes. mad.gif <-- link

Is there a problem with the offensive linemen that we don't know about that is preventing them from run blocking, or is it that our Andy protege just loves his QB to throw the ball all the time? He's got a bruiser a slasher and a hider but didn't use them. There's not much of an argument that he's setting up the run with the pass and he sure as hell isn't setting up the pass with the run. They weren't very effective rushing, but with that number of attempts he doesn't seem to be trying either.
nephillymike
At times there were huge holes on Peters side where our RB weren't quick enough like Mathews and McCoy were to take advantage of it and get to the second level. Our C isn't stout enough to get push to make a ground and pound game effective. Watching the inept running game on Sunday made me think that maybe Clement will get a shot soon.

It's a concern.
Zero
Smallwood has the quickness, Sproles does.

How many frickin years have we been screaming for a running game?
nephillymike
I have been more than most, but I haven't seen the RB talent to warrant a rant by me just yet.

I definitely have it in me however.........
mcnabbulous
We averaged 7.9 yards per throw and 2.4 yards per run. Why the fuck would you guys want to run the ball more?
Reality Fan
I am with Mikey. Blount is a hammer and Smallwood is so overrated by some here it is not funny. He is just a guy, nothing special. They really need help there but, like the rest of the offense, once they get more reps together they should be serviceable.
The Franchise
As I said yesterday, more than a few times with Blount lined up it seemed like everyone in the stadium knew what was coming. I'm all for establishing a running game and that kind of pass/run proportion will sink us against good teams as it has for almost two decades, but you also have to be smart about it. I don't think I saw any two back formations, and I don't remember any RB screens (though somebody said there was one).

Use Blount on some screens, throw Sproles in there with him a few times, or Blount and Smallwood. If everyone knows what kind of run is happening, that's as bad as being predictable the other way.
Joegrane
If they had lost, I'd be complaining about such things. They were winning with out having to show much creativity in their play calling and without opening up much of their play book.

If they had been using Blount on screens, his TD pass might have been better covered.

I'm also not complaining about the run-pass ratio after JPeters left. I'd be interested to know the ratio before his injury. This is going to be a pass-first team. When you have a QB with the intellect and abilities of CW along with the depth of reliable weapons, they should be okay doing it. It puts CW at risk for injury and probably does not wear down the D as well as running down their throat, but the Eagles are not well setup for that, especially without JP.

QUOTE (The Franchise @ Sep 12 2017, 11:47 AM) *
As I said yesterday, more than a few times with Blount lined up it seemed like everyone in the stadium knew what was coming. I'm all for establishing a running game and that kind of pass/run proportion will sink us against good teams as it has for almost two decades, but you also have to be smart about it. I don't think I saw any two back formations, and I don't remember any RB screens (though somebody said there was one).

Use Blount on some screens, throw Sproles in there with him a few times, or Blount and Smallwood. If everyone knows what kind of run is happening, that's as bad as being predictable the other way.

Birdman420
We have an O Line full of Pass protection specialist, The last time we had a forward blocking O line was back when Mcnabb was taking the snaps. I also remember Runyan being the guy on the right that both Mcnabb and Westbrook would gladly follow to a first down.

I would like to see more screens like the one screen they did run to Sproles on the right side.Carson doesn't seem to have that salesmanship in congested situations, his first instinct seems to scramble to greener grass and throw to someone who broke free or gain a few on the ground.

I just don't think our O line is going to be particularly good at run blocking this year, Celek will get a lot of snaps for that simple reason. Every Yard Blount gets will be hard earned.
mcnabbulous
But we have Chance Warmack. I've been told he's a "road grader" and the "best player in the draft" and "worthy of the #4 pick."

So we should be all set there.

Two can play at this game, D.
The Franchise
QUOTE (Joegrane @ Sep 12 2017, 01:00 PM) *
If they had lost, I'd be complaining about such things. They were winning with out having to show much creativity in their play calling and without opening up much of their play book.


We're about to play two very good defenses, so Pederson better be opening up the playbook - and cutting a few plays as well (WR screens, looking at you).
Phits
I don't care what they do as long as they win.
mcnabbulous
Not sure if any of you guys have subscribed to The Athletic yet (if not, it's definitely worth it), but Banner is doing a weekly interview with Shiel and it's already rather interesting.

Either way, this week's convo featured a lengthy discussing of the idea of "establishing the running game." Suffice it to say, Banner thinks it's an archaic mindset.

I'm not going to post the snippet, because it's paid content, but you can find it here yourself.

https://theathletic.com/101761/2017/09/15/q...ting-westbrook/
Rick
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 15 2017, 09:36 AM) *
Not sure if any of you guys have subscribed to The Athletic yet (if not, it's definitely worth it), but Banner is doing a weekly interview with Shiel and it's already rather interesting.

Either way, this week's convo featured a lengthy discussing of the idea of "establishing the running game." Suffice it to say, Banner thinks it's an archaic mindset.

I'm not going to post the snippet, because it's paid content, but you can find it here yourself.

https://theathletic.com/101761/2017/09/15/q...ting-westbrook/

I don't believe you have to have a successful running game to be successful in the NFL today. But you do need to run the ball occasionally to keep the defense honest.
CT_Eagle
Very few teams have a balanced run\pass attack. With that said, anything over 60% passing is extreme. Take a look at the percentages from last years playoff teams.

NE - 54
KC - 57
Pitt - 60
Hou - 57
Oak - 58
Mia - 55

Dal - 50
Atl - 57
Sea - 59
GB - 63
NYG - 60
Det - 63


Out of the teams that made it to their respective conference championship games, Pit and GB were 60% or higher. Neither SB team, NE or Atl, was over 60%

We went down this road with Reid and for me it was very frustrating. There are times to run the ball and there are times to pass. With Reid, it seemed it was always time to pass. When you are one dimensional, you better be able to impose your will on other teams. Reid always wanted to pass but never provided McNabb with top flight targets, Owens being the exception. You cannot impose your will on other teams with sub par talent.

I don't know if Pederson is going to go down the same road as Reid but at least Pederson has given Wentz a good set of targets. Nothing to do now but sit back and watch how it pans out.





mcnabbulous
I'll assume based on the responses that you guys didn't read the article. But it summarize, you throw early to get leads. Teams that lead at halftime win something like 80% of the time. Then you run after the half (which balances things out).

But his main point is that successful teams throw the ball early.
CT_Eagle
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 15 2017, 05:38 PM) *
I'll assume based on the responses that you guys didn't read the article. But it summarize, you throw early to get leads. Teams that lead at halftime win something like 80% of the time. Then you run after the half (which balances things out).

But his main point is that successful teams throw the ball early.


Did the article say what happens if you build a first half lead by running the ball? My thinking is that it does not matter how you get the lead by halftime. The 80% holds if you did it by passing or running.
The Franchise
QUOTE (CT_Eagle @ Sep 15 2017, 11:30 AM) *
Very few teams have a balanced run\pass attack. With that said, anything over 60% passing is extreme. Take a look at the percentages from last years playoff teams.

NE - 54
KC - 57
Pitt - 60
Hou - 57
Oak - 58
Mia - 55

Dal - 50
Atl - 57
Sea - 59
GB - 63
NYG - 60
Det - 63


Out of the teams that made it to their respective conference championship games, Pit and GB were 60% or higher. Neither SB team, NE or Atl, was over 60%


I consider anything in the 55-45 to 60-40 neighborhood to be acceptably 'balanced' - in fact, I'm shocked Dallas was 50/50, but that's likely because this counts QB scrambles as 'runs,' when they're almost all called pass plays. With me, the key is to not be predictable, and to play to your strengths. Andy was as predictable as they come, and as you mention, he certainly didn't play to his team's strengths. Some playoff losses were in the 70-80% pass range.

As for the age old talking point about running in the 2nd half with the lead to create the 'balance,' that's a load of horseshit. Andy is known for giving up leads late in games because he won't run the damn ball, even when up. Pederson did that a couple times last year. You establish the run early, keep a balanced attack going, and with the lead in the 4th heavily favor the run and short passes to stick the dagger in.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (CT_Eagle @ Sep 15 2017, 12:07 PM) *
Did the article say what happens if you build a first half lead by running the ball? My thinking is that it does not matter how you get the lead by halftime. The 80% holds if you did it by passing or running.

It doesn't get that deep. But it says that you build a lead by throwing. Not by running. That is the primary point.

He specifically calls out the Chargers loss this past week to a coach stubbornly trying to "establish the run" and getting in a deficit as a result. And only giving themselves a chance in the second half by throwing a lot.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (The Franchise @ Sep 15 2017, 12:38 PM) *
I consider anything in the 55-45 to 60-40 neighborhood to be acceptably 'balanced' - in fact, I'm shocked Dallas was 50/50, but that's likely because this counts QB scrambles as 'runs,' when they're almost all called pass plays. With me, the key is to not be predictable, and to play to your strengths. Andy was as predictable as they come, and as you mention, he certainly didn't play to his team's strengths. Some playoff losses were in the 70-80% pass range.

As for the age old talking point about running in the 2nd half with the lead to create the 'balance,' that's a load of horseshit. Andy is known for giving up leads late in games because he won't run the damn ball, even when up. Pederson did that a couple times last year. You establish the run early, keep a balanced attack going, and with the lead in the 4th heavily favor the run and short passes to stick the dagger in.

I would bet virtually anything you have no statistical evidence to back up any of this.
CT_Eagle
QUOTE (The Franchise @ Sep 15 2017, 05:38 PM) *
"With me, the key is to not be predictable, and to play to your strengths."


I agree. That is why I say anything over 60% is extreme. Once you get into that territory you are becoming predictable. I don't care if Pederson calls more passes than runs or vice versa. As long as Pederson does not allow the opposing D to abandon their run D because he passes close to 2/3rds of the time. Pederson may be a little hamstrung this year because the Eagles do not have an RB that strikes fear into their opponents.
Zero
Balance isn't as important to me as letting the defense know you have the ability and will to run. The defense needs to honor the run, IMO.
CT_Eagle
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 15 2017, 05:41 PM) *
It doesn't get that deep. But it says that you build a lead by throwing. Not by running. That is the primary point.

He specifically calls out the Chargers loss this past week to a coach stubbornly trying to "establish the run" and getting in a deficit as a result. And only giving themselves a chance in the second half by throwing a lot.


If they did not look into if a half time lead built by running the ball was just as effective as a half time lead built by passing the ball, then they are not basing their primary point on anything substantive.

With regards to the SD game, a one shot anecdote does not an argument make. If that were the metric, I could point to GB's and Pit's 60% pass rate in the championship games last year and state you cannot get to the Super Bowl if you pass 60% of the time.
CT_Eagle
QUOTE (Zero @ Sep 15 2017, 05:46 PM) *
Balance isn't as important to me as letting the defense know you have the ability and will to run. The defense needs to honor the run, IMO.


Exactly. You cannot allow your opponent to sell out versus the pass because they do not fear your running. Very few teams can get away with that. If you want to take that approach, you have to have the weapons to impose your will on your opponent, even when they know what you are going to do.
The Franchise
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 15 2017, 01:43 PM) *
I would bet virtually anything you have no statistical evidence to back up any of this.


If I thought posting statistical evidence would move you, I would post it - but it won't. Anyone who is intellectually honest and has watched Eagles football over the last 2 decades understands the points we are making. That's why we have a thread with this title, an obvious play to the Reid years.

But just for fun, remember this gem?

Up by 28 points in the 3rd quarter in the playoffs, 38-10 against Indy on the road. Naturally, since he's thrown to get the lead, he'll run to keep it, right? Here's his plays, from that point until he eventually loses the game:

-Sacked (that means pass), Pass, Pass, Run, Sacked (that means pass) and fumble

-Run, Scramble (that means pass), Pass, Punt

-Pass, Run, Pass, FG

-Pass, Pass, Scramble (that means pass), Pass, Run (4th Quarter) Pass, Pass, Punt

-Pass, Run, Pass, Pass, Run, Pass, Pass, Run, Pass, Pass, FG

Now they've lost the lead, and are down by 1 with 4:21 left, with only 1 timeout of course

-Pass, Pass, Run, Pass, Pass, Pass, ToD

Chiefs lose, 45-44. Vintage Andy.

So from the time they were up by 28 points in the 3rd quarter to the time Andy lost his lead, for those keeping score, that was 21 called pass plays, and 7 runs.

For you non-math types, that's 75% pass plays - up by 28 in the 3rd. Goddamit I'm so fucking glad he's doing this shit in KC now, we certainly saw this enough in Philly. And before you even whip up a lame response, know that I only took the time to do this to expose your dogmatic worship of this absolutely horrible gameday coach.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (CT_Eagle @ Sep 15 2017, 12:49 PM) *
If they did not look into if a half time lead built by running the ball was just as effective as a half time lead built by passing the ball, then they are not basing their primary point on anything substantive.

With regards to the SD game, a one shot anecdote does not an argument make. If that were the metric, I could point to GB's and Pit's 60% pass rate in the championship games last year and state you cannot get to the Super Bowl if you pass 60% of the time.

I would virtually guarantee that Joe Banner has statistical evidence to back that up if he's saying it so adamantly. But it was a Q&A type of interview. Not a huge statistical analysis.

mcnabbulous
QUOTE (The Franchise @ Sep 15 2017, 01:17 PM) *
Anyone who is intellectually honest

You're neither intellectual or honest
The Franchise
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 15 2017, 01:48 PM) *
You're neither intellectual or honest


I rest my case.

QUOTE
And before you even whip up a lame response, know that I only took the time to do this to expose your dogmatic worship of this absolutely horrible gameday coach.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (The Franchise @ Sep 15 2017, 02:17 PM) *
For you non-math types, that's 75% pass plays - up by 28 in the 3rd. Goddamit I'm so fucking glad he's doing this shit in KC now, we certainly saw this enough in Philly. And before you even whip up a lame response, know that I only took the time to do this to expose your dogmatic worship of this absolutely horrible gameday coach.


I have to wonder if you realize what an idiot you sound like when you say that about a huy who has more wins than all but 10 other coaches in league history. I mean you get that, right? How is that for statistics? While he may have made gaffes in certain games if you want to use statistics use them all, especially the ones that count. In KC he has been middle of the pack or better in attempts and yards on the ground. I can only take stupid comments so long and then the facts need to be presented. One does not exist as a horrible gameday coach and last that long or win that many games. I once laid out a long list of examples refuting a similar stupidity about his 2 minute offense.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Sep 15 2017, 03:17 PM) *
I have to wonder if you realize what an idiot you sound like when you say that about a huy who has more wins than all but 10 other coaches in league history. I mean you get that, right? How is that for statistics? While he may have made gaffes in certain games if you want to use statistics use them all, especially the ones that count. In KC he has been middle of the pack or better in attempts and yards on the ground. I can only take stupid comments so long and then the facts need to be presented. One does not exist as a horrible gameday coach and last that long or win that many games. I once laid out a long list of examples refuting a similar stupidity about his 2 minute offense.

Nothing can bring people together quite like acknowledging what a stupid sack of shit zed2k, I mean HouseOPain, I mean Robberson, I mean The_Francise is.

Of course, if he were being "intellectually honest, he would admit that in the game that he likes to bring up, the Chief's averaged a whopping 2.4 YPC in the second half on the 9 runs that weren't conducted by Alex Smith. Of course, simply acknowledging that Alex Smith did have a few design carries is also something he would neglect to admit.

He also won't acknowledge that the Chiefs lost their best RB (player?) on the opening drive of the game and then lost their backup RB (a rookie) in the 4th quarter.

So did Andy rely on his QB more in the second half than he probably would have liked to? Yeah, but I guess those are the decisions you have to make when you're an NFL coach.

But giving up 35 points in the second half of a playoff game is probably the biggest factor in them not winning. If I were being totally intellectually honest and all.
CT_Eagle
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 15 2017, 06:47 PM) *
I would virtually guarantee that Joe Banner has statistical evidence to back that up if he's saying it so adamantly. But it was a Q&A type of interview. Not a huge statistical analysis.


Could be that Banner is not aware that it doesn't matter how you get the lead.

I tried looking this up and it is a tough stat to find. Docsports had an article that claimed a 77% rate. That was based on one season and it did not state whether the lead was via run or pass.

As I said before, my guess is it does not matter how you got the lead. The important thins is that you have the lead.

I will like to see more proof than your acceptance of Banner's certitude on the subject.
The Franchise
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Sep 15 2017, 04:17 PM) *
I once laid out a long list of examples refuting a similar stupidity about his 2 minute offense.


Cool story bro! I'll take things that never happened for $500 (like you passing your GED exam on the first try).

I once laid out a play-by-play review of Andy blowing one of the biggest leads in playoff history, in less than 2 quarters - doing things that we saw him do here for 14 years. And unlike your claim, this actually happened. Proof of this if you actually read the thread.

His skills are in building a solid team and preparing a solid gameplan. Once Sunday comes around, he's always at a tactical disadvantage. Want to know how the Chiefs do this year? SPOILER - they win 10-11 regular season games, then make an early exit from the playoffs.

As Jeremiah Trotter once said: "If it came down to both teams were even, talent-wise, I think the opponent's team would win if it came down to coaching. Andy Reid got out-coached in a lot of games, man, a lot of big games. Time outs, running the football, you know."

The Franchise
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 15 2017, 04:28 PM) *
Of course, if he were being "intellectually honest, he would admit that in the game that he likes to bring up, the Chief's averaged a whopping 2.4 YPC in the second half on the 9 runs that weren't conducted by Alex Smith. Of course, simply acknowledging that Alex Smith did have a few design carries is also something he would neglect to admit.

He also won't acknowledge that the Chiefs lost their best RB (player?) on the opening drive of the game and then lost their backup RB (a rookie) in the 4th quarter.

So did Andy rely on his QB more in the second half than he probably would have liked to? Yeah, but I guess those are the decisions you have to make when you're an NFL coach.


I rest my case again. That's the best you can do?

QUOTE
And before you even whip up a lame response, know that I only took the time to do this to expose your dogmatic worship of this absolutely horrible gameday coach.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (CT_Eagle @ Sep 15 2017, 03:28 PM) *
Could be that Banner is not aware that it doesn't matter how you get the lead.

I tried looking this up and it is a tough stat to find. Docsports had an article that claimed a 77% rate. That was based on one season and it did not state whether the lead was via run or pass.

As I said before, my guess is it does not matter how you got the lead. The important thins is that you have the lead.

I will like to see more proof than your acceptance of Banner's certitude on the subject.

Well I'm not sure if it satisfies what you're looking for, but there is no correlation between being an effective running team and winning. The same isn't true for passing.

https://thepowerrank.com/2014/01/10/which-n...n-the-playoffs/

But for some reason there seems to be a desire to do something that doesn't correlate to winning just for the sake of doing it. Seems silly to me.
The Franchise
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 15 2017, 04:07 PM) *
Well I'm not sure if it satisfies what you're looking for, but there is no correlation between being an effective running team and winning. The same isn't true for passing.

https://thepowerrank.com/2014/01/10/which-n...n-the-playoffs/

But for some reason there seems to be a desire to do something that doesn't correlate to winning just for the sake of doing it. Seems silly to me.


laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

"Efficiency is yards per play on offense minus yards per play allowed on defense."

That alone negates the validity of this entire intellectually dishonest 'study.' It also shows why Stanford PhD's, whos closest experience to sports is getting pegged in the face during dodgeball in high school, don't get jobs in the NFL. But hey, don't take my word for it. If you read the comments, you can see people who actually know football correcting the good Dr., and he admits his thinking is evolving!

"Thanks for the comment. My thinking about run/pass balance is evolving. I do think teams need to run to set up the pass, they just donā€™t need to be that good at it."

laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif He also brags on his website about predicting the winner (not the spread, which is all that matters in betting) of 70%+ of college football games, and over 70% of March Madness games, which will get you about 10th place in your local office pool.

Try again dipshit.
mcnabbulous
Cool I was on my phone and didn't grab the article I meant to. There are several others, but here is one:

http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.c...part-1.html?m=1

Edit:

Actually this is the one I really meant to share. Which may be a continuation of that previous link:
http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.c...inning.html?m=1
The Franchise
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 15 2017, 05:25 PM) *
Cool I was on my phone and didn't grab the article I meant to. There are several others, but here is one:

http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.c...part-1.html?m=1

Edit:

Actually this is the one I really meant to share. Which may be a continuation of that previous link:
http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.c...inning.html?m=1


Cool! As I just said, efficiency numbers are useless in this kind of study because of the nature of the game and situational strategy, as anyone who has ever played sports would understand.

I'll give you props though - you never give up, no matter how I own your little ass. Over and over and over. Hey, I wonder what the Chiefs' passing and running efficiency was in this game? *click the link*



Kicker on the road, about to attempt a 52 yarder, let's clinch a playoff berth! Ah fuck it, let's try that shit Shanahan did once 10 years ago.

mcnabbulous
S your point is that Andy is a bad coach because he tries to ice kickers? While I think the practice is stupid, it's no more stupid thinking you should try to pound the running game with your second and third stringers when you're averaging 2.4 yards per pop.

But yes, you've "owned me" while Andy continues leading teams to the playoffs, putting up 40 points against the greatest defensive mind in football, continues his ascension up the all-time winningest coaches list, and continues to be one of the most respected guys in the game.

I'm thoroughly owned. We should definitely start running the ball more now. Despite the fact that our best two offensive players are a QB and WR. That's just intellectual, if I'm being honest.
The Franchise
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 15 2017, 04:42 PM) *
I'm thoroughly owned.


With your straw man arguments as further evidence, yes you are. Finally, you're correct about something.

He builds good teams and wins a good amount of regular season games every year - but he has a losing record in the postseason, and that will ultimately be his legacy, no matter how many wins he racks up in October. Marv Levy without the conference dynasty. And I'll be here to remind you of that every time he screws the pooch. biggrin.gif
CT_Eagle
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 15 2017, 09:07 PM) *
Well I'm not sure if it satisfies what you're looking for, but there is no correlation between being an effective running team and winning. The same isn't true for passing.

https://thepowerrank.com/2014/01/10/which-n...n-the-playoffs/

But for some reason there seems to be a desire to do something that doesn't correlate to winning just for the sake of doing it. Seems silly to me.


I read that article earlier today. It does not address my question about if passing to a halftime lead is any better than running to a halftime lead.

Just so we are clear, and you can reference my post above, I don't care if Pederson passes more than he runs. I just don't want to return to the days of a pass\run ratio in excess of 60%. That is too much passing. If you want to convince me that a 60% pass ratio leads to success, show me teams that have won SBs, using that approach. I haven't looked it up but I bet you that a clear majority of SB winners had less than a 60% ratio during the season they won a SB.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (CT_Eagle @ Sep 15 2017, 04:51 PM) *
I read that article earlier today. It does not address my question about if passing to a halftime lead is any better than running to a halftime lead.

Just so we are clear, and you can reference my post above, I don't care if Pederson passes more than he runs. I just don't want to return to the days of a pass\run ratio in excess of 60%. That is too much passing. If you want to convince me that a 60% pass ratio leads to success, show me teams that have won SBs, using that approach. I haven't looked it up but I bet you that a clear majority of SB winners had less than a 60% ratio during the season they won a SB.

But this makes a flawed assumption of why teams pass more than 60% of the time. If we are doing that, it's likely because we are losing. Not the root cause of it.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (The Franchise @ Sep 15 2017, 04:50 PM) *
With your straw man arguments as further evidence, yes you are. Finally, you're correct about something.

He builds good teams and wins a good amount of regular season games every year - but he has a losing record in the postseason, and that will ultimately be his legacy, no matter how many wins he racks up in October. Marv Levy without the conference dynasty. And I'll be here to remind you of that every time he screws the pooch. biggrin.gif

Will that be under this username? Or will you notify me when you get banned and come back?

Or should I assume it will be obvious? Because you'll be the dipshit that thinks efficiency numbers are irrelevant due to "situational strategy" but preach "team x is [insert record] when player x has x carries". I'm sure that has nothing to do with situational strategies. No sir.
CT_Eagle
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 15 2017, 10:08 PM) *
But this makes a flawed assumption of why teams pass more than 60% of the time. If we are doing that, it's likely because we are losing. Not the root cause of it.



Then I guess there is no way to prove that passing more than 60% leads to success. What we can say is that very few, if any, teams that passed for more than 60% have won the SB.
The Franchise
QUOTE
Will that be under this username? Or will you notify me when you get banned and come back?


You keep accusing me of being different people. Are you schizophrenic? It's not my fault so many people own you buddy - see a therapist if need be. After all, your health should come first. laugh.gif

QUOTE
Or should I assume it will be obvious? Because you'll be the dipshit that thinks efficiency numbers are irrelevant due to "situational strategy" but preach "team x is [insert record] when player x has x carries". I'm sure that has nothing to do with situational strategies. No sir.


Ever since 'Moneyball' came out and Sabermetrics entered our vocabulary, every numbers geek with a PhD in the country has tried to be the next pioneer of the same in other sports, mostly football. The problems with this are many - baseball results rely far more on individual effort, averages correlate to individual game results far more, you have a much larger sample size of games, coaching decisions have far less impact, etc. So you get crap like what you posted - I've seen it many times. The best way to analyze football is simple results - and I will keep pointing those results out.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (CT_Eagle @ Sep 15 2017, 05:20 PM) *
Then I guess there is no way to prove that passing more than 60% leads to success. What we can say is that very few, if any, teams that passed for more than 60% have won the SB.

Well - this may be more aligned with what you're looking for.

http://www.footballperspective.com/game-sc...g-team-seasons/

The 99 Rams and undefeated Patriots teams were two of the pass happiest teams of all time based on the evaluation. Although they both were lower than league average related to passing%.

The highest ranking Reid team was 2004. Not coincidentally our best team.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (The Franchise @ Sep 15 2017, 05:24 PM) *
The best way to analyze football is simple results - and I will keep pointing those results out.

Literally the dumbest thing you've posted on this board. What a fucking rube.
CT_Eagle
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 15 2017, 10:30 PM) *
Well - this may be more aligned with what you're looking for.

http://www.footballperspective.com/game-sc...g-team-seasons/

The 99 Rams and undefeated Patriots teams were two of the pass happiest teams of all time based on the evaluation. Although they both were lower than league average related to passing%.

The highest ranking Reid team was 2004. Not coincidentally our best team.


Again, show me the number of teams that won the SB in years where they had a pass ratio above 60. I showed the results from last year. Both teams in the SB were under 60. Out of the 12 playoff teams last year, only 4 were above 60. Two of those 4 were right at 60. If your claim is that passing more than 60% of the time leads to championships, show me the history of that.
The Franchise
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 15 2017, 06:32 PM) *
Literally the dumbest thing you've posted on this board. What a fucking rube.


laugh.gif

I'm pretty sure 'analyzing results' is about as obvious and scientific as it gets. More so than (offensive rushing yards minus defensive rushing yards correlating to wins).

laugh.gif laugh.gif
CT_Eagle
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 15 2017, 10:30 PM) *
Well - this may be more aligned with what you're looking for.

http://www.footballperspective.com/game-sc...g-team-seasons/

The 99 Rams and undefeated Patriots teams were two of the pass happiest teams of all time based on the evaluation. Although they both were lower than league average related to passing%.

The highest ranking Reid team was 2004. Not coincidentally our best team.


BTW, NE was about 56% in their undefeated regular season.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (CT_Eagle @ Sep 15 2017, 05:41 PM) *
Again, show me the number of teams that won the SB in years where they had a pass ratio above 60. I showed the results from last year. Both teams in the SB were under 60. Out of the 12 playoff teams last year, only 4 were above 60. Two of those 4 were right at 60. If your claim is that passing more than 60% of the time leads to championships, show me the history of that.

Jesus dude. You're like talking to a wall. 60% passing is an arbitrary number. And in most cases, SB winning teams won't be above that number. Because even some of the pass happiest teams of all time have a relatively even (e.g. 56/44) Pass/Run ratio because once they were leading, it balanced out.

If we are over 60%, it's probably because we were losing a lot towards the end of games. So no, we won't be winning the SB. But not because of a stupid, irrelevant run/pass ratio.
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.