It doesn't add up! (Athletic Article)

[chris98251]

Ask the Broncos how great a passing attack is without a good running attack.

With a great passing game they should have been able to comeback and win based on your theory. But they didn't, in fact forcing things with no running game made it worse, remember they were the best offense in history.

 

[knownone]

I know it isnt quite kosher to answer a question with a question, but what if doing better than status quo isnt predicated on identifying a discrete equilibrium or optimal point (which is already more nuanced than the stated public rationale of our OC) but rather based on finding the team's own equilibrium for the talent in the stable. Know thyself.

Instead of asking the team to conform to a specific paradigm like the Chiefs, the question could instead focus on 'are we optimizing our own passing game to the respective talents and game situatuon better or worse than other teams.' What are the limits of the league and how close are we to them? What is currently possible in the league and are the Hawks seizing their share from the table? This seems to be digestible and more straight forward.

There would be a lot to unpack there. How do you build a framework to determine better or worse (there are some), in what ways are the Hawks better or worse, how do you identify the parts and components that contribute, how much film is needed to buttress data? A lot. But this is what the patchwork of current work strives for at least.

There isnt a lot out there suggesting that the Hawks are in their own equilibrium or optimization which the article alludes to with the sum being less than the parts, I think at least

I am excited to see what happens next season and how the team approaches it. There are changes happening about what is possible and valuable all the time in the league and we will see how the Hawks tap into that.

I would need to see if there is any correlation between passing efficiency and winning games on a macro level; otherwise, I see no point in trying to optimize my team based on a metric that has no transferable benefit other than increasing passing efficiency. That's not to say teams shouldn't be trying to find solutions, just that It wouldn't be my priority based on the information we currently have.

I view football like boxing. I don't think striving for efficiency in one aspect of the game is necessarily the ideal way to play. For instance, a jab in boxing is a horribly inefficient way to finish a fight. However, despite it's inefficiency if your opponent cannot stop the jab your entire arsenal of punches become less predictable.

The goal in football (IMO) should not be to become a high efficiency scoring machine all the time. The goal should be to limit your opponents exposure to your most efficient plays in order to maintain an element of surprise for when you actually need those plays. That's precisely why I think smart coaches are running the ball more. The boring and predictable can be less efficient overall, but it may also be the correct long term play in a sport so heavily dependent on attrition.

Consider a team like the Rams who were unstoppable at the start of the year but slowed down as teams saw more and more of their offense. The problem with optimization in this sport (unlike say basketball) is it's heavy dependency on the defense's inability to stop it. This puts someone like McVay in a race to stay ahead of defensive coordinators because in order to reach optimization you need to run more plays, but in running more plays you give defensive coordinators more information about the intricacies of your scheme.

That's the thing I wish more people realized about Bill Belichick. Bill is aware that information is the key to winning football games. That's why he filmed his opponents practices. That's why the Patriots scout their own tendencies and consistently break them. That strategy represents a kind of entropy in the context of this article; an optimization on a micro level rather than a macro trend. In other words, being less concerned about your overall long term efficiency and where it ranks amongst your peers, and more concerned about winning the game this week without revealing too much of your long term hand.

 

[Tical21]

At least half of what the Rams do is based off the stretch play to the left.

 

[mrt144]

Thank you knownone and AgentDib for the great replies and something to think about! :irishdrinkers:

 

[Popeyejones]

N/M

 

[mrt144]

So in to reply of knowone, I found these two articles from the same source:

http://www.footballperspective.com/any- ... ercentage/

https://www.footballperspective.com/cor ... with-wins/

The first paints a picture that ANYA, has a very volatile correlation to winning % over time. Some years high, some years lower. But in the RW era (2012 onward) ANYA has always held a higher correlative value over rushing.

The 2nd article talks about 'why ANYA' and the various metrics that try to capture QB performance and efficiency and disrules other metrics by their correlation coefficient to winning.

Let me know your thoughts - I have some more thoughts in mind and how to proceed from here but wanted to hear how you interpret the articles first.

 

[AgentDib]

Like any efficiency metric it is intuitive that ANY/A should correlate with winning football games. If everything else is equal then teams that get more bang for their buck from a given play should win more often. The complication is that it is also intuitive that efficient plays will lose efficiency the more they are used. A very effective play often depends on less effective plays setting it up.

You're probably familiar with the quote about continuing to run an effective play until the opponent shows that they can stop it. The better strategy is of course to run that play one fewer time.

Another comparison is Tyler Lockett. He had a ridiculously efficient 2018 season - 81% catch rate, 14 yards per target, and RW ended up with a perfect passer rating when throwing to him. There are two different ways of looking at his performance. On the one hand, we should basically throw him the ball on every single play. On the other, his efficiency demonstrates that when Russ targeted him on deep corner/post routes it was enormously successful - in large part because most of the time he wasn't chucking it deep at Tyler.

History has a comparison in CJ Spiller's 2012 season with the Bills. That season he managed to rush for an amazing 6.0 YPC and 1244 yards on just 13 carries per game. A very common internet take at the time was that it was ridiculous how few carries he was getting given how dominant he was. With the benefit of hindsight we can see that he was benefiting from getting those change of pace carries in advantageous situations where Fred Jackson was doing a lot of the less glamorous work. Spiller went on to average 4.6 the following year, then 3.8, then 3.0 with the Saints and he was effectively done in the NFL.

 

[mrt144]

Like any efficiency metric it is intuitive that ANY/A should correlate with winning football games. If everything else is equal then teams that get more bang for their buck from a given play should win more often. The complication is that it is also intuitive that efficient plays will lose efficiency the more they are used. A very effective play often depends on less effective plays setting it up.

You're probably familiar with the quote about continuing to run an effective play until the opponent shows that they can stop it. The better strategy is of course to run that play one fewer time.

Another comparison is Tyler Lockett. He had a ridiculously efficient 2018 season - 81% catch rate, 14 yards per target, and RW ended up with a perfect passer rating when throwing to him. There are two different ways of looking at his performance. On the one hand, we should basically throw him the ball on every single play. On the other, his efficiency demonstrates that when Russ targeted him on deep corner/post routes it was enormously successful - in large part because most of the time he wasn't chucking it deep at Tyler.

History has a comparison in CJ Spiller's 2012 season with the Bills. That season he managed to rush for an amazing 6.0 YPC and 1244 yards on just 13 carries per game. A very common internet take at the time was that it was ridiculous how few carries he was getting given how dominant he was. With the benefit of hindsight we can see that he was benefiting from getting those change of pace carries in advantageous situations where Fred Jackson was doing a lot of the less glamorous work. Spiller went on to average 4.6 the following year, then 3.8, then 3.0 with the Saints and he was effectively done in the NFL.

The Tyler Lockett point is a good one that I think clearly illustrates something I'm kind of struggling with - absolute returns vs. relative returns. In both facets he was aces but the relative ones would likely diminish with more balls thrown his way. So perhaps then strict relative returns on usage is just a small element of information of 'what is he capable of'. That still doesn't neatly answer 'then what should we do?'

Honestly, I would love to see Tyler Lockett get more thrown his way. I guess a side-bar question then becomes, 'how could one illustrate that there is value there for the taking with him?' Or perhaps, 'illustrate expected per play value as volume increases?'

To the first point, what you're describing sounds like a 'loss leader' from the retail sphere - you take a small loss on tchotchskes and doodads but reap fat profits on other items after the customer has already been lured in by that screaming deal on that doodad. Perhaps a question around that is how do you do 'loss leaders' tactically in game that still provide positive value even if it isn't the greatest possible value on a per play basis.

To some extent I don't think there needs to absolutely be 'loss leaders' tactically and some of the mythos surrounding that in Play Action concepts has been taken to task

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat- ... on-passing
https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat- ... conditions

And of course, the most anecdotal of all anecdotal games - the 2017 game between the Texans and Seahawks which debased a lot of that notion to me, visually and experientially. They were running PA passes in spite of the rushing game that day to impressive effect.

So this kind of leads me to this thought: What if the trick isn't passing more or less but shoring up the absolute value of rushing plays to keep the efficiency and explosiveness of passing (which we know RW is capable of) stable but not eat as much of a 'loss' in the service of doing so. This is predicated on accepting the argument that efficient passing matters more than absolute passing attempts but elevates the importance of the running game to be more than just a pulled punch but a confident jab that wears down the opponent over and over again and even KOs a few chumps.

I have a somewhat recent idea that perhaps I'm looking at it backwards - perhaps what I'm misinterpreting is that because passing on a per play basis gives a higher expected value, that should be done more often until diminishing returns are seen. Perhaps the inverse picture is more accurate - the gap between the expected values necessitates a stronger rushing game than a lot of current teams, maybe even the Seahawks, have in their stable.

To put it into some context, what if being the champion of Rushing in 2019 going into 2020 isn't as meaningful because the peer group is developing alternative methods (like a robust short passing game) that would have been called rushes 10-20 years ago? To distill this even further, this is my proactive argument against the argument that the Seahawks rushing game is one of the best if not the best in the NFL currently and going forward. Being the best at a facet reaps outcomes to what end exactly?

We can be best among the peer group and still experience dead weight loss from the differences between expected values between rushes and passing. Put another way, Rushing, if it is your overriding tactic must achieve value closer to passing for it to really sing and keep the door wide open on those explosive plays which in turn amplify passing efficiency metrics.

Thoughts?

 

[Jville]

And interesting and reoccurring subject.

I think inferences from statistical studies and the development of models is interesting to those who like to play with them. But, models blow up from time to time. And, I think most of today's trailing enthusiasts are susceptible because of dependency on the use of a very broad paint brush. Composite averaging can only say so much as it ignores match ups, skill set diversity, individual decisions making and scheme/ personnel diversity. A lot of information that is insufficiently identified and quantified is being omitted. In one of the posted links ...... Ben Baldwin acknowledges current limitations with this statement >>> "Perhaps this will look silly later on, but I'm getting the sense that we're beginning to approach the limits of what there is to be learned about play-action without having access to the NFL's player tracking data."

It should be pointed out that the when Ben says we're beginning to ....... , the we he is referring to is event reviews by a very small group of data enthusiasts. Most of the rest of us are happy watching live events. Many view the game thru the soda straw of a telecast with it's own agenda as to what it is going to show and what it is going to omit. Most of us don't have the time or inclination to participate in any exiting all-22 service. Outside of spot telecast candy, the NFL appears a long way off from packaging it's player tracking data into a readily digestible form for mass consumption.

Although, the topic is interesting. I question it's usefulness in a forum open to everyone from all walks of life. Like other evolving efforts, a lot of what it promises is over stated and over sold. Everyone is at liberty to subscribe to what interests them. Just be discerning about what to buy into. After all, there is a sizable year round effort at tracking outcomes and trends over at the VMAC. And, those are the real participants preparing for match ups verses real people in live games. And of course, fans are at liberty to continue to pick out what they enjoy and dismiss the rest.

In any case, those are my thoughts. You'll have to pardon me now as my lawn is calling and the mower is all fueled up.

Life is good.


P.S. Too little attention to paid to effects of scale and detail on the dialogue of our time.

 

[AgentDib]

And of course, the most anecdotal of all anecdotal games - the 2017 game between the Texans and Seahawks which debased a lot of that notion to me, visually and experimentally. They were running PA passes in spite of the rushing game that day to impressive effect.

I would argue that what matters in regards to the opposing defense is entirely their expectations about what your team is going to do. If you can somehow sell that you are going to be running the ball fifty times up the middle while actually throwing deep every play then you have a ticket to many wins. That explains why just about every team loudly proclaims how much they are committing to the run multiple times each season whether they actually do so or not.

Expectation is also why our offense has been extremely effective working out of an empty set with Russ even though we very rarely have him run it in that scenario. The defense still has to respect that Russ could run the ball and this next play is the one we've been setting them up for with the previous ten throws. As a result their edge rushers have to worry about contain instead of pure pass rush and they often have a LB drop out of coverage to spy Russ in case he takes off.

Players themselves leverage expectations within the game when it comes to their own execution. Pass rushers often set up moves many plays (or even quarters) in advance and the sack we see on tape was often the result of lulling the tackle into a false sense of security in regards to a certain move only to suddenly turn up the juice and subvert their expectations. Receivers will sell half-hearted comebacks and double moves only to suddenly tighten them up on a key play.

perhaps what I'm misinterpreting is that because passing on a per play basis gives a higher expected value, that should be done more often until diminishing returns are seen. Perhaps the inverse picture is more accurate - the gap between the expected values necessitates a stronger rushing game than a lot of current teams, maybe even the Seahawks, have in their stable.

Of course what makes football great is we don't have a time machine and so either option is possible but not provable. The Seahawks clearly believe that the latter was the case in 2017 if you look at their 2018 and 2019 off-season moves. Drafting Penny in the first, adding Homer this year, signing mammoth run blocking guards in Fluker and Iupati, and drafting another road grading guard in Haynes.

Rushing, if it is your overriding tactic must achieve value closer to passing for it to really sing and keep the door wide open on those explosive plays which in turn amplify passing efficiency metrics.

Look at how we used Tyler Lockett in the games Doug Baldwin was out last year, reminiscent of how we tried to use Percy Harvin. Lots of motion and fake jet sweeps, some real jet sweeps, and then a bunch of short routes coming out of motion that had him turning the corner upfield along the sidelines. The creativity is definitely there but with only 50 offensive plays per game the data is extremely noisy. One holding penalty on 2nd and 6 can kill a drive and having a jet sweep get tackled at the LOS vs. turning the corner for 20 yards has a huge effect on our efficiency stats.

It's also worth pointing out the link between rushing and passing, while important, is the lesser complication in the mind of many. The link between rushing and defense, particularly in regards to Carroll's defensive philosophies, is one of the key reasons cited for our emphasis on the run. The problem with data analysis on that front is there is a very large psychological angle in play in regards to how Carroll motivates his team and defense.

My best example on that front is how very few teams deferred the initial kickoff back in 2010. The belief at the time was that football was a momentum based sport (easier to play with a lead because you can milk the clock, harder to play from behind because you get too one dimensional) and so everybody wanted the ball first and to try to get an early lead. Our friendly neighborhood ESPN reporter John Clayton was particularly adamant that teams should always start with the ball.

Of course we know these days teams almost always defer and Pete was one of the coaches leading that transition behind BB. Nobody to date has come up with a good statistical reason to defer but Pete feels very strongly about the psychological benefits and the message it sends his team. "You win the game in the second half" is clearly nonsense, but if it's nonsense that the players buy into and it helps them play better then it's the kind of nonsense he's wise to lean into.

 

[mrt144]

For computerized table top game I play, that resembles football and rugby in a few ways, the reason for kicking first is simple - you know exactly what you need to do in the 2nd half to win, whereas that information is less known if you receive first. If you received first the execution revolves around "Don't make a mistake, score, and score at the right moment to diminish the chances of a retaliatory score."

Whereas with kicking first, you have few ways to play it - force an earlier than wanted score, stop the score outright, or score a defensive TD and force them to equalize with diminishing turns available in the half.

Obviously that's not exactly applicable to the NFL and football but I always like drawing comparisons between the familiar to the unknown to make a little more sense of it. The rationales might be more applicable than the execution.

 

[knownone]

So in to reply of knowone, I found these two articles from the same source:

http://www.footballperspective.com/any- ... ercentage/

https://www.footballperspective.com/cor ... with-wins/

The first paints a picture that ANYA, has a very volatile correlation to winning % over time. Some years high, some years lower. But in the RW era (2012 onward) ANYA has always held a higher correlative value over rushing.

The 2nd article talks about 'why ANYA' and the various metrics that try to capture QB performance and efficiency and disrules other metrics by their correlation coefficient to winning.

Let me know your thoughts - I have some more thoughts in mind and how to proceed from here but wanted to hear how you interpret the articles first.

It's interesting, but from my perspective it's still a flawed set of data so it's hard to draw any meaningful conclusions from it. Again, that's not me saying it's not correct in the grand scheme of things, it's just that the data isn't particularly great at the moment.

So, first let's look at the formula for ANY/A :

(pass yards + 20*(pass TD) - 45*(interceptions thrown) - sack yards)/(passing attempts + sacks)

Just looking at the formula what is the most logical connection between ANY/A and winning? Teams with great QB's and offensive talent win more games? Does that really tell us the ideal strategy for winning football games? I don't think anyone would argue that QB's have a larger impact on winning than the running game, but that doesn't exactly tell us if passing more with higher efficiency is necessarily a better way to win than emphasizing the running game.

I've read a lot of these articles over the years. Recently we've had an influx of very well educated people (and they love to advertise that aspect, PhD[Insert school name], Economist, etc...) writing click bait level articles using math to justify their opinions or to create this idea that they are smarter than the NFL. It's important to remember that they are not doing this solely for educational purposes; they are doing it to create a market for themselves to make a living with their writing / opinions. So when in doubt remember these famous words.

Economists are evaluated on how intelligent they sound, not on a scientific measure of their knowledge of reality.

 

[chris98251]

So in to reply of knowone, I found these two articles from the same source:

http://www.footballperspective.com/any- ... ercentage/

https://www.footballperspective.com/cor ... with-wins/

The first paints a picture that ANYA, has a very volatile correlation to winning % over time. Some years high, some years lower. But in the RW era (2012 onward) ANYA has always held a higher correlative value over rushing.

The 2nd article talks about 'why ANYA' and the various metrics that try to capture QB performance and efficiency and disrules other metrics by their correlation coefficient to winning.

Let me know your thoughts - I have some more thoughts in mind and how to proceed from here but wanted to hear how you interpret the articles first.

It's interesting, but from my perspective it's still a flawed set of data so it's hard to draw any meaningful conclusions from it. Again, that's not me saying it's not correct in the grand scheme of things, it's just that the data isn't particularly great at the moment.

So, first let's look at the formula for ANY/A :

(pass yards + 20*(pass TD) - 45*(interceptions thrown) - sack yards)/(passing attempts + sacks)

Just looking at the formula what is the most logical connection between ANY/A and winning? Teams with great QB's and offensive talent win more games? Does that really tell us the ideal strategy for winning football games? I don't think anyone would argue that QB's have a larger impact on winning than the running game, but that doesn't exactly tell us if passing more with higher efficiency is necessarily a better way to win than emphasizing the running game.

I've read a lot of these articles over the years. Recently we've had an influx of very well educated people (and they love to advertise that aspect, PhD[Insert school name], Economist, etc...) writing click bait level articles using math to justify their opinions or to create this idea that they are smarter than the NFL. It's important to remember that they are not doing this solely for educational purposes; they are doing it to create a market for themselves to make a living with their writing / opinions. So when in doubt remember these famous words.

Economists are evaluated on how intelligent they sound, not on a scientific measure of their knowledge of reality.

Also they probably have never held a football or watched a game, they just crunch the numbers and don't understand the psychology of the game.

 

[ivotuk]

Interesting. I'm only going off the snippet, as I'm not going to subscribe, but it does sound like they are tackling an interesting question. I've often thought most of our statistics are used in faulty ways. For example ..................................

Ill post the whole thing after someone assures me they subscribed. It is a bit chart heavy though.

Let's not revisit that mistake!

** Posting Complete Articles or Videos **

Seahawks.NET/NET Nation does NOT allow complete articles posted from outside sources. Just a short paragraph or so with a link to the rest of the article IS ALLOWED.

You may NOT post premium or subscription based articles in their entirety, no exceptions. You may NOT post video containing a game or movie in its entirety, no exceptions. We don't want to hear from any more lawyers.

Reference link >>> [urltargetblank]http://seahawks.net/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=20981#p267096[/urltargetblank]

Shoot! Well I tried guys!

Damn that JVille and his rules!

I like Happy Accidents. :179417:

 

[ivotuk]

Could you imagine a football player faking an injury?

I mean, other than Joe Nash and Joe Nash's backup, of course! :irishdrinkers:

Ugh...don't remind me of that Cincinnati game. It would have been okay if we would have won.

FYI, all those numbers, ideas, and articles mean Jack. How does Seattle's running game effect the throwing game? Ask Russell Wilson and the Seahawks Offense that scored the 3rd most points (428) in team history. Comparable to 2205 when we scored 452.

The run sets up the pass. If you force a team to be one dimensional with the pass, then you can "pin your ears back" and rush the passer.

Wilson, who had his fewest pass attempts since 2013, nonetheless put up some very impressive stats,

completing 65.6 of his throws for 3,448 yards and a career-best 35 touchdowns, with only seven interceptions.

He had his highest-ever passer rating of 110.9, which boosted his career mark to 100.3 -- second only to the Packers' Aaron Rodgers on the all-time list. His 67 rushing attempts, a career low, produced another 376 yards.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300000 ... lay-til-45

 

[hawk45]

We can be best among the peer group and still experience dead weight loss from the differences between expected values between rushes and passing. Put another way, Rushing, if it is your overriding tactic must achieve value closer to passing for it to really sing and keep the door wide open on those explosive plays which in turn amplify passing efficiency metrics.

Thoughts?

Of course it isn't just rushing attempts, but rushing effectiveness as well, that is required to have the desired effect on passing. If a team isn't built to rush, they can run ineffectively all day long and do nothing to improve passing.

But this is no revelation. The teams that feast off of play action - Rams and Hawks to name two - don't just run a lot, they run well.

The problem with taking the analysis much further than it's already gone is that you have a system where each transaction itself depends on matchups, recent history, personnel, a host of other factors, none of which can currently be modeled meaningfully across 32 NFL teams to make comparisons more useful.

If we want to compare run/pass mixes, the most meaningful comparison would be to teams built like ours, playing opponents like ours.

Or to put it succinctly like Tical: we've seen what our team looks like when we throw it all over the yard, and offensively that has never looked as good over the long term (final stretch of 2015 notwithstanding) as when we pounded it more.

The only thing I would change from last year is, I felt like with a run game as dominant as ours, our PA should have been even more deadly. Rams deadly. But we were pretty deadly all the same. But from an overall philosophy standpoint, I would absolutely not be going back to the analytical drawing board. We're talking a change of a few plays here or there.

 

[KiwiHawk]

We can be best among the peer group and still experience dead weight loss from the differences between expected values between rushes and passing. Put another way, Rushing, if it is your overriding tactic must achieve value closer to passing for it to really sing and keep the door wide open on those explosive plays which in turn amplify passing efficiency metrics.

To equate rushing productivity with passing productivity is to miss the point of rushing.

Pass plays very often end up with a receiver going out of bounds, an incompletion, or a penalty, all of which stop the clock. It's far rarer for rushing plays to end with a clock stoppage. This means the successful rushing team can control how much clock they consume, or don't consume, based on how quickly they line up to run the next play.

If, for instance, you are facing a red-hot passing team, you'll want to eat up as much time as possible because you want to keep their powerful offense on the sideline while wearing down their defense and resting yours. The best way to accomplish this is to get as near as possible to 10 yards every 3 downs, without going under that target. That is why consistent rushers like Lynch and Carson make our rushing game work, because they don't tend to break long runs, but frequently get 3-5 yards and usually end up falling forward.

At the end of the game, if you are ahead, you can grind out a long, slow drive that wins the game because the opponent never gets a chance to take the field. If you are behind, you can speed up your tempo to get more plays in.

Our rushing efficiency with Lynch was one of the big reasons we almost never lost a game by more than 10 points, because we reduced the number of drives in the game, and thus reduced points-against. Obviously, having a premier defense had something to say in that as well.

I recall a game vs Denver, around the 1999 season, where Denver was ahead and in position to score. They could have knelt on the ball and run out the clock, but they chose to go for the score. We got the ball, scored quickly, made a successful on-side kick, and scored again to force overtime. Denver eventually won, but the point is had they simply knelt on the ball they would have won in regulation without risk. That's why Pete Carroll so often values ending the game on offense, because you control the outcome. Having a strong rushing game enables that because of the clock control it provides.

None of that relates to AYPA. AYPA relates to a brute-force game plan with no finesse or strategy. While it works well when it works, there are many times it fails, such as when you meet a great defense, or play in poor conditions, or an off game from your QB.

We play 8 games outdoors in one of the rainiest cities in the US, but more importantly playoff games are played (when not in domes) in pretty much universally poor conditions. Given the problems prolific passing offenses can have in inclement conditions, having a strong rushing game when we are likely to face those conditions - particularly when it counts - makes a lot of sense.

Add a potent defense to poor conditions, and you have 2/3 of the causes for a passing offense to falter. In XLVIII, we had the combination of a potent defense and a QB off his game, and they only managed 8 points. Imagine if that game had also been played in the snow.

 

[mrt144]

We can be best among the peer group and still experience dead weight loss from the differences between expected values between rushes and passing. Put another way, Rushing, if it is your overriding tactic must achieve value closer to passing for it to really sing and keep the door wide open on those explosive plays which in turn amplify passing efficiency metrics.

Thoughts?

Of course it isn't just rushing attempts, but rushing effectiveness as well, that is required to have the desired effect on passing. If a team isn't built to rush, they can run ineffectively all day long and do nothing to improve passing.

But this is no revelation. The teams that feast off of play action - Rams and Hawks to name two - don't just run a lot, they run well.

The problem with taking the analysis much further than it's already gone is that you have a system where each transaction itself depends on matchups, recent history, personnel, a host of other factors, none of which can currently be modeled meaningfully across 32 NFL teams to make comparisons more useful.

If we want to compare run/pass mixes, the most meaningful comparison would be to teams built like ours, playing opponents like ours.

Or to put it succinctly like Tical: we've seen what our team looks like when we throw it all over the yard, and offensively that has never looked as good over the long term (final stretch of 2015 notwithstanding) as when we pounded it more.

The only thing I would change from last year is, I felt like with a run game as dominant as ours, our PA should have been even more deadly. Rams deadly. But we were pretty deadly all the same. But from an overall philosophy standpoint, I would absolutely not be going back to the analytical drawing board. We're talking a change of a few plays here or there.

Well that's part of what is seemingly ineffable - okay, so perhaps it is a few changes here and there, but what informs one of those specific points and gives the 'aha' moment that perhaps there was a better call or action? To refer back to my own gaming hobby, sometimes you can do everything right and the dice don't validate it. Sometimes you can do a lot of 'wrong' stuff and the dice don't care and you waltz away winning 3-0. FWIW I am spearheading the site's annual newsletter and am conducting an interview with the top flight coaches on the site to pick their brain in how they approach Blood Bowl. I digress.

But what makes the call of spot changes difficult is we aren't privy to the underlying decision theory among the coaching staff. We can only hear what they publicly state and then expressions of their takeaways implemented in game planning and game calling. It's not very satisfying to the curious type who wants to know how things work and how people tick.

Let's take a step back and think about this in another way - what separates good coaching from great coaching. I would reckon that a lot of it resides in a je ne sais quoi but that is not satisfying (and doesn't speak to characteristics like morale provisioning to players, which is not to be discounted). To me, I think the separation is in intution and manifestations of that intuition. What feels best in the moment given the circumstances and parameter structure of the game itself and being 'correct' more often than the peer group. What one ascribes to luck in poker isn't luck at all (mostly) - it's a better intuition of how to play the hand than the other guys at the table using the information available. It's is better intuitive risk management. I don't think that is a far cry from separation of coaching peers. Where am I going with this?

Oh right, so where I am going is that even if I am fully disabused of the notion that pass/run ratios matter, if I think that focusing on team strengths and playing towards them is a good thing and having a core consistency and pillars provides stability to launch off from, there is something unsatisfying with the risk intuition of Schotty where it feels like an overtly dogmatic approach overrules adaptability to circumstance and game parameters. And it isn't even rooted in what I would do or what another peer would do. I have wild ideas that are disreputable, I admit. It is rooted in assessing whether the team itself is getting the results it strives for on its own terms. The entire premise of a magic number rubs me wrong so thoroughly. The Dallas playoff game still rubs me the wrong way.

AgentDib and KiwiHawk, I will respond to your post later but a sexy wife beckons and I am not one to pass or run on that.

 

[chris98251]

What kills me is people want to categorize and Statistic size every Nuance of everything. Football by definition is a game of emotion, passion and psychology. You want to beat a guy and cause doubts, you want to take the heart of a team away, you want to make them remember they had no chance for the next time and create a Aura of a certain image. You want that team to feel they have no chance when they play you.

 

[mrt144]

What kills me is people want to categorize and Statistic size every Nuance of everything. Football by definition is a game of emotion, passion and psychology. You want to beat a guy and cause doubts, you want to take the heart of a team away, you want to make them remember they had no chance for the next time and create a Aura of a certain image. You want that team to feel they have no chance when they play you.

I mean, isn't one of the most important parts of coaching cladding your team from the emotional roller coaster of a game to help them maintain focus and perform to the best of their ability? I am not discounting that, I just don't speak to it because I think PC is pretty much one of the best if not the best with that in the midst of the game. Intermediate to long term, maybe not as much (as evidenced by the obvious discontent by former players. I don't take it with a grain of salt that some truly excellent and one of a kind players had their issues with leadership - too much 'trust me' and not enough 'accountability') I take it for granted that Pete is an excellent game day coach vis a vis morale. Maybe I should pepper my thoughts with that acknowledgment?

Let me ask you though - what does all that psychological warfare do when the other coach and team is less susceptible to it? How does one know about this beforehand? On our own end, there is an overriding of philosophy that boils down to "We defy you to stop us despite you having good hunches of what we do." That can be very disruptive and frustrating for the other team. Trying to run a psyche game on a more disciplined team might not lead to that outcome and then what are you left with? Your players and tactics and strategy. I would not make an assumption that other teams and coaches can be manipulated until there is some sort of basis for it in experience - both in tape analysis and in real time events.

Also consider how this cuts the other way - the Hawks under PC have not been exactly the most disciplined team. Some of that is the talent itself. Ifedi incurring holding penalty works against the psyche game and elevates the tactical and strategic game's importance because when put into a 2nd and 13, setting up your best shot at a first down seems a bit more important than trying set up a con down the road because it possibly allows for more run in setting up the con - you get more inflection points to work your psyche game. Getting a DPI on 3rd and 16 also cuts the other way and is a morale zapper.

That same notion of 'what are you left with' is the basis of a lot of poking and prodding and subsequent focus on coaching. I see players as something that can only do so much - they either make the plays or they don't make the plays. Coaches get a sense of the talent through direct contact and direction and practice, so in turn, they should have a better sense of how that player makes the team plug along and function. From the perch of a fan, saying that so and so needs to play better and be better is bordering on self evidence. Players, especially team players, don't think how they play is unimpeachable and beyond reproach. From RW to whoever the 46th dude on the game day roster knows, implicitly AND explicitly they need to perform their damn best. Coaching can nurture that or crush it. But alas, it is a domain we have even less access to than what we see on the field.

Players also suffering injuries and attrition in sports has a real impact. An unavailable yet integral player to how the team operates is not an arbitrary impediment thrown down as a test of grit at mettle, it's the reality of the game that should be accounted for in drawing up plans and ordering actions. I find no solace in excusing outcomes because of injuries or loss of talent. I see that adaptive ability as one integral facet of coaching ability. I am not going to suggest that it is equal to or more important than morale. That isn't the point. The point is impediments allow creativity and adaptability to shine. In the current NBA Finals, the Warriors having so many banged up players isn't an excuse for Steve Kerr or the team itself if they wind up losing. It's their job to find a way to overcome with what is left. If they can do it, praise be, if they can't there is something to learn from it and work on for next season (or next playoffs). A coach's task in my mind is accounting for roster instability. Lack of success isn't lack of trying, I know.

Let me ask, since I stopped playing football at 15 and have only revisited it via Madden, Fantasy Football, and conversation/analysis on various sites - how do you determine if your psyche game is working in real time? Maybe that's an even more fundamental question that I'm after - how do coaches determine during a game if they're pulling the right moves at the right time and setting the table for success?