KiwiHawk":rzyygsdh said:To equate rushing productivity with passing productivity is to miss the point of rushing.mrt144":rzyygsdh said: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.
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.
This is something that some amount of analytical thought has tried to look at. Are the supposed downsides of passing really as laden with downsides as often as orthodox suggests? I think there is some basis in suggesting that the clock stoppage and clock management issues with passing are not as prominent given the observed passing game in our status quo. A short pass with a >67% chance of being caught functions similarly to rushing but has a higher ceiling in yardage potential - this is what value differences between rushing and passing suggests a wee bit - that the yardage values, even accounting for incompletes and sacks and whatnot are greater with passing. We live in an ecosystem where that is shown as not only possible but is almost a baseline for what qualifies an 'average' QB. Tactically, one can design plays that keep the clock moving on a completion and increase the ceiling of potential yardage. Less out routes and more slants, as a petty example.
Second, there is the notion that accruing first downs, period, is more efficient in eating clock than the methodology to get there. By example, a 16 play drive clocking in at 10 minutes and yielding 7 points likely eats 5 minutes at least. In contrast, three drives that go three and out yields 0 points and consumes at most 5 and a half minutes. This is to say nothing of what's happening on defense and what they're doing. Between these extremes lies the game of football. Perhaps there should be a time qualified point metric for drives?
Third, one of the things that works against the idea of setting up stuff for later is an indeterminate game state in the future. You can assume you'll keep the game close and then wallop them when you need to after setting it all up but...that opportunity may not develop and the parameters of what needs to be done may change.
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.
Agree and let me lay out how I think it works:
Football is a game of opportunities.
Offensive objectives:
Make the most of opportunities by netting points. Failing points, ensure you put the opponent in a spot that is less likely to yield points for themselves. Offense can't control what the opposing offense does with their opportunities and thus are somewhat reactive to the game state.
Deprive the absolute amount of opportunities for the opposing offense by consuming clock.
Defensive objectives:
Limit the value of opportunities by depriving the other team of points.
Create more absolute offensive opportunities for themselves by truncating clock consumption for the opposing offense and outright stopping drives before points can be netted.
While defense is mostly reactive on each play, they are less reactive to the game state. There are peculiar instances towards the end of the game where it might behoove the defense to allow a score because of the game state but for most quarters of most games, those two objectives are paramount. And even when the game state suggests that allowing a score to enable your own retaliation to win in the final moments, very few DCs or defensive players will actualize that - they'd prefer to stop it outright, which is their prerogative. Conversely there are the peculiar instances on offense where NOT scoring is more valuable. Players taking a knee on the one yard line in lieu of scoring with less than 90 seconds when they're up by a point and it disallows any potential retaliatory score comes to mind. You allude to that down below.
Pete Carroll stated public philosophy conforms to this. I don't see how PC and I are a gulf apart on this outlook. You can and will win games in the 4th quarter when the game state allows for it.
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.
Agreed! Even doing a cursory 'hump analysis' shows that Lynch was in fact money (He was a top RB from 2012 to 2014 across the league and fundamental to the Hawks themselves) at doing what was asked and then some to keep the offense humming until the knives could be pulled out to seal it. I am absolutely into the argument that with the right pieces, the Hawks are basically an unstoppable monster. But that kicks the question over to personnel which is an aspect of the team where there are a ton of unknowns and moving parts. Like, I'm way up on Dissly now and cold on Vannett. Are either of these the right players for the Hawks? Well only one is available at the moment soooooo...
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.
Addressed above, but yes, these situations exist. They are not the norm de rigueur for most football games or game states though.
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.
Fair, which leads back to the imperative of 'know thyself' and an interesting question about how exactly you differentiate your strategy and tactics based on venue and opponent. Agentdib has insisted that sizing up the opponent is just as important as sizing yourself up and I agree but havent given it much voice because there is little personal agency in what other teams do. You can't control for whether the opposing team is stout in the run game without putting 8 in the box to seal it. You can't control for whether it'll be a perfect Autumn day in October at the Clink. There are a lot of things out of the control of agents and actors in football that none the less exist as impediments towards running your game how you want to run it. At the player level. At the coaching level.
This actually leads me to thinking about scouting and self scouting. All things considered do you think the Hawks self scout or scout other teams as well, better or worse than the peers we'd like to whoop on in the playoffs? How would you start to approach that question with the little information we do have, including public statements that effectively state "Try and stop us". I think maybe this is where my ire should be focused but that is so thoroughly behind the veil that trying to tie anything we observe on field or through public statements to that facet of coaching is very high hanging fruit, if it exists at all.