KiwiHawk":rzyygsdh said:
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.
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.
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...
Addressed above, but yes, these situations exist. They are not the norm de rigueur for most football games or game states though.
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.
