If you gain 7 or 8 yards, maybe, but how often does that happen with this O Line? Even then, likely as not, they will run on second, gain 1 or 2, then run and fail on 3rd and 1. Put the ball in the hands of the Franchise, and let him win it with Pass-First.Originally Posted by pbmax
What could be more GOOD and NORMAL and AMERICAN than Packer Football?
In the 2nd half our 1st down runs went for 8,7,0,4,2,-1. So that is 50% success rate against a team down multiple scores knowing you are trying to run more and grind clock.
But Rodgers leads the league in frumpy expressions and negative body language on the sideline, which makes him, like Josh Allen, a unique double threat.
-Tim Harmston
Results of Packers plays on 1st down.
Passes - 0-49-2-0-2-0-5-0-13-0-9
Runs - 3-5-3-(-1)-3-8-7-0-4-2-(-1)
I am not worried about the first down run. I AM worried about run-run-pass.
That said, the entire argument about passing is in that line. Passing netted 2 first downs and 1 huge change in field position.
Running guaranteed you needed another play to keep possession.
That is not to argue for passing all the time. We have seen what happens to this offense when it goes entirely to the pass and the defense has adjusted. You don't want to increase the number of times you go deep because you must.
But it does demonstrate that a failure to pass dampens offensive output.
Running, assuming moderate success, does help keep ALL your other running and passing options open.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
To all the football nerds and statisticians out there:
On any particular down, with less than 10 yards to go for a first down, what are the odds of successfully running for the first down vs the odds of successfully passing for the first down?
One time Lombardi was disgusted with the team in practice and told them they were going to have to start with the basics. He held up a ball and said: "This is a football." McGee immediately called out, "Stop, coach, you're going too fast," and that gave everyone a laugh.
John Maxymuk, Packers By The Numbers
(15:00) E.Lacy right end to GB 28 for 3 yards (K.Van Noy).
(13:28) (No Huddle, Shotgun) E.Lacy up the middle to 50 for 5 yards (T.Walker).
(12:12) (No Huddle, Shotgun) A.Rodgers pass incomplete short middle to J.Cook.
(2:45) A.Rodgers pass deep middle to J.Nelson to DET 11 for 49 yards (T.Wilson).
(1:57) E.Lacy left tackle to DET 8 for 3 yards (W.Gilberry).
(:33) T.Montgomery right end to GB 32 for -1 yards (Q.Diggs).
2nd QTR
(14:51) A.Rodgers pass short right to R.Rodgers for 2 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
(11:40) (Shotgun) A.Rodgers pass incomplete deep middle to J.Cook. GB-J.Cook was injured during the play.
Penalty wiped out completion to Ripper
(4:37) A.Rodgers pass incomplete short right to E.Lacy.
(4:03) (No Huddle) E.Lacy right end to DET 34 for 3 yards (W.Gilberry; T.Whitehead).
(2:54) A.Rodgers pass short right to J.Nelson to DET 20 for 5 yards (D.Slay).
(:32) (Shotgun) A.Rodgers pass incomplete deep left to R.Rodgers.
Half
(8:23) E.Lacy left tackle to GB 33 for 8 yards (T.Whitehead, T.Walker).
(7:07) (No Huddle) E.Lacy right end to GB 46 for 7 yards (G.Quin).
(5:58) (No Huddle, Shotgun) A.Rodgers pass short left to J.Perillo to DET 32 for 13 yards (G.Quin).
(5:23) (No Huddle) E.Lacy left end to DET 32 for no gain (Z.Gooden, N.Lawson).
4th QTR
(12:27) E.Lacy right tackle to GB 32 for 4 yards (A.Zettel; Z.Gooden).
(11:01) E.Lacy right end to GB 48 for 2 yards (K.Hyder).
(6:35) A.Rodgers pass incomplete short left to T.Davis. (loved this call after short series, best sign of 2nd half)
(3:34) E.Lacy up the middle to GB 24 for -1 yards (A.Robinson).
(2:30) (Shotgun) A.Rodgers pass short left to D.Adams to GB 47 for 9 yards (N.Lawson). (second best call of half, especially after a drop by the DA)
(2:00) A.Rodgers kneels to DET 45 for -1 yards.
Ignoring the kneel down, I get 11 runs and 10 throws. Might have missed one.
Last edited by pbmax; 09-26-2016 at 11:52 AM.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
That passing line is a little incredible: even on a day when Rodgers's performance said "We're back!" his first-down passing efficiency still leaves a lot to be desired. For argument's sake let's say that anything less than four yards on first down is a failure. Seven out of 11 first down passes were objective fails, one was a near fail, and only three were objective successes. The eleven first down run plays were just as bad or worse in terms of number of objective successes, but many of the nominal failures still kept the down-and-distance reasonable. The answer isn't pass more or get out of the tendency to run on first and second downs, it's that the Packers need to find a way to increase their overall first-down efficiency.
In the absence of any more specific information the only possible answer is 50:50: either you make it or you don't.
Ok, so one of the short passes was an objective success (2 yard TD) and another fail (incomplete) was mitigated by circumstances (stuck deep in their own end with 32 seconds remaining in half). And it looks like our resident nerd erroneously duplicated the 2-0 line at the end of the first part of the series, leaving us with nine first-down passing attempts, of which four were objective fails and four objective wins and one (the five-yarder) an ok result. That is getting better but still doesn't rise much above average.
OK, you are counting the 2 yard pass to Ripper that was nullified by penalty. Now the numbers match.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Ok, let's say it's 3rd down with 7 yds to go? According to the stats, do the odds favor a run or a pass?
My point is the statistics must say that from a certain down and distance either or run or a pass has the best chance to gain a first down. If they don't, then the whole discussion about throwing vs running on 1st down is moot. Or, the statistics and odds are so situation dependent that a discussion about them is absurd.
Thus, "gut feel" for the situation might have just as much validity as statistics.
It gets back to what you referred to before as "momentum."
One time Lombardi was disgusted with the team in practice and told them they were going to have to start with the basics. He held up a ball and said: "This is a football." McGee immediately called out, "Stop, coach, you're going too fast," and that gave everyone a laugh.
John Maxymuk, Packers By The Numbers
More fuel for the fire...When a HC calls for a RB plunge into the line on lst down, is he doing it 1) in hopes of actually gaining significant yardage; or 2) in hopes of making successive pass plays more successful by "keeping the defense honest?"
One time Lombardi was disgusted with the team in practice and told them they were going to have to start with the basics. He held up a ball and said: "This is a football." McGee immediately called out, "Stop, coach, you're going too fast," and that gave everyone a laugh.
John Maxymuk, Packers By The Numbers
Both. Some threat of balance is always desired. However, the Derek Loville Effect should have taught offensive coaches that Defenses know when you don't have the goods.
Just as Defenses ignored Loville in the backfield for the 49ers, I am not sure the Packers have caused anyone to load up the box (other than end of game stalls) since Starks in 2010 (end of season).
Belichick is not the only D coach who ignores what a team doesn't do well.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Most downs are not zero sum downs, however. On third and seven the odds almost always favor passing, but first-and-ten is obviously a very different story: passing is far more likely to get you another first down, but running might be a better way to set up second and short. And so on.
So, in other words whether or not we run or pass on first down doesn't mean a hill of beans in trying to sort out a "conservative" vs an "aggressive" strategery. Maybe we should be looking at 3rd and 2, or 2nd and 5, as more appropriate indicators.
Or maybe, like pornography, you know it when you see it. I saw aggressiveness in the 1st half. I saw Stubby dial it back in the 2nd half.
One time Lombardi was disgusted with the team in practice and told them they were going to have to start with the basics. He held up a ball and said: "This is a football." McGee immediately called out, "Stop, coach, you're going too fast," and that gave everyone a laugh.
John Maxymuk, Packers By The Numbers
I might have, but not intentionally. I just copied it quickly from the play by play list.
I was surprised by the number of incomplete passes on first down. It "felt" like they were more successful than that.
I am not sure conservative versus aggressive would show up in the percentage of first downs on any given down by pass or run.
Where it does show up is in yardage gained and points scored. When you combine the yardage from the play and the rate of success, to get a likely yardage for a choice run v pass, passing comes out ahead. More so when you track the points gained.
There are downsides to choosing passing and not all game situations are alike. But in the first and third quarters, passing is more productive.
You can see some of this here: http://archive.advancedfootballanaly...cess-rate.html
Burke is saying coaches think in a one step, success or no, proposition. Their success rate is whether or not the play achieved its goal. It correlates well with actual game choices and play calling. Generally, teams look to get halfway to the first down first and second down. Third down success is to convert. But those calculations ignore the unequal payoffs of passing versus running regarding keeping drives alive and scoring.
Basically, the coach cannot have a calculator or computer on the sideline telling them when they have maximized their payoffs. But they can, through institutional memory, training and observation (film review and live game setting) see what plays worked and what didn't.
They are literally counting (or stacking) success, not assessing probability.
Last edited by pbmax; 09-26-2016 at 05:18 PM.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Money Quote from Burke:
Implications
Coaches appear to be overly focused on play-level success (represented by SR) and not focused enough on drive-level (represented by EPA) and game-level success (represented by WPA). They’ll spend late nights in the film room dissecting every possible match-up for the slightest advantage on a single play, but they’ll ignore the numbers that suggest they pass more or go for it on 4th down. They’re looking down at the sport from a 10-foot ladder when they should also be looking at it from the 10,000-foot level.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
I usually am not a fan of such articles, but this one made sense to me. I've often thought that a lot of coaches can't see the forest for the trees. They examine plays in isolation rather than in context. From the coach's point of view every well-designed play should go for that necessary 1st down or that winning TD if the players just "execute."
After a loss coaches AND players will often say that the players just didn't "execute." What's virtually never said is that the coach didn't put his players in a position to succeed often enough, regardless of execution. And this has to do with game planning and the things the article talks about.
In fact, I think sometimes fans and reporters are in a better position to judge than the coach, purely because most fans see the big picture of the game rather than getting caught up in the x's and o's of each play.
The article concludes:
Question: Is "Burke" Tex?The prescriptive analysis remains the same. Generally, teams should be passing more often on 1st and 2nd down, and running more often on 3rd down and in the red zone.
One time Lombardi was disgusted with the team in practice and told them they were going to have to start with the basics. He held up a ball and said: "This is a football." McGee immediately called out, "Stop, coach, you're going too fast," and that gave everyone a laugh.
John Maxymuk, Packers By The Numbers
He is ex-Air Force and working for ESPN now. He might be TexI usually am not a fan of such articles, but this one made sense to me. I've often thought that a lot of coaches can't see the forest for the trees. They examine plays in isolation rather than in context. From the coach's point of view every well-designed play should go for that necessary 1st down or that winning TD if the players just "execute."
After a loss coaches AND players will often say that the players just didn't "execute." What's virtually never said is that the coach didn't put his players in a position to succeed often enough, regardless of execution. And this has to do with game planning and the things the article talks about.
In fact, I think sometimes fans and reporters are in a better position to judge than the coach, purely because most fans see the big picture of the game rather than getting caught up in the x's and o's of each play.
The article concludes:
Question: Is "Burke" Tex?
I think coaches go beyond the single factor success-or-not when they are designing an offense and game planning. If they thought solely about success rate, the run/pass ratios never would have changed.
But they don't ALL have to be thinking big picture. There is a lot of monkey see monkey do. I think McCarthy is in between, he reviews from 10,000 feet but I am not sure he thinks in terms of probabilities. I do give him credit for being willing to try things. He could be Jeff Fisher and do it by the book. You don't get second guessed as hard that way.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote