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)
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.Originally Posted by Patler
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
In the absence of any more specific information the only possible answer is 50:50: either you make it or you don't.
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
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
(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.
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.
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.
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.
Neither "Success Rate" or "Expected Points Added" of run vs. pass under this analysis considers the score, time remaining, defensive/special teams impacts, or many other variables. This failure also undermines/nullifies the conclusion that coaches are only thinking one play at a time and not at the "game level."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.
It's clear that NFL coaches, contrary to the conclusion he draws, are very willing to risk "failing" on specific plays to set up greater successes later, protect a deficiency in anther area, and/or put themselves in position to win the game by expiring the time clock.
The suggested conclusion that teams should pass every time and go for it on 4th down until this over-simplified analytical perspective reaches equilibrium does not encompass other real-world complexities into its model.
Last edited by vince; 09-27-2016 at 06:27 AM.
Much of the work being done focuses on the first and third quarters. When game plan is likely to be a higher priority than game situation. Or at least, as high as it will be.
Expected Points are based on that situation, when the game is within 10 points. That removes time as a factor. EPA definitely takes into account field position.
I would argue that a focus on the clock in the 3rd Quarter is counter productive if you have the lead. If you are not having success (failure to secure first downs) or EPA (increasing chances of scoring), then you are at best thinking three plays ahead, either causing an opponent to call timeouts. At worst, you have chosen very early to engage in a low variability strategy when your opponent will be engaged in a high variability one. If you are trying to milk clock that early, you will give your opponent more opportunities from better field position, making the high variability approach more successful.
There are simply too many variables to think of clock mainly in the third quarter. You do better by your defense if you move the ball and score.
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