Teams Should Pass Even More

[HarveyWallbangers]

I think a lot of us were aware of some of these stats, but they are interesting.

From ESPN Magazine:

1) First play of a drive. Teams should pass. Drives that begin with passes generate more yards, first downs, and points than those that start with the rush. NFL teams gained 5.6 adjusted net yards on passing plays versus 4.2 yards per rush. 55% of 1st and 10 runs gained less than four yards.
2) 2nd and 10. Pass. An astonishing 41.6% of the time teams ran the ball on 2nd and 10--yet 2nd and 10 passes gained 5.5 adjusted net yards on passing plays versus 4.8 yards per rush. On top of that, offenses gained a 1st down on 27.7% of passing plays on 2nd and 10--while offenses gained a 1st down on just 12.8% of rushing plays on 2nd and 10. Coaches will tend to follow incompletions with a running play, either out of an instinct to avoid repeated failure or to make their plays look random. (I'd add also because they think it will put them in better down and distance on 3rd down.)
3) 3rd and 8. Run a draw play. Teams gained an average of 6.4 yards per draw play on 3rd and 8+. (Non-draw runs gained 5.6 yards per play.) In identical situations when teams opted for a pass they averaged just 5.9 adjusted yards per play.
4) Eschew the blitz. Drop back into coverage. In obvious pass situations against good QBs, teams should drop into coverage. The top QBs saw their collective performance improve against the blitz in 2009. (Note: Aaron Rodgers had a 113.6 QB rating against the blitz last year. The other QBs that had a much better performance against the blitz vs. coverage included Matthew Stafford and Jay Cutler.)
5) Go for it on 4th down and 2 or less. Stats are overwhelming that this is the right thing to do. Also, the stats say teams should run the ball in these situations. Teams pass 67.2% of the time in these situations--yet teams converted the play 70.0% of the time running the ball on 4th and 1 AND 55.6% of the time running the ball on 4th and 2. Meanwhile, teams converted the play just 53.8% of the time throwing the ball on 4th and 1 and just 46.0% of the time on 4th and 2. (Overall, 66.3% running the ball on 4th and 2 or less vs. 49.1% passing the ball on 4th and 2 or less.)

[mission]

I think teams should pass every play... well, the Packers at least. I think everyone should just run on us. :lol:

Anyway, interesting article. I'd like to see the numbers taken even further and include points teams score after stopping the offense on 4th down. Average length of those drives, touchdown success rate differential over "normal" change of possessions and all of that.

There should be a way to compare odds of success versus potential swings in outcome. Kind of like an 'expected value' calculation used in poker to determine optimal play.
http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/how-to-calculate-poker-odds4.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value (broader sense)

[Joemailman]

3) 3rd and 8. Run a draw play. Teams gained an average of 6.4 yards per draw play on 3rd and 8+. (Non-draw runs gained 5.6 yards per play.) In identical situations when teams opted for a pass they averaged just 5.9 adjusted yards per play.


Running the draw is like throwing a changeup in baseball. It works as long as the opponent is expecting something else. My guess is that if teams ran draws on 3rd and long more than they do now, the effectiveness would go down.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Running the draw is like throwing a changeup in baseball. It works as long as the opponent is expecting something else. My guess is that if teams ran draws on 3rd and long more than they do now, the effectiveness would go down.

I'd agree. I'd also say that I think teams should go for it on 4th and 1 more, but I'd probably still kick it on 4th and 2.

[bobblehead]

I call BS. Stats can be misleading. Jamaal Charles averaged 5.6 yards a play so they should give him the ball every play. RG averaged over 4 yards a run, so the statistical variance would suggest that handing him the ball 4 straight times will get you a first down about 96% of the time. but wait, we average like 7+ per pass attempt, so why do we ever get stopped??

Pass on first down is great, except when you toss an incompletion. Then you are in a bad situation for second down and more predictable. Also give me pick vs. fumble numbers on first down. Don't even get me started on predictability.

I admit the rule changes in the last 10 or so years have made it a pass first league, but you still gotta be able to pound the rock...don't believe me, look at the games the pack looked bad in last year. We ran the ball 13 times against cincinatti and they stopped honoring the run about a minute twenty six into the second quarter.

[hoosier]

It never ceases to amaze me, Bobblehead, that you can make so much sense in this room and so little in other quarters. :lol:

[pbmax]

It never ceases to amaze me, Bobblehead, that you can make so much sense in this room and so little in other quarters. :lol:
Except when he says you gotta be able to pound the rock. Just look at the Super Bowl participants. Not exactly three yards and a cloud of dust for either team.

Winning teams run when they are ahead to kill the clock. What happens before that, in order to get the lead, is a matter of what the team does well and it opponent. That and game theory.

[hoosier]

It never ceases to amaze me, Bobblehead, that you can make so much sense in this room and so little in other quarters. :lol:
Except when he says you gotta be able to pound the rock. Just look at the Super Bowl participants. Not exactly three yards and a cloud of dust for either team.

Winning teams run when they are ahead to kill the clock. What happens before that, in order to get the lead, is a matter of what the team does well and it opponent. That and game theory.

That's true with Indy the last couple of years, maybe not completely the case with New Orleans, who always have the threat of PJ Hill (I mean Pierre Thomas). But don't we also have to ask whether what worked for the Colts and Saints the last couple of years can really be implemented anywhere in the league at any time? I can think of a couple of factors that would limit a team's ability to throw at will and do so successfully. Maybe the three most important are scheme and personnel (the Packers certainly have what it takes, assuming their pass protection problems are solved) and geography (thowing up and down the field in a dome is one thing, doing it in Green Bay in late December or January is another).

[Tony Oday]

Or old Packer Teams...win in the first half and pound the rock and play D the 2nd half!

[hoosier]

Just to add to that: for the last couple of years Bill Polian, Tony Dungy and now Caldwell have been talking in the offseason and preseason about how the Colts need to run the ball better. If the only point were to avoid complacency, there are other things they could talk about: avoiding turnovers and doing a better job of sustaining drives in the first half, for example. I think the Colts would really prefer to be more of a balanced team (meaning being able to run the ball before they establish a lead, as they used to do with Edgerrin James). But part of the problem is that Polian, like Wolf, is reluctant to spend big $$ or high draft picks on offensive lineman, so they accumulate guys who are very good at pass pro but not so good as run blockers.

[bobblehead]

It never ceases to amaze me, Bobblehead, that you can make so much sense in this room and so little in other quarters. :lol:
Except when he says you gotta be able to pound the rock. Just look at the Super Bowl participants. Not exactly three yards and a cloud of dust for either team.

Winning teams run when they are ahead to kill the clock. What happens before that, in order to get the lead, is a matter of what the team does well and it opponent. That and game theory.

don't mischaracterize what I said, I say they must BE ABLE to pound the rock. I also said its a pass first league now (especially if you have a top notch QB).

Indy can and does run the ball effectively. Its also true that you can mitigate an average running game by using draws and screens.

You also are using the example of the most prolific passer in the history of the game to bolster your argument. In statistical terms thats called and outlier (I know you are probably aware of that, no sarcasm intended.)

Again, in summary. Pass first league, yes, but you must get positive yards on early downs and that is most effectively accomplished through the rush. When teams start saying they are gearing their defenses to stop the pass first and run second then we can revisit this.

[hoosier]

Bobblehead, Indy was horrible running the ball last year. They made those Packers teams of the early 80s and the early 90s look unstoppable on the ground. They were last in the league and their absymal rushing numbers were padded by the few runs they called while trailing.

[bobblehead]

Bobblehead, Indy was horrible running the ball last year. They made those Packers teams of the early 80s and the early 90s look unstoppable on the ground. They were last in the league and their absymal rushing numbers were padded by the few runs they called while trailing.

Its hard to get all the stats necessary to analyze it, but a couple of notes. They ran the ball less than any team in the NFL. They fumbled 3rd fewest times of anyone (Green Bay was 2nd lowest, a point I made in defending Grant). Indy was 11th in Rushing TD's, a cruicial point about needing to be able to pound it...in the Red Zone. I would be interested to see how many first down runs Indy got positive yards on, that is crucial to my opinion of being effective running the ball.

Other than playoffs, I watched exactly 2 Indy games last year. They ran it ok, and just enough to keep the D honest. I also notice that the colts spend a lot of 1st round picks on RB's. They must at least think running is very important. They also failed to burn out the clock in the super bowl and gave up 15 4th quarter points while scoring none and lost.

yea, I still think the ability to pound the rock is vital. I also stand by the point that using the greatest pocket passer of all time as proof you don't need to be effective running the ball as flawed.