JS-""Crunching Numbers on Run Game"

[Bretsky]

Crunching the Numbers
Packers hope self-scouting can fix the run game
Posted: Oct. 26, 2007

Greg A. Bedard
E-MAIL


The buzzword around the Green Bay Packers during and after the bye week was "self-scout."

Guess that's technically two words - maybe we need a little self-scouting around here - but coach Mike McCarthy nevertheless used the phrase six times in news conferences since the Packers last played, a 17-14 victory over the Washington Redskins on Oct. 14.

Basically, the Packers, like all teams, use the bye week to look under the hood and see how things are running.

There was a lot of film work involved - all the coaches locked themselves in a room and watched every single play of the season so far - but there was also a lot of number crunching at work.

One obvious area in need of dissection was the Packers' 32nd-ranked rushing offense. If Green Bay is to finish strong in its final 10 games, that unit needs to improve. So the coaches looked at the film and numbers to see what was working (not much) and what wasn't working in order to set a better course for the second half of the season.

Here's some of what the Packers coaches likely discovered, after we did a little crunching of the numbers centered on that department, according to statistics by STATS LLC:

The Packers should run to the right side more.

Of the 107 carries by Green Bay running backs, 45 went to the left side (42.1%), 23 to the middle (21.5%), and 39 (36.4%) to the right.

And based on the per-carry averages for each side - left (3.8), middle (2.2), right (4.1) - two things are apparent: the Packers should stay away from the middle of the field, and it's time to ride the backs of right tackle Mark Tauscher and right guards Junius Coston and Jason Spitz to start the second half of the season.

How the running backs line up doesn't matter overall.

The Packers used four primary alignments in the first six games: shotgun (11% of carries), split backs (17.3%), I-formation (51.9%) and lone back (20.2%).

Here are the averages for those formations: shotgun (3.7), split backs (3.8), I-formation (3.9) and lone back (3.4). So there isn't a huge disparity among them. (NOTE: For some reason STATS is missing three running backs carries in this category that went for minus-10 yards.)

But there are a few conclusions to be drawn on an individual basis.

DeShawn Wynn is best in the I-formation (26 carries, 129 yards, 5.0 average, 2 touchdowns) and shotgun (4 carries, 22 yards, 5.5 average, one touchdown). He has not been as successful when the backs are split (5 carries, 14 yards, 2.8 average).

Brandon Jackson really struggled in the I-formation (8 carries, 29 yards, 3.6 average). His best formation is being the lone back (4.5), but he's only gotten two carries there.

Vernand Morency has shown promise in the I-formation (7 carries, 35 yards, 5.0 average) but surprisingly has struggled in the shotgun (3 for 8, 2.7) and as the lone setback (4 for 11, 2.8), even though he is the Packers' quickest running back.

Spread the defense out.

This is the one area where the numbers are definitive.

When the Packers line up with 0-2 wide receivers - an astonishing 76.6% of the 107 running back carries - the backs average 3.0 yard per carry (82 for 245).

When Green Bay uses three or more receivers, the average per carry jumps to 5.5 (25 for 137).

Those numbers are also backed up when you look at the allocation of the tight end. When the Packers line up with no tight ends, the running backs average 5.9 yards per carry (20 for 118) as opposed to 3.0 (87 for 264) when 1-3 tight ends are on the field.

On Monday night, the Packers' 32nd-ranked run offense (65.7 yards) meets the 32nd-ranked run defense of the Broncos (176.2). So if there was ever a game for Green Bay to get things straightened out on the ground, this would be it.

Based on the numbers, the Packers might be wise to line up in the I-formation with four receivers and no tight ends, and then run Wynn to the right side.

At least that's what their self-scouting should have told them.

[RashanGary]

Interesting stats. We'll see if the focus on the same areas as Bedard highlighted. I do think their best spot to run is out of spread offenses because LB's are so focused on stopping the slants.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Brandon Jackson really struggled in the I-formation (8 carries, 29 yards, 3.6 average). His best formation is being the lone back (4.5), but he's only gotten two carries there.

A very ridiculous story. Here he's making judgments based on 8 and 2 carries.

None of the backs have had enough carries to mean much. I put more stock in a PackerRats poll than the statistics thus far. I've seen people post that this or that back is averaging 4+ yards per carry, so things are pointed in the right direction. ypc means very little until a large number of carries can average-out the distorting long runs. Trust your own eyes.

[Patler]

Brandon Jackson really struggled in the I-formation (8 carries, 29 yards, 3.6 average). His best formation is being the lone back (4.5), but he's only gotten two carries there.

A very ridiculous story. Here he's making judgments based on 8 and 2 carries.

None of the backs have had enough carries to mean much. I put more stock in a PackerRats poll than the statistics thus far. I've seen people post that this or that back is averaging 4+ yards per carry, so things are pointed in the right direction. ypc means very little until a large number of carries can average-out the distorting long runs. Trust your own eyes.

I agree completely. Making any conclusions on so few carries is ridiculous. The conclusions based on team total carries have some significance, but the conclusions for many of the individual categories are laughable, even with respect to Wynn. He's good from the shotgun, but not from split-back formations based on 4 carries and 5 carries respectively? I would want to see the individual results for those nine carries before reaching any conclusions. Did one big gain or loss impact the average of either or both?

I've forgotten which game and which ball carrier(s) but in one game Colledge was responsible for two 4-5 yard losses. Both times the ball carrier was drilled almost as he took the handoff. How did they even know what to count those as? Those should not be two of the missing carries the article mentions for totals based on formation. That would be known. But how did they know where the run was supposed to go?

[esoxx]

Bedard has made some very curious statements in his articles. He seems to shoot from the hip and try to jam an article together based on a snipet of data.
When he wrote that the '83 Redskins went on to roll the Raiders in the Super Bowl, he lost me. If he can be that far off factually why would I take anything he writes with anything more than a grain of salt?

[Bretsky]

All content aside; he's not interesting.

Maybe it's just me and I need to find some viewpoints out of an article to agree or disagree with.

McGinn has always been the top dog. Silverstein is pretty good. I miss Cliff.

The rest of JS is a bunch of muck

[Patler]

I find the subject matter of many of his articles to be good, but I find his actual work to be incomplete or superficial. This one was both incomplete and superficial, in my opinion. There actually seems to be a basis there for a real good analysis. But, he didn't do it.

Several times I have read the title of one of his articles, and immediately thought, "This will be interesting!" But after reading it there are too many holes for the article to have any value.

[run pMc]

I think this is just a case of JSO needing a story.
I also think GB has run the ball so little and spread it among so many backs that there isn't much of a good sample size (statistically speaking) to make what I would consider good assessments.

I suppose something is better than nothing.

Running to the right makes sense -- Colledge and Clifton aren't exactly blasting people in the run game. I do like the idea of spreading the field a bit, or running out of a 3WR set. By playing DD, GJ & JJ, they would force a nickel D and hopefully help out the OL. The RBs aren't the most talented group, but I haven't seen many lanes for them to run through.

[hoosier]

Crunching the Numbers
Packers hope self-scouting can fix the run game
Posted: Oct. 26, 2007


Greg A. Bedard
Based on the numbers, the Packers might be wise to line up in the I-formation with four receivers and no tight ends, and then run Wynn to the right side.

At least that's what their self-scouting should have told them.

If they run I-formation with four WRs they'll get flagged for 12 men on the field.

[Carolina_Packer]

Crunching the Numbers
Packers hope self-scouting can fix the run game
Posted: Oct. 26, 2007


Greg A. Bedard
Based on the numbers, the Packers might be wise to line up in the I-formation with four receivers and no tight ends, and then run Wynn to the right side.

At least that's what their self-scouting should have told them.

If they run I-formation with four WRs they'll get flagged for 12 men on the field.

Now you're just nit-picking. :wink:

[falco]

boy, 12 men on the field didn't seem to be a penalty when the bears did it a few sundays ago.

[Bretsky]

boy, 12 men on the field didn't seem to be a penalty when the bears did it a few sundays ago.

:bclap:

[woodbuck27]

boy, 12 men on the field didn't seem to be a penalty when the bears did it a few sundays ago.

:bclap:

Maybe the officials see the Packer colors a lot easier than the darkness of Bear colors?

Possibly those officials are more afraid of brawney Bear fans and get all fumbley finger'd with their flags.