Stategery

[Pugger]

Yes, the reason we lost that game was because we gave Big Ben all day long back there to pick apart our young non-starting caliber DBs. Did Pickett even play in that game?

[Bretsky]

Yes, the reason we lost that game was because we gave Big Ben all day long back there to pick apart our young non-starting caliber DBs. Did Pickett even play in that game?

Pickett was inactive so Jenkins, Jolly, and Raji played a ton of snaps.
Jenkins had a boatload of pressures but missed some sacks on poor tackling
Jolly stood up vs. the run pretty well
Raji IMO had a very sub par game

[pbmax]

Pickett did play some, he was not officially inactive. Raji started and played most of the snaps, but Pickett did get in.

Raji did get turned sideways on the line a few times. He is young, I have read that playing the nose takes some time to learn, especially for a former 3 technique DT. But he does not look outclassed on the line.

[Bretsky]

Pickett did play some, he was not officially inactive. Raji started and played most of the snaps, but Pickett did get in.

Raji did get turned sideways on the line a few times. He is young, I have read that playing the nose takes some time to learn, especially for a former 3 technique DT. But he does not look outclassed on the line.

Ah, I thought Pickett was inactive
Raji was ineffective Sunday and spent too much time on the ground and geting turned. Part of that might have been due to the increased snaps

[Maxie the Taxi]

pbmax, you mentioned the impact of the 1978 rule changes. I did some research and found some reading on the subject. Being an astute student of the game, you might find it interesting:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=482

The name of the piece is: "Why do teams run the ball?" The author is Chase Stuart.

Stuart begins by pointing out the obvious advantage in yards gained per pass play as compared per running play. But then he compensates for all the nuances of the passing game that might be overlooked. Eventually, he whittles the difference down to the point where he can sum up his article with the following two paragraphs:

As recently as 1985, rushing the ball was more effective than passing the ball. As recently as 2003, the difference in true yards per rush and pass was just 0.35 per attempt. The two rules enacted in 1978 severely diminished the impact on the two biggest negatives associated with passing the ball -- sacks and interceptions. In 1978, the average pass play netted just 3.66 yards per pass; three years later, the average pass play was worth 4.58 yards per pass. Teams passed 80% as often in 1978 as they ran; by '81, teams passed 7% more often than they ran.

The rule changes of 1978 answered the question: Why do teams pass the ball? There's a lot of game theory involved in the decision to run or pass, but it's clear that running was a more efficient option and had a lower variance. Now, running is less efficient (but with still a lower variance). Looking at true yards per pass overstates the passing option by about 55% from 1970-2007, and by about 37% over the past ten years. Combined with how not counting rushing touchdowns in yards per rush (understating the average run play by about 7%), and you can see, finally, why teams run the ball. Once you include the lower variance, the only question left is why don't teams run the ball more often?

Interesting, well-researched and thought-out stuff. I'd be interested in your take on it.

[Noodle]

If you are 40 years old or older, then you just can't help but feeling deep in your bones that real teams run the ball and that all this fancy pitch and catch crap is just AFL circus crap.

When the Dolphins won their first Super Bowl in the early seventies, Griese threw the ball a grand total of 11 times. The next year, they beat the Vikes and threw the ball 7 times. That's for the entire game.

So it's hard for us ol' timers to come to terms with all this dag nab flinging-the-football thing. Now leave me alone, get the hell off my yard, and let me take my nap.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Jesus fucking christ. We score 36 points and give up 37...and a certain poster is complaining about not running the ball.

The object of the game is to score more points than the opposition. At no point were the pack ever ahead comfortably and feeling like they controlled the game. Maybe Ty's memory is wrong, but Ty saw the steelers score 3 tds in the first half.

How about talking about a defense that gives up 37 points?

Did Ty actually read my post?

The only point that matters is the one you lose or win by.

McStubby didn't wait until the Pack was behind three scores before he went airborne. He went pass happy on the first snap.

He bet all his chips that his offense could score more points than the opponent in a no holds-barred shoot-out. He lost his bet.

Now Ty is complaining about our defense giving up 37 points. It could be due to Big Ben -- and our defense -- being on the field 11 minutes longer than Arod and our offense.

This weekend New Orleans and Minnesota were upset by Dallas and Carolina, and Indianapolis was almost upset by Jacksonville. Why? Let's go to the stats:

Dallas controlled the clock: Brees was on the field 13 minutes less than Romo. That's almost an entire quarter. Dallas ran the ball 32 times for only a 3.8 yd/rush. avg., but those running plays kept Brees off the field.

Carolina controlled the clock: Favre was on the field almost 16 minutes less than the Panther's backup QB. That's over an entire quarter. Carolina ran the ball 35 times for only a 3.6 yd/rush avg., but it was enough to keep Favre and the potent Minnesota offense off the field.

How did Jacksonville, ranked 20th in total defense and 27th in pass defense almost upset the Colts? Jacksonville controlled the clock. Manning was on the field 11 minutes less than Gerard. Sure, Manning still managed to throw 4 TD's, but how many TD's would he have thrown if he had had another 11 minutes with the ball? Jacksonville ran the ball 32 times for an avg. gain of 4.15 yds/rush. The Colts needed a last minute turnover to win the game.

And, of course, Sunday Pittsburgh beat the Packers. How? Pittsburgh controlled the clock by running the ball 17 times (twice as many as the Packers) for only a 3.5 yd/rush avg. But it was enough to keep a hot Big Ben on the field for an extra 11 minutes slinging the pigskin for TD's. And if Big Ben didn't have the extra 11 minutes?

Does Ty begin to see a pattern here?

Even if he doesn't, others might. Thus, this poster thinks it's a worthy subject for discussion.

[Maxie the Taxi]

If you are 40 years old or older, then you just can't help but feeling deep in your bones that real teams run the ball and that all this fancy pitch and catch crap is just AFL circus crap.

When the Dolphins won their first Super Bowl in the early seventies, Griese threw the ball a grand total of 11 times. The next year, they beat the Vikes and threw the ball 7 times. That's for the entire game.

So it's hard for us ol' timers to come to terms with all this dag nab flinging-the-football thing. Now leave me alone, get the hell off my yard, and let me take my nap.

A man after my own heart.

But, seriously, I think a good case can be made that running the ball and controlling the clock are not passe, but actually are effective. See my post above.

[KYPack]

This is a great thread.

Maxi and PB are doing some heavy lifting this one.

I, too have always hated those "state the obvious" graphics. "Team A wins 99% of the games in which they hold the opponent under 250 total yards" Yeah, we know.

Great old guy comment, Noodle.

Good work, boys

[sharpe1027]

maybe if we had run the ball more we would have controlled more of the clock, the D would have had more energy at the end of the game and maybe they don't give up that many points

Maybe if we had run the ball more we would have controlled less of the clock. The D would have tired sooner and maybe we lose by ten.

Seriously, more runs probably would have meant more punts and less points. No thanks.

[Pugger]

Isn't Pitt #1 against the run? And aren't we up there defensively against the run so Pitt abandoned their running game too?

[Maxie the Taxi]

Isn't Pitt #1 against the run? And aren't we up there defensively against the run so Pitt abandoned their running game too?

Pitt is #1 against the run; GB is #2. Still, Pitt ran the ball twice as much as we did. I don't know about you, but I thought watching the game that those few runs by Mendenhall and Parker were back-breakers time and possession wise.

Plus, Minnesota is #4 against the run. That didn't stop Carolina from running the ball 35 times.

It's not so much the yardage gained by rushing, it's the attempts that burn time.

(Damn, I'm starting to sound like McStubby. )

[red]

maybe if we had run the ball more we would have controlled more of the clock, the D would have had more energy at the end of the game and maybe they don't give up that many points

Maybe if we had run the ball more we would have controlled less of the clock. The D would have tired sooner and maybe we lose by ten.

Seriously, more runs probably would have meant more punts and less points. No thanks.

i see what you're trying to say

but imo in this case its flawed

we had 22 incompletions that stopped the clock, almost half our passes. a run for no gain gets you the same kind of yards but burns 30 to 40 seconds off the clock

look at the drive charts, most of our drives were very short and included 2 or 3 incompletions and no run attempts

[sharpe1027]

i see what you're trying to say

but imo in this case its flawed

we had 22 incompletions that stopped the clock, almost half our passes. a run for no gain gets you the same kind of yards but burns 30 to 40 seconds off the clock

look at the drive charts, most of our drives were very short and included 2 or 3 incompletions and no run attempts

That logic only works if you assume that the coaches knew which of the passes were going to be incomplete and ran on those downs. Otherwise the runs could have just have easily taken away big completions that kept both drives and the clock going.

[red]

ok by my count we had 25 plays on 1st down. that's usually the running down

we only rushed the ball 5 times on first down.

"but red, we couldn't run the ball on first down". those were runs of 2, 6, 5, 24(td), and -4. not too shabby

of the 20 times we threw on 1st down, 11 were incomplete and stopped the clock

if things were a little more even, we run the ball 12 times on first instead of 5. we gain maybe 30 more yards rushing, maybe set up some shorter 2nd and 3rd downs, and we could run three and a half minutes or so off the clock giving us 28 and them 32. thats a lot better

not to mention maybe we could run a few times on 2nd and short and third and short and maybe get a few more minutes off the clock

maybe, just maybe, this could have helped