Stategery

[CaptainKickass]

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

Anyone remember the "Robert Ferguson" graphic?

It was something like :

"The Packers are 10 & 2 in games when Ferguson catches a TD"

I still laugh at that one.

[red]

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.

what drives that kept the clock going?

we only had 3 decent length drives, only one that burned a decent amount of clock, and one of those drives didn't get us any points

and the whole argument comes back to, you have to give your D a break.

[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.

what drives that kept the clock going?

we only had 3 decent length drives, only one that burned a decent amount of clock, and one of those drives didn't get us any points

and the whole argument comes back to, you have to give your D a break.

Eh, I was just saying that it could go either way. They've had games under MM in the past where they would kill drives repeatedly by trying to run.

I think you have a good point though, in hindsight, maybe it would have helped...but then again maybe not.

[MichiganPackerFan]

To date, the packers are 9-0 in games in which they score more points than their opponent. Unfortunately they are also 0-5 in games which they allow more points.

[get louder at lambeau]

Re: Stategery

Sunday, we didn't have any game-changing turnovers. Zero.

We had two, actually, but both were taken away from us. Jarrett Bush's INT got taken away due to Chillar's ilegal contact penalty, and Clay Matthews' sack, forced fumble and recovered fumble got taken away due to an instant replay call reversal.

Interesting take on the lack of ball control and it's effect on the defense, though.

[ThunderDan]

Re: Stategery

Sunday, we didn't have any game-changing turnovers. Zero.

We had two, actually, but both were taken away from us. Jarrett Bush's INT got taken away due to Chillar's ilegal contact penalty, and Clay Matthews' sack, forced fumble and recovered fumble got taken away due to an instant replay call reversal.

Interesting take on the lack of ball control and it's effect on the defense, though.

You forgot the 3rd that was taken away from us.

One of the PITT WR had the ball and 4 steps down before Bigby hit him from behind and he fumbled. The refs called it incomplete. 4 fu&king steps is now potentially not a catch in the NFL.

[sharpe1027]

Re: Stategery

You forgot the 3rd that was taken away from us.

One of the PITT WR had the ball and 4 steps down before Bigby hit him from behind and he fumbled. The refs called it incomplete. 4 fu&king steps is now potentially not a catch in the NFL.

Horrible call, ref should never have blown the whistle as Collins? may have taken it to the house.

[pbmax]

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.

Two things jump to mind:

1. Penalties. Or, more specifically, penalty yardage. There is no running game penalty comparable to pass interference yardage. Nor are there comparable penalties to automatic first downs for defensive holding or illegal use of hands. On offense, pre-snap penalties cost you 5 yards, holding will cost you ten, but these are comparable between the run and pass games. This chart anticipates no penalties. I'd be interested to see what the net penalty yards are for offenses, passing versus rushing.

2. The Oddity of the 1970s. I don't know the answer to this, but the AFL put up ungodly amounts of passing yards in the 60s, and then there was a retrenchment for most of the 70s, with only a few teams (Raiders, Dallas, Cincinnati and San Diego) committed to being a passing team throughout the decade. Rules changes were enacted to bring back the forward pass. But why had it dwindled?

There were no major rules changes during or after the merger (until 1978). Why did the AFL game disappear? I don't know. My suspicion is that the AFL, which brought six fewer teams to the merger (Steelers, Browns and Colts switched leagues) simply overran the smaller league. And there was probably an overall talent disparity except for the top AFL teams. Most of the best passing games in the AFL (Oilers, Chargers, Bills) petered out by the end of the 1960s. The successful AFC teams that won Super Bowls were teams that mimicked old NFL teams (or even had old NFL coaches like Shula and Ewbank). It was left to the Chiefs and Raiders to put the pass first AFL in the 1970s championship column.

But most importantly, the 1970s are an anomaly to every other decade in football's history. No other decade was as scoring depressed and run dependent. Not the NFL in the 1960s. And its worth noting, that with rules that limited passing terribly and even a football that looked like a deflated beach ball, the NFL had some tremendous passing teams in the 1940s and 1950s. The old AAFC competed with the NFL as a separate league for 4 years, then merged and watched the pass happy Browns of Otto Graham and Paul Brown win the title in 1950, their first year in the new league.

I would bet that is he ran the calculations back for three more decades (some have, though not this particular formula) he would find the 1970s to be odd, not the other way around.

[pbmax]

Forgot #3:

3. Game Theory. Clock stoppages. Even with record high completion percentages, the clock stops while passing roughly 1 out of 3 times. And it is often easier to get out of bounds (on certain throws). These factors would be important to a team that is behind. My question is, do the numbers of Avg. Net Yards understate the league's ability to pass because its worst teams (those that are behind) are throwing and its best (those that are leading) are running?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

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.

Yeah, i see a pattern. You like to bitch every game about not running enough.

I see another pattern...that we don't have the same type of line as Dallas. Btw, your analysis is WEAK. Brees also had a crappy day..and they still only lost by 7.

And, if you think we have the same line as Carolina or the same level of backs...well, there is nothing like an old fool.

And, why even bring up Jville, they lost. Just like we lost.

Lastly, if you think an extra 8 rushes resulted in 11 more minutes on the field for the offense of Pitt..then you really don't understand football.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

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.

Ty is over 40. Ty doesn't feel that way.

Ty feels "real" teams impose their will by doing what they want..running or passing. Ty felt just as confident watching the Niners pass their way down the field as he did watching the Skins pound the ball with Riggins or whomever.

Ty is not gonna deny the pleasure of whupping up on team and running down their throats, but Ty isn't also gonna bitch when he and EVERYONE else should be able to see that we CLEARLY don't have the line to do that, and most likely not the backs..nor is our strategy.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

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.

QFT.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Our pass happy offense is 2nd in the NFC (behind the Giants) in time of possession.

[Bretsky]

As I noted in the game thread, I had no expectations for success running on the Steelers. But their secondary was weak and we often exposed it. I think MM did a good job. We scored a lot of pts...certainly enough to win a hard fought game. If we take care of business the last two games this loss might not hurt at all.

[Maxie the Taxi]

1. Penalties. Or, more specifically, penalty yardage. There is no running game penalty comparable to pass interference yardage. Nor are there comparable penalties to automatic first downs for defensive holding or illegal use of hands. On offense, pre-snap penalties cost you 5 yards, holding will cost you ten, but these are comparable between the run and pass games. This chart anticipates no penalties. I'd be interested to see what the net penalty yards are for offenses, passing versus rushing.

2. The Oddity of the 1970s. I don't know the answer to this, but the AFL put up ungodly amounts of passing yards in the 60s, and then there was a retrenchment for most of the 70s, with only a few teams (Raiders, Dallas, Cincinnati and San Diego) committed to being a passing team throughout the decade. Rules changes were enacted to bring back the forward pass. But why had it dwindled?

There were no major rules changes during or after the merger (until 1978). Why did the AFL game disappear? I don't know. My suspicion is that the AFL, which brought six fewer teams to the merger (Steelers, Browns and Colts switched leagues) simply overran the smaller league. And there was probably an overall talent disparity except for the top AFL teams. Most of the best passing games in the AFL (Oilers, Chargers, Bills) petered out by the end of the 1960s. The successful AFC teams that won Super Bowls were teams that mimicked old NFL teams (or even had old NFL coaches like Shula and Ewbank). It was left to the Chiefs and Raiders to put the pass first AFL in the 1970s championship column.

But most importantly, the 1970s are an anomaly to every other decade in football's history. No other decade was as scoring depressed and run dependent. Not the NFL in the 1960s. And its worth noting, that with rules that limited passing terribly and even a football that looked like a deflated beach ball, the NFL had some tremendous passing teams in the 1940s and 1950s. The old AAFC competed with the NFL as a separate league for 4 years, then merged and watched the pass happy Browns of Otto Graham and Paul Brown win the title in 1950, their first year in the new league.

I would bet that is he ran the calculations back for three more decades (some have, though not this particular formula) he would find the 1970s to be odd, not the other way around.

1. Penalties -- The only penalty for the running game comparable to pass interference that I can think of is a long run negated by a holding call. But that could even out with pass completions called back for the same reason. Although holding is more likely on a pass play. It's hard to say how penalties would affect the formula one way or the other.

2. The Oddity of the 70's -- A couple of thoughts off the top of my head. (You'll have to check my memory on most of this)...

Influence of the College Game/Coaches/Rules Changes --
The college game was way more popular and influential than pro-football right up through the 50's. In the early days of the NFL I think the pro league even borrowed college stars to fill their rosters and put people in the stands. Thus, college football set the early, strategic trends which filtered into the NFL. For instance, the Packers played the "Notre Dame" Box Offense throughout the 30's.

It would be interesting to see stats for just when the college game transistioned to where the passing game became prominent. I think the college game was three yards and a cloud of dust for a long time.

I know up until the 1930's the NFL was three yards and a cloud of dust. The QB was a blocking back similar to today's FB. Over 60% of games were shut-outs and final scores of 0-0 were common.

In the 1920's Green Bay was one of the only teams that used the pass. So in the 1930's, when the league changed some rules to open of the game (hashmarks moved in from the sidelines and passers no longer had to be 5 yds. behind the line of scrimmage) Green Bay became the "Team of the Decade" with passers like Arnie Herber and Cecil Isbell and receivers like Johnny Blood and Don Hutson. Plus, Curly Lambeau wasn't afraid to innovate. By the way, Herber -- known as the best passer in his day -- was a tailback, not a QB.

In the 40's most pro teams were running the "T" formation, again a college formation. But also in the 40's the door opened to allow unlimited substitutions which lead to separate units on offense and defense. This was a huge lift for the passing game in my opinion.

In the 50's the NFL really took to the air, literally and figuratively. NFL games began to be televised and the "T" formation transistioned to the "split T" (another innovation stolen from the College Game) which moved another receiver out toward the sidelines. Up till the 50's, both college and pro football were still dominated by the running game, though passing was gaining its place. In the 50's passing had come into its own.

In many ways the Packers of the 60's toned down the popularity of wide-open passing attacks by emphasizing the basics, which included running from the single wing and focusing on their famous Green Bay Power Sweep.
As the decade ended, most NFL team mimicked the Pack and concentrated more on rushing and defense. Why not? It served the Pack well.

By the 70's defenses had improved to such an extent that the NFL made the famous change to loosen the rules and open up the passing game. But I think the change, really, was motivated by trying to please the fans. In the 70's the game was becoming staid and boring. The College Game fell in love with the option offense and invented the Wishbone Option which gained some traction in the NFL.

In fact, in the 70's the Packers brought in Dan Devine who loved the run and the option. He drafted Jerry Tagge hoping to utilize it. Devine's run-happy approach won a division title in 72, and he was Coach of the Year, which says something about where the NFL's head was at in the 70's. Bobby Douglass was setting records running the option for the Bears. And probably a lot of coaches who ran the option in the College Game were imported into the NFL during this period.

This, I think, is how the 70's became an oddity. Football is trendy. The Packers had revived the rushing game, the Wishbone was the best thing since sliced bread in College, so the copy-cats went to work. The result: A decade wherein the QB might be a team's leading rusher. Besides the college imports, a lot of old school head coaches in the NFL were happy to embrace the running game, George Halas being at the head of the list.

But Devine and the option game were not long for this pro world. The running game can be exciting with the likes of OJ Simpson, Earl Campbell, and Sayers/Payton. But the bruising style of Brockington/Lane, Csonka/Kiick was boring. Passing is sexy and sexy sells seats and TV contracts. Dan Marino and Dan Fouts were emerging stars. And then Bill Walsh and his West Coast Offense appeared. The game had changed forever.

Moreover, as this sexy style of football took over the NFL, the College Game adopted first the style, then the substance. NFL coaches and their protoges found themselves in the college game, coaching sexy football there.

Maybe these things all run in cycles, though. College teams without a standout passer have always relied on the option. Florida with Tim Tebow has poplarized it again. And now the option is sneaking back into the pro-game with the Wildcat formation.

Sorry, didn't mean to run on. And I have to give credit to John Maxymuk and PACKERS BY THE NUMBERS for a lot of the historical references.