Official Week 3 Lions at Packers Game Day Thread

[Maxie the Taxi]

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."

[Maxie the Taxi]

More fuel for the fire...When a HC calls for a RB plunge into the line on lst down, is he doing it 1) in hopes of actually gaining significant yardage; or 2) in hopes of making successive pass plays more successful by "keeping the defense honest?"

[pbmax]

More fuel for the fire...When a HC calls for a RB plunge into the line on lst down, is he doing it 1) in hopes of actually gaining significant yardage; or 2) in hopes of making successive pass plays more successful by "keeping the defense honest?"

Both. Some threat of balance is always desired. However, the Derek Loville Effect should have taught offensive coaches that Defenses know when you don't have the goods.

Just as Defenses ignored Loville in the backfield for the 49ers, I am not sure the Packers have caused anyone to load up the box (other than end of game stalls) since Starks in 2010 (end of season).

Belichick is not the only D coach who ignores what a team doesn't do well.

[hoosier]

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."

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.

[Maxie the Taxi]

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.

[Patler]

OK, you are counting the 2 yard pass to Ripper that was nullified by penalty. Now the numbers match.

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.

[pbmax]

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.

I am not sure conservative versus aggressive would show up in the percentage of first downs on any given down by pass or run.

Where it does show up is in yardage gained and points scored. When you combine the yardage from the play and the rate of success, to get a likely yardage for a choice run v pass, passing comes out ahead. More so when you track the points gained.

There are downsides to choosing passing and not all game situations are alike. But in the first and third quarters, passing is more productive.

You can see some of this here: http://archive.advancedfootballanaly...cess-rate.html

Burke is saying coaches think in a one step, success or no, proposition. Their success rate is whether or not the play achieved its goal. It correlates well with actual game choices and play calling. Generally, teams look to get halfway to the first down first and second down. Third down success is to convert. But those calculations ignore the unequal payoffs of passing versus running regarding keeping drives alive and scoring.

Basically, the coach cannot have a calculator or computer on the sideline telling them when they have maximized their payoffs. But they can, through institutional memory, training and observation (film review and live game setting) see what plays worked and what didn't.

They are literally counting (or stacking) success, not assessing probability.

[pbmax]

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.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I am not sure conservative versus aggressive would show up in the percentage of first downs on any given down by pass or run.

Where it does show up is in yardage gained and points scored. When you combine the yardage from the play and the rate of success, to get a likely yardage for a choice run v pass, passing comes out ahead. More so when you track the points gained.

There are downsides to choosing passing and not all game situations are alike. But in the first and third quarters, passing is more productive.

You can see some of this here: http://archive.advancedfootballanaly...cess-rate.html

Burke is saying coaches think in a one step, success or no, proposition. Their success rate is whether or not the play achieved its goal. It correlates well with actual game choices and play calling. Generally, teams look to get halfway to the first down first and second down. Third down success is to convert. But those calculations ignore the unequal payoffs of passing versus running regarding keeping drives alive and scoring.

Basically, the coach cannot have a calculator or computer on the sideline telling them when they have maximized their payoffs. But they can, through institutional memory, training and observation (film review and live game setting) see what plays worked and what didn't.

They are literally counting (or stacking) success, not assessing probability.

I usually am not a fan of such articles, but this one made sense to me. I've often thought that a lot of coaches can't see the forest for the trees. They examine plays in isolation rather than in context. From the coach's point of view every well-designed play should go for that necessary 1st down or that winning TD if the players just "execute."

After a loss coaches AND players will often say that the players just didn't "execute." What's virtually never said is that the coach didn't put his players in a position to succeed often enough, regardless of execution. And this has to do with game planning and the things the article talks about.

In fact, I think sometimes fans and reporters are in a better position to judge than the coach, purely because most fans see the big picture of the game rather than getting caught up in the x's and o's of each play.

The article concludes:

The prescriptive analysis remains the same. Generally, teams should be passing more often on 1st and 2nd down, and running more often on 3rd down and in the red zone.

Question: Is "Burke" Tex?

[pbmax]

I usually am not a fan of such articles, but this one made sense to me. I've often thought that a lot of coaches can't see the forest for the trees. They examine plays in isolation rather than in context. From the coach's point of view every well-designed play should go for that necessary 1st down or that winning TD if the players just "execute."

After a loss coaches AND players will often say that the players just didn't "execute." What's virtually never said is that the coach didn't put his players in a position to succeed often enough, regardless of execution. And this has to do with game planning and the things the article talks about.

In fact, I think sometimes fans and reporters are in a better position to judge than the coach, purely because most fans see the big picture of the game rather than getting caught up in the x's and o's of each play.

The article concludes:


Question: Is "Burke" Tex?

He is ex-Air Force and working for ESPN now. He might be Tex

I think coaches go beyond the single factor success-or-not when they are designing an offense and game planning. If they thought solely about success rate, the run/pass ratios never would have changed.

But they don't ALL have to be thinking big picture. There is a lot of monkey see monkey do. I think McCarthy is in between, he reviews from 10,000 feet but I am not sure he thinks in terms of probabilities. I do give him credit for being willing to try things. He could be Jeff Fisher and do it by the book. You don't get second guessed as hard that way.

[texaspackerbacker]

If I'm Burke, they sure as hell are not sending his paychecks to the right address hahahahaha.

I might be Mouse Davis too - remember him, the greatly misnamed "run and shoot".

[vince]

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.

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."

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.

[vince]

If I'm Burke, they sure as hell are not sending his paychecks to the right address hahahahaha.

I might be Mouse Davis too - remember him, the greatly misnamed "run and shoot".

And what a success that's proven to be.
The Packers oline isn't the leagues best but it's pretty close to top 10 at minimum.

The problems with the offense are/were due to lack of tempo and quick rhythm/timing in the passing game, not the oline or a run-first approach. That should be clear from the last game.

[Maxie the Taxi]

And what a success that's proven to be.
The Packers oline isn't the leagues best but it's pretty close to top 10 at minimum.

The problems with the offense are/were due to lack of tempo and quick rhythm/timing in the passing game, not the oline or a run-first approach. That should be clear from the last game.

Which half?

[vince]

The first half. In the second half the Packers defense/lions offense combined with being ahead by multiple scores, dictated a change in strategy. Other than the holding call in the 3rd, dropped pass by Davis on first down which stopped the clock in the 4th, and the miss by cobb/rodgers on third down it worked well.
It's seemingly surprising to some that playing "not to lose" when up multiple scores results in "not losing" almost all the time - unless you want to argue that teams play "to win" when they win but "not to lose" when they lose. One notable and highly unlikely exception notwithstanding.