Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Play action: The missing ingredient


Superman

Recommended Posts

I've been looking at these numbers for a while now, and I can't understand why we don't use play action more often. (All numbers to follow are from PFF. Not ratings, just charting numbers.)

 

Now allow me to set up and defeat a straw man argument. I know the automatic response is that our play action is only nominally effective because we don't have a strong rushing attack. I understand that argument, but A) it's false, and B) it's irrelevant.

 

It's false because, despite our poor run game, our passing attack is more effective when we use play action. On play action passes in 2013, Luck has a higher passer rating and more adjusted yards per attempt than on traditional passes. The differences were even more drastic in 2012.

 

It's irrelevant because play action isn't meant to create huge opportunities for big plays down the field. At it's best, that can happen, but really, play action is supposed to create a split second of hesitation by the defense. If you do that, you have better chances of getting guys open, even short to intermediate, and you slow down the opposing pass rush, even if only slightly.

 

Yet, we only used play action on 16.8% of dropbacks in 2012, and 19.5% in 2013. So far this preseason, we've used play action on only 9.1% of Luck's dropbacks.

 

By comparison, in 2013, Russell Wilson was in play action 34.1% of the time; Nick Foles, 32.7%; Cam Newton, 29.6%; Colin Kaepernick, 28.1%. All four of them were significantly better in terms of passer rating and adjusted yards per attempt.

 

"But Supes, those are read-option QBs!"

 

Stop whining. Those numbers only include read-option plays if the QB threw the ball out of read-option, which isn't done frequently. But yes, the threat of read-option makes a difference. (To me, that's an argument for a little more read-option, not for less play action. But that's another discussion.)

 

But here, let me satisfy you. You want Luck to be more like the "pure pocket passers," like Manning, Brady, Brees, and Rodgers? All of those veteran QBs, who outside of Rodgers, are firmly glued to the pocket, all had a higher percentage of play action attempts than Luck did last year. And for the most part, they were all better in passer rating and adjusted yards per attempt (Brees was about the same in rating and a/YPA, and Rodgers was 0.4 yards worse in a/YPA, but that's probably because he led the league in a/YPA on non play action dropbacks).

 

I believe the coaching staff is looking at this the wrong way, the traditional way. "The run sets up the pass, and then you can use your threatening run game to run some play action." I think the play action is an effective weapon whether you have a good rushing attack or not. And as a matter of fact, I think the more play action you use, the more the defense hesitates to crash down to defend the run, which translates to a little more room in the run game. And if the run game is more efficient, then your play action is even better.

 

More play action would also lead to more bootlegs, allowing Luck to get away from the big defensive linemen and make throws on the run, which he's quite good at. It would also open up some clear rushing opportunities for Luck, which are good in moderation, because it's just another wrinkle for the defense to worry about. Also, the 5% of the time that play action does lead to a big attempt downfield would be expanded.

 

Obviously, we can't run play action every dropback. We just need to run more play action. Luck is better in play action, and we use it on a smaller percentage of our pass plays than pretty much every other team with a good QB does. I think it will help our offense, both rushing and passing, if we run play action somewhere between 25-30% of dropbacks. I think you'd see our attack be more efficient, our yards/play would increase, our points/possession would increase, and that makes it easier to win games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I can only find one flaw in your post and that is that Nick Foles is hardly a read-option QB. lol  I know what you meant though, and their offense does have some plays that look like read-option but he's definitely not much of a running threat.  Again, I know what you meant. :)

 

I do agree completely with your point and hope to see more play action in the regular season.  I would be interested to see (and I'm not necessarily asking you to do this unless you just really want to) a game by game representation of how many play action passes per game.  The reason I say this is that I'm thinking there might have been more play action run in the first 5 or 6 games than those after.  After Reggie went down and the offense began to really struggle in the first halves, I wouldn't be surprised if they hardly used play action at all those games because the 2nd halves they were constantly fighting their way back trying to overcome a big lead.  In those situations, play action wouldn't be nearly as effective.  I just wonder if those games brought down the overall average for the season and if during those first 5 or 6 games, the numbers were closer to the other QB's you listed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are absolutely correct, the issue I think is that play-action is kind of a misdirection thing and Pep does not believe in misdirection.  He believes in showing the defense exactly what they are going to do and then daring the D to stop the Colts O. ;)

 

I think part of the problem the last two years is the PAP only works if the oline, particularly the interior line, can maintain the pocket and that was not the case the last couple of years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still a novice at all of this, so please bear with me. I was actively looking for play-action on Saturday and was disappointed. Isn't putting Trent in a prime opportunity to do that? Teams actively stack the box when he's on the field. Why don't we do it then?

That is a very good question not ask by someone who is a novice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can only find one flaw in your post and that is that Nick Foles is hardly a read-option QB. lol  I know what you meant though, and their offense does have some plays that look like read-option but he's definitely not much of a running threat.  Again, I know what you meant. :)

 

I do agree completely with your point and hope to see more play action in the regular season.  I would be interested to see (and I'm not necessarily asking you to do this unless you just really want to) a game by game representation of how many play action passes per game.  The reason I say this is that I'm thinking there might have been more play action run in the first 5 or 6 games than those after.  After Reggie went down and the offense began to really struggle in the first halves, I wouldn't be surprised if they hardly used play action at all those games because the 2nd halves they were constantly fighting their way back trying to overcome a big lead.  In those situations, play action wouldn't be nearly as effective.  I just wonder if those games brought down the overall average for the season and if during those first 5 or 6 games, the numbers were closer to the other QB's you listed.

 

The Eagles run a little bit of read-option with Foles. He's not the greatest threat to run, but he did from time to time. They also have some keeper/lateral plays that work like read-option, although they're probably less option and more designed misdirection/fake plays. (Edit: The point, though, is that the option action adds a wrinkle that probably makes play action even more effective for them. To me, that's a good reason to run a little bit of read option.)

 

I wish I could break down how much play action was used in each game, but that's not available. And I'm pretty much done watching 2013 games.

 

I get your point about being behind later in the season, but I still don't like that response. It's my position that part of the reason we were behind is because of the ineffectiveness of our offense early on. The receivers struggled, Luck struggled, the running game didn't exist, etc. If we used more play action, I think the starts of those games would/could have been better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still a novice at all of this, so please bear with me. I was actively looking for play-action on Saturday and was disappointed. Isn't putting Trent in a prime opportunity to do that? Teams actively stack the box when he's on the field. Why don't we do it then?

 

 

That is a very good question not ask by someone who is a novice.

 

Yup. 

 

Pagano said last week that teams have been stacking the box against Trent. Said the Giants went 8 in the box most of the time when Trent was on the field. I like that we're showing a willingness to check into a pass play against a stacked box, but why not use more play action in those situations? The defense is already sitting on the run. Take advantage of that.

 

Yet, Luck has used play action just four times this preseason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I would've thought it wasn't affective because of pass protection.

 

IMO, scheme your protection. Move the pocket. Run a bootleg and let Luck throw on the run. 

 

My whole point is that I think play action makes these things easier to fix. It slows the pass rush. It creates hesitation by the defense overall. It gets Luck on the move, where he's very good. In many ways, play action stresses a defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like you said, I think the "run to set up the pass" mantra can go either way.  If you pass well, the defense theoretically gives more cushion, giving your RB more space.  You can pass to set up the run as well as run to set up the pass.

 

As for the use of play action, I think it goes to Pep's inexperience.  Or at least, that's all I can think of as to why we don't use it more.  I think having last year under his belt and being able to review film and stats will help him see that the play action should be utilized more.  With play action and no huddle, our offense could be top 5 (even top 3) if the OL can block.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are absolutely correct, the issue I think is that play-action is kind of a misdirection thing and Pep does not believe in misdirection.  He believes in showing the defense exactly what they are going to do and then daring the D to stop the Colts O. ;)

 

I think part of the problem the last two years is the PAP only works if the oline, particularly the interior line, can maintain the pocket and that was not the case the last couple of years.

 

No question that the interior line play has been downright atrocious at times. Long developing play action against the Texans, for instance, is probably a recipe for disaster. But bootlegs are probably a good idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, scheme your protection. Move the pocket. Run a bootleg and let Luck throw on the run. 

 

My whole point is that I think play action makes these things easier to fix. It slows the pass rush. It creates hesitation by the defense overall. It gets Luck on the move, where he's very good. In many ways, play action stresses a defense.

OL blocking could be an issue.  Defenses tend to get good penetration on our OL.  If you have that and Luck is keeping the ball in his hands with his back to the defense, it'll just lead to more hits and sacks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't call the lack of a threat at the RB position a "strawman" argument. It might just need to be expounded upon. The O line isn't good. The pocket collapses just as fast on a pass play as a run play in many instances so far this preseason for the first unit. Set up plays that suit the squad. Running a no huddle, empty back field in a 2:00 min setting seems to work as often as not. I'd consider that avenue of approach more often than just play action. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like you said, I think the "run to set up the pass" mantra can go either way.  If you pass well, the defense theoretically gives more cushion, giving your RB more space.  You can pass to set up the run as well as run to set up the pass.

 

As for the use of play action, I think it goes to Pep's inexperience.  Or at least, that's all I can think of as to why we don't use it more.  I think having last year under his belt and being able to review film and stats will help him see that the play action should be utilized more.  With play action and no huddle, our offense could be top 5 (even top 3) if the OL can block.

 

To the bolded, I hope so. But 4 play action snaps for Luck so far this preseason is concerning. If the play calling so far is any indication -- and it might not be -- Pep still has some things to figure out. Especially in the red zone / goal line area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OL blocking could be an issue.  Defenses tend to get good penetration on our OL.  If you have that and Luck is keeping the ball in his hands with his back to the defense, it'll just lead to more hits and sacks

 

Bootleg. Luck can run. Luck can throw on the run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the 3rd Qtr. the Colts with Hasselbaeck @ QB had moved the ball to the 1 yd. line. We were set up like we were gonna run with Boom Herron, but Whalen was wide Right. That also would have been the perfect time to do Play Action with Griff doing a slant towards the goalpost. Instead, they called a timeout. They set the play up again w/o Whalen set wide and they tried to Run the ball up the middle with Herron who got stuffed!  While preseason doesn't count against our team, I believe the players would have rather Won the game rather than losing 23-17!!!

Play Action is definitely needed more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't call the lack of a threat at the RB position a "strawman" argument. It might just need to be expounded upon. The O line isn't good. The pocket collapses just as fast on a pass play as a run play in many instances so far this preseason for the first unit. Set up plays that suit the squad. Running a no huddle, empty back field in a 2:00 min setting seems to work as often as not. I'd consider that avenue of approach more often than just play action. 

 

I think your idea would work as well. But let's do both.

 

Even with poor line play -- and heaven knows we've had plenty of that the last two seasons -- Luck has been better with play action than without (the splits in 2012 are just ridiculous). The proof is in the pudding, as they say. It works. We should do it more.

 

And just as a disclaimer, I'm not arguing for play action all the time, or half the time. Of course not. We're talking about maybe 10% more often than last year. So far in the preseason, it's been 10% less often. (And that wasn't the case last year. We used play action about the same amount in preseason in 2013 as we did in the regular season.)

 

(By the way, I called it a strawman because no one made the argument. I brought it up, specifically to argue against it. I broke a rule, but I meant to do so.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup. 

 

Pagano said last week that teams have been stacking the box against Trent. Said the Giants went 8 in the box most of the time when Trent was on the field. I like that we're showing a willingness to check into a pass play against a stacked box, but why not use more play action in those situations? The defense is already sitting on the run. Take advantage of that.

 

Yet, Luck has used play action just four times this preseason.

 

I think come regular season we're going to see a whole package of plays designed just for that purpose, and I think a lot of them will be flare routes to Richardson. I think he's had one reception so far this preseason? Pep and Chuck are in no way showing everything we have at this point, and that's the one thing I've noticed that they haven't utilized at all in these past 3 games. I could be wrong, so it's just speculating on my part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No question that the interior line play has been downright atrocious at times. Long developing play action against the Texans, for instance, is probably a recipe for disaster. But bootlegs are probably a good idea.

I'm not a fan of the bootleg but I can see where it has it's place.  Once or twice per game but not as often as the Texans ran it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Eagles run a little bit of read-option with Foles. He's not the greatest threat to run, but he did from time to time. They also have some keeper/lateral plays that work like read-option, although they're probably less option and more designed misdirection/fake plays. (Edit: The point, though, is that the option action adds a wrinkle that probably makes play action even more effective for them. To me, that's a good reason to run a little bit of read option.)

 

Right, that's why, like I said, I knew the point you were making. :)  They do have some plays that look like read-option even though they may just be more play action that looks like read-option.  Either way the point remains, they use misdirection and deception of some sort to prevent the defense from going all out pass or run.

 

 

I wish I could break down how much play action was used in each game, but that's not available. And I'm pretty much done watching 2013 games.

 

I get your point about being behind later in the season, but I still don't like that response. It's my position that part of the reason we were behind is because of the ineffectiveness of our offense early on. The receivers struggled, Luck struggled, the running game didn't exist, etc. If we used more play action, I think the starts of those games would/could have been better. 

 

Oh don't get me wrong, I wasn't trying speak for the first halves of those games.  In that respect I agree entirely.  More play action might have helped the offense be a little more effective.  I just meant that in the 2nd halves of those games, play action probably wouldn't have helped as much because, by that point and being down by multiple scores, teams are usually going to go all out pass rush and give up some running yards if they have to.  So not being able to really use play action in the 2nd halves of those games may have brought the overall season average down.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a fan of the bootleg but I can see where it has it's place.  Once or twice per game but not as often as the Texans ran it.

 

They worked us over with the bootleg and downhill running in the 2010 opener. Over and over and over, and then that big old FB started crushing people, and it was over.

 

I don't want to turn our offense into that, not at all. But if you're good on play action, but worried about your interior line play, you can minimize your weakness and maximize your strength at the same time, with a bootleg. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, that's why, like I said, I knew the point you were making. :)  They do have some plays that look like read-option even though they may just be more play action that looks like read-option.  Either way the point remains, they use misdirection and deception of some sort to prevent the defense from going all out pass or run.

 

 

Oh don't get me wrong, I wasn't trying speak for the first halves of those games.  In that respect I agree entirely.  More play action might have helped the offense be a little more effective.  I just meant that in the 2nd halves of those games, play action probably wouldn't have helped as much because, by that point and being down by multiple scores, teams are usually going to go all out pass rush and give up some running yards if they have to.  So not being able to really use play action in the 2nd halves of those games may have brought the overall season average down.  

 

True. The numbers are likely skewed overall because of the slow starts and early deficits. That kind of puts play action on the shelf in the second half, although it doesn't necessarily have to. 

 

Just another side point: Play action doesn't necessarily have to be a long, elaborate ball fake. Sometimes play action is just a quick pirouette by the QB, where he only turns his back to the defense for a split second. Sometimes it's a half pivot, sort of delay ball fake. Those fakes aren't as likely to get the defense out of position, but they still slow down the reaction time, and can half a residual effect in the run game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like you said, I think the "run to set up the pass" mantra can go either way.  If you pass well, the defense theoretically gives more cushion, giving your RB more space.  You can pass to set up the run as well as run to set up the pass.

 

As for the use of play action, I think it goes to Pep's inexperience.  Or at least, that's all I can think of as to why we don't use it more.  I think having last year under his belt and being able to review film and stats will help him see that the play action should be utilized more.  With play action and no huddle, our offense could be top 5 (even top 3) if the OL can block.

 

The only reason I'd say that's probably not the case is because of how much play-action was utilized at Stanford.  Maybe Pep just doesn't think play action will work without the running game getting established first.  That could still go down to inexperience and if that's what you meant then I apologize.  I do believe Pep knows how effective play action can be, but as to why they're not using it more with the Colts is uncertain unless, like I said, he just doesn't think it will work without establishing the run game first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They worked us over with the bootleg and downhill running in the 2010 opener. Over and over and over, and then that big old FB started crushing people, and it was over.

 

I don't want to turn our offense into that, not at all. But if you're good on play action, but worried about your interior line play, you can minimize your weakness and maximize your strength at the same time, with a bootleg. 

I don't think the fact the that a teams uses it against the Colts 2010 defense successfully is an indication that it's a good offense. ;)

 

Like I said, I agree it has it's place and a couple of times a game could be effective.  The two things I don't like about it are: if the DE on the roll-out side reads it correctly then it's a busted play and you take away half the available field.

 

But you've won me over Super, I will talk to Irsay this evening and tell him to make you OC.  (And in all honesty, I think you'd do better than Pep.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been looking at these numbers for a while now, and I can't understand why we don't use play action more often. (All numbers to follow are from PFF. Not ratings, just charting numbers.)

Now allow me to set up and defeat a straw man argument. I know the automatic response is that our play action is only nominally effective because we don't have a strong rushing attack. I understand that argument, but A) it's false, and B) it's irrelevant.

It's false because, despite our poor run game, our passing attack is more effective when we use play action. On play action passes in 2013, Luck has a higher passer rating and more adjusted yards per attempt than on traditional passes. The differences were even more drastic in 2012.

It's irrelevant because play action isn't meant to create huge opportunities for big plays down the field. At it's best, that can happen, but really, play action is supposed to create a split second of hesitation by the defense. If you do that, you have better chances of getting guys open, even short to intermediate, and you slow down the opposing pass rush, even if only slightly.

Yet, we only used play action on 16.8% of dropbacks in 2012, and 19.5% in 2013. So far this preseason, we've used play action on only 9.1% of Luck's dropbacks.

By comparison, in 2013, Russell Wilson was in play action 34.1% of the time; Nick Foles, 32.7%; Cam Newton, 29.6%; Colin Kaepernick, 28.1%. All four of them were significantly better in terms of passer rating and adjusted yards per attempt.

"But Supes, those are read-option QBs!"

Stop whining. Those numbers only include read-option plays if the QB threw the ball out of read-option, which isn't done frequently. But yes, the threat of read-option makes a difference. (To me, that's an argument for a little more read-option, not for less play action. But that's another discussion.)

But here, let me satisfy you. You want Luck to be more like the "pure pocket passers," like Manning, Brady, Brees, and Rodgers? All of those veteran QBs, who outside of Rodgers, are firmly glued to the pocket, all had a higher percentage of play action attempts than Luck did last year. And for the most part, they were all better in passer rating and adjusted yards per attempt (Brees was about the same in rating and a/YPA, and Rodgers was 0.4 yards worse in a/YPA, but that's probably because he led the league in a/YPA on non play action dropbacks).

I believe the coaching staff is looking at this the wrong way, the traditional way. "The run sets up the pass, and then you can use your threatening run game to run some play action." I think the play action is an effective weapon whether you have a good rushing attack or not. And as a matter of fact, I think the more play action you use, the more the defense hesitates to crash down to defend the run, which translates to a little more room in the run game. And if the run game is more efficient, then your play action is even better.

More play action would also lead to more bootlegs, allowing Luck to get away from the big defensive linemen and make throws on the run, which he's quite good at. It would also open up some clear rushing opportunities for Luck, which are good in moderation, because it's just another wrinkle for the defense to worry about. Also, the 5% of the time that play action does lead to a big attempt downfield would be expanded.

Obviously, we can't run play action every dropback. We just need to run more play action. Luck is better in play action, and we use it on a smaller percentage of our pass plays than pretty much every other team with a good QB does. I think it will help our offense, both rushing and passing, if we run play action somewhere between 25-30% of dropbacks. I think you'd see our attack be more efficient, our yards/play would increase, our points/possession would increase, and that makes it easier to win games.

"But Supes"

I lolled

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only reason I'd say that's probably not the case is because of how much play-action was utilized at Stanford.  Maybe Pep just doesn't think play action will work without the running game getting established first.  That could still go down to inexperience and if that's what you meant then I apologize.  I do believe Pep knows how effective play action can be, but as to why they're not using it more with the Colts is uncertain unless, like I said, he just doesn't think it will work without establishing the run game first.

I think it comes down to blocking.  An OL that can't block could lead to some big hits when your QB is facing away from the defense and doesn't know if there is a defender near him.  As for bootlegs, I think that also comes down to blocking.  If the OL can't block sufficiently normally, asking them to do so on the run could lead to more confusion and worse execution

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i dont think our line is that good, that why we dont run so much play action i have been wondering why look never rolls out, but then again it preseason and we could just only be running plays that luck isnt good at saving all dem good plays for the real comp 

 

Again, I understand that angle. But for two years now, Luck has been considerably better on play action. This despite offensive line issues. So I don't think that's a reasonable excuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously, we can't run play action every dropback. We just need to run more play action. Luck is better in play action, and we use it on a smaller percentage of our pass plays than pretty much every other team with a good QB does. I think it will help our offense, both rushing and passing, if we run play action somewhere between 25-30% of dropbacks. I think you'd see our attack be more efficient, our yards/play would increase, our points/possession would increase, and that makes it easier to win games.

This is really good stuff.  Most Colt's fans, like myself, see Peyton reaching for Edge on the stretch play, pulling it back and hitting Marvin in stride deep...and that is play action.  However, you've done a good job of reminding how much more than that play action can be.  The more Peyton moved around, the lower his completion percentage was likely to be, so expanded play action repertoire was never going to be a good idea.  

 

Luck is so good on the move, that we should have a more steady diet of play action looks from different formations.  Maybe it's because our offensive identity isn't set yet, or maybe it is because we aren't working with the right play combinations - but I do hope that we find a better rhythm and get out of our second and long plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a popular tactic not to show all your cards in the preseason.

We all can only hope this card is in the deck, and they're willing to use it when the time's right.

We're simply not confident that they're imaginative enough.

 

I only made one TC practice, and didn't pay attention to the play action.

Does anyone, who may have been there more regularly, recall if play action was being displayed more there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent OP Supes, a nice little read and it's hard to argue with the case you present. We can only hope that they've been holding a lot of the p/book back but I'm starting to have nagging doubts about the O game planning/playbook. I'm not ready to hang Pep out like the borderline trolling lynch mob that seems to have sprung up but you do have to wonder what it's going to look like this season. We have all these weapons, investment in the O line, yet we don't look (so far) like much progress has been made since last season on O. 

 

Just my own gut feel and I'm open to being proven wrong when the season kicks off for real :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In order to be a good coordinator/coach you can get stuck in your ways. You must adjust to what's happening around the league in today's modern NFL.

So far our coaching staff has been a little hard headed about everything they believe in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been looking at these numbers for a while now, and I can't understand why we don't use play action more often. (All numbers to follow are from PFF. Not ratings, just charting numbers.)

 

Now allow me to set up and defeat a straw man argument. I know the automatic response is that our play action is only nominally effective because we don't have a strong rushing attack. I understand that argument, but A) it's false, and B) it's irrelevant.

 

It's false because, despite our poor run game, our passing attack is more effective when we use play action. On play action passes in 2013, Luck has a higher passer rating and more adjusted yards per attempt than on traditional passes. The differences were even more drastic in 2012.

 

It's irrelevant because play action isn't meant to create huge opportunities for big plays down the field. At it's best, that can happen, but really, play action is supposed to create a split second of hesitation by the defense. If you do that, you have better chances of getting guys open, even short to intermediate, and you slow down the opposing pass rush, even if only slightly.

 

Yet, we only used play action on 16.8% of dropbacks in 2012, and 19.5% in 2013. So far this preseason, we've used play action on only 9.1% of Luck's dropbacks.

 

By comparison, in 2013, Russell Wilson was in play action 34.1% of the time; Nick Foles, 32.7%; Cam Newton, 29.6%; Colin Kaepernick, 28.1%. All four of them were significantly better in terms of passer rating and adjusted yards per attempt.

 

"But Supes, those are read-option QBs!"

 

Stop whining. Those numbers only include read-option plays if the QB threw the ball out of read-option, which isn't done frequently. But yes, the threat of read-option makes a difference. (To me, that's an argument for a little more read-option, not for less play action. But that's another discussion.)

 

But here, let me satisfy you. You want Luck to be more like the "pure pocket passers," like Manning, Brady, Brees, and Rodgers? All of those veteran QBs, who outside of Rodgers, are firmly glued to the pocket, all had a higher percentage of play action attempts than Luck did last year. And for the most part, they were all better in passer rating and adjusted yards per attempt (Brees was about the same in rating and a/YPA, and Rodgers was 0.4 yards worse in a/YPA, but that's probably because he led the league in a/YPA on non play action dropbacks).

 

I believe the coaching staff is looking at this the wrong way, the traditional way. "The run sets up the pass, and then you can use your threatening run game to run some play action." I think the play action is an effective weapon whether you have a good rushing attack or not. And as a matter of fact, I think the more play action you use, the more the defense hesitates to crash down to defend the run, which translates to a little more room in the run game. And if the run game is more efficient, then your play action is even better.

 

More play action would also lead to more bootlegs, allowing Luck to get away from the big defensive linemen and make throws on the run, which he's quite good at. It would also open up some clear rushing opportunities for Luck, which are good in moderation, because it's just another wrinkle for the defense to worry about. Also, the 5% of the time that play action does lead to a big attempt downfield would be expanded.

 

Obviously, we can't run play action every dropback. We just need to run more play action. Luck is better in play action, and we use it on a smaller percentage of our pass plays than pretty much every other team with a good QB does. I think it will help our offense, both rushing and passing, if we run play action somewhere between 25-30% of dropbacks. I think you'd see our attack be more efficient, our yards/play would increase, our points/possession would increase, and that makes it easier to win games.

A couple of thoughts:

 

1) While I disagree with the notion that you must have a good running game to run more play action as well, I don't think it's an outright false statement either.    I still think having a good running game does make for more play action opportunities while a poorer running game creates less opportunities.   I mean, of the 4 teams you listed, 3 of them were in the top 4 in rushing yards per game.  Of course teams are going to respect the run more than a team such as the Colts who were 20th - which will have the effect of creating that hesitation.  So you don't have to have a good running game to run play action often, but at the same token, it just won't be as effecient of a play, relative to other teams running play action - which as you stated, those 4 teams were higher in passer rating and a/YPA.  Given the disparity in efficiency running the ball between us and the 4 teams you mentioned, I think that appropriately explains the 10% gap in number of play action calls in 2013.  It's not like we were running play action less than 10% of the time like we are in this preseason.  Plus, maybe I'm making this up in my head, but I feel that Pep prefers the play action more when we are ahead in the second half and trying to run down the clock, but still mixing in the pass to keep defenses honest.  In a game where we get on average, 65 plays a game, that's a difference of about 6 play action passes per game.  (rounded to the nearest whole number 13 play action passes at 19.5% and 19 play action plays at 29.6%).  So to me, i'ts not really a surprise that we ran it less than those other teams, especially considering that in the second half of last year, we always seemed to be getting blown out or playing from behind.  So while I fully understand your point, and my counterpoint doesn't entirely address the the issue you posed, it is part of the equation that goes into the play calling process.  I guess that was really like 3 different thoughts, but I digress.

 

2) I know you know this and don't take preseason trends into the regular season.  So I don't remind you that it's preseason because I think you forgot or something.  But rather, to make the point that we're trying to keep our guys healthy.  While any QB can get hit in the preseason I think it's worth noting that play action and especially bootleg plays expose your quarterback to getting hit on a much more frequent basis than a 3 or 5 step drop would.  For starters, the plays develop quicker and second, everything is in front of them.  With play action and bootleg, there's a moment of vulnerability that should a DE or DT get a good release on his blocker and dive making a sack or something and take out a leg.  I don't think it's any more than an excuse, really, but it's about the only reasoning I'm prepared to accept anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...