Luck QB sneak ???

[coltsfeva]

   I was reading different articles about the success rate of the QB sneak and on 3rd it 4th down (less than 2 yards), it’s right around 90% league-wide. (Which is far above the success rates for non-qb runs or passes).

   With what hopes to be a nasty interior line and a bulked-up Andrew Luck, seems like it might be a good idea to run it

now and then.

    The only problem is: concern for Andrew's shoulder taking a beating.

     He could run it behind Kelly /Slauson to avoid the right shoulder being exposed. Or just run it behind Kelly/ Nelson in specific ways to avoid a direct hit. 

     Would you utilize at times, to a large degree or not at all ?

  

[TaylorStillTruckedYou]

I would absolutely do it everytime i’d get a chance to, if it’s smart.  It is not wise to try and nurse a previous injury, because in most cases you end up re injuring yourself.  Great example are how Pagano and the staff kept guys in previous years on a short leash, and look how many ended up getting hurt anyways.  If the player/the doc. says their healthy, then it’s all or nothing at the point for me.

[csmopar]

1 hour ago, coltsfeva said:

   I was reading different articles about the success rate of the QB sneak and on 3rd it 4th down (less than 2 yards), it’s right around 90% league-wide. (Which is far above the success rates for non-qb runs or passes).

   With what hopes to be a nasty interior line and a bulked-up Andrew Luck, seems like it might be a good idea to run it

now and then.

    The only problem is: concern for Andrew's shoulder taking a beating.

     He could run it behind Kelly /Slauson to avoid the right shoulder being exposed. Or just run it behind Kelly/ Nelson in specific ways to avoid a direct hit. 

     Would you utilize at times, to a large degree or it at all ?

  

unless its with the Superbowl on the line, HELL no

[Superman]

I get the feeling you won't see any QB sneaks this season... 

[aaron11]

1 hour ago, coltsfeva said:

 

     Would you utilize at times, to a large degree or it at all ?

  

maybe in the 4th quarter of a close game, otherwise no

 

it would be nuts to use it to a large degree 

 

id ask him to consider not going for a tackle unless similar circumstances but thats up to him in the moment 

[ColtStrong2013]

Tom Brady has mastered it and never takes a hit... It's just smart football.

[aaron11]

7 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

Tom Brady has mastered it and never takes a hit... It's just smart football.

hes been rocked many times doing that

[jvan1973]

With the new lowering the helmet rule,  it would seem to me the play will no longer be legal.   At least not the way we currently know it

2 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

hes been rocked many times doing that

I can't recall him ever getting rocked doing it

[Cynjin]

Just now, jvan1973 said:

With the new lowering the helmet rule,  it would seem to me the play will no longer be legal.   At least not the way we currently know it

 

I would think that a lot of short yardage plays would no longer be allowed according to how that rule is written.

[aaron11]

4 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

With the new lowering the helmet rule,  it would seem to me the play will no longer be legal.   At least not the way we currently know it

I can't recall him ever getting rocked doing it

maybe many times is an exaggeration but its definitely happened

[Steamboat_Shaun]

37 minutes ago, Superman said:

I get the feeling you won't see any QB sneaks this season... 

 

I could see it going both ways... if they're in scoring position, especially down near the goal line, & it makes sense to run a QB sneak, I don't see Reich shying away from it, but at the same time I can't see it happening very often.

[Superman]

7 minutes ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

I could see it going both ways... if they're in scoring position, especially down near the goal line, & it makes sense to run a QB sneak, I don't see Reich shying away from it, but at the same time I can't see it happening very often.

 

I expect the coaches to be cautious with Luck this season, and unless it's the end of a season-deciding game, I doubt it happens at all.

 

Also, 4th and short is likely to be converted no matter what you call. I'm not sure about OP's 90% figure, but it's high. The link below is a few years old but says QB sneak on 4th and short is successful 80% of the time, compared to some outside runs that are successful almost 80% of the time, including read option at 80%. I'd rather run read option because at least the QB has a chance to protect himself.

 

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/62665328

 

A more recent article from ESPN has league average at 83% on QB sneaks, with the Pats leading the way at 90%. 

 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/21158057/the-dying-art-qb-sneak

[ColtStrong2013]

43 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

maybe many times is an exaggeration but its definitely happened

I have watched a lot of Patriots games over the years... Because they play the game right and showcase how a team should be built. They have extended a lot of drives and put a lot of games away because of Tom Brady's sneaks on 3rd/4th & short. They know the risk of it, but have also proven that when done correctly, the risk is minimized... and with great reward. 

[jvan1973]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I expect the coaches to be cautious with Luck this season, and unless it's the end of a season-deciding game, I doubt it happens at all.

 

Also, 4th and short is likely to be converted no matter what you call. I'm not sure about OP's 90% figure, but it's high. The link below is a few years old but says QB sneak on 4th and short is successful 80% of the time, compared to some outside runs that are successful almost 80% of the time, including read option at 80%. I'd rather run read option because at least the QB has a chance to protect himself.

 

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/62665328

 

A more recent article from ESPN has league average at 83% on QB sneaks, with the Pats leading the way at 90%. 

 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/21158057/the-dying-art-qb-sneak

What are your thoughts of the new lowering of the helmet rule effecting qb sneaks

[ColtStrong2013]

31 minutes ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

I could see it going both ways... if they're in scoring position, especially down near the goal line, & it makes sense to run a QB sneak, I don't see Reich shying away from it, but at the same time I can't see it happening very often.

I don't see it happening in goal line situations, or when defenses are stacked. 3rd and short, split the defense out wide, with 4 down lineman and one backer accounting for a tailback. Get them on a hard count or catch them off guard,and go where the defense is weak. 

 

It's honestly the easiest concept in football. You put the ball in your playmaking franchise qb's hands, with the responsibility to get a yard... and he gets to decide where he goes. 

 

Andrew Luck behind Ryan Kelly and leaning left behind Quenton Nelson is a money play... guaranteed. 

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

What are your thoughts of the new lowering of the helmet rule effecting qb sneaks

 

I don't see how it will apply at all. A QB sneak doesn't involve lowering the head to initiate contact. The QB is getting low, he's not using his head or helmet as a weapon.

 

The rule from a few years ago that was supposed to be applied to ball carriers (but really hasn't) was only applicable to ball carriers outside the tackle box and 3 yards past the line of scrimmage. This new rule is supposed to strengthen that rule. 

[Superman]

12 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

I have watched a lot of Patriots games over the years... Because they play the game right and showcase how a team should be built. They have extended a lot of drives and put a lot of games away because of Tom Brady's sneaks on 3rd/4th & short. They know the risk of it, but have also proved that when done correctly, the risk is minimized... and with great reward. 

 

Tom Brady doesn't have a surgically repaired throwing shoulder.

 

If league average on QB sneaks on 4th and short is around 80%, but league average on other runs is around 70%, is that extra ten percent worth the risk, given Luck's status?

 

The further Luck gets from his surgery, and assuming he makes it through this season with no issues, the more comfortable everyone will get with him running such a physical play. For now, I don't think it's worth the risk, when there are other plays that are nearly as effective as QB sneak, but far less risky.

[aaron11]

13 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

I have watched a lot of Patriots games over the years... Because they play the game right and showcase how a team should be built. They have extended a lot of drives and put a lot of games away because of Tom Brady's sneaks on 3rd/4th & short. They know the risk of it, but have also proven that when done correctly, the risk is minimized... and with great reward. 

yeah, youre right and i think brady has gotten better at it over the years too

 

i couldn't find a video of the play i was thinking of, i want to say it was against the eagles.  if im remembering right he got stood up and then taken down hard on his back

[ColtStrong2013]

26 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Tom Brady doesn't have a surgically repaired throwing shoulder.

 

If league average on QB sneaks on 4th and short is around 80%, but league average on other runs is around 70%, is that extra ten percent worth the risk, given Luck's status?

 

The further Luck gets from his surgery, and assuming he makes it through this season with no issues, the more comfortable everyone will get with him running such a physical play. For now, I don't think it's worth the risk, when there are other plays that are nearly as effective as QB sneak, but far less risky.

Peyton Manning had a surgically repaired neck times 4, and they still snuck the football on occasion. Patriots sneaks are 91%, so to answer your question, yes, the extra 21% could make or break close games... or in last season's case, the difference between 4 wins and 9, 10, 11? 

[ColtStrong2013]

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2016/2015-short-yardage-results

 

Absolutely worth the risk...

 

5 time NFL champs agree.

[Reidm]

What was Turbin's 4th and short conversion percentage last year before he got hurt? I thought it was pretty high and behind a mediocre line at that. 

[Steamboat_Shaun]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Tom Brady doesn't have a surgically repaired throwing shoulder.

 

If league average on QB sneaks on 4th and short is around 80%, but league average on other runs is around 70%, is that extra ten percent worth the risk, given Luck's status?

 

The further Luck gets from his surgery, and assuming he makes it through this season with no issues, the more comfortable everyone will get with him running such a physical play. For now, I don't think it's worth the risk, when there are other plays that are nearly as effective as QB sneak, but far less risky.

 

Obviously I agree about the shoulder thing, it definitely makes me nervous, but at the same time, if that shoulder isn't rehabbed enough to run a QB sneak behind Kelly & Nelson if the situation calls for it, that's probably not a good thing.

[Superman]

37 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

Peyton Manning had a surgically repaired neck times 4, and they still snuck the football on occasion. Patriots sneaks are 91%, so to answer your question, yes, the extra 21% could make or break close games... or in last season's case, the difference between 4 wins and 9, 10, 11? 

 

You using the Pats number is a fallacy. League average makes much more sense. 

 

This study (posted earlier) found that there were about five 4th and short play calls per team per year between 2010 and 2012. 

 

Let's say for the sake of argument the Colts did have five games that possibly could have been decided by one 4th and short play call (they didn't, no single team did). If league average for QB sneaks on 4th and short is 80%, then 4 of those 5 games could be won with QB sneak. If league average for other runs (pitches, spread runs, read options) on 4th and short is 70%, then 3.5 of those 5 games could be won with QB sneak.

 

As a matter of fact, based on the success rates from your FO piece, but with much smaller sample sizes, I could argue that pitches, spread runs, read options and bootlegs are under-utilized on 4th and short.

 

You're acting like this one play is the deciding factor between winning and losing games, and it's probably not. It's certainly not the deciding factor for a winning season. And it's arguable whether it's significantly more effective than other run plays, on average. It's certainly not 21% more effective, but even if it was, that represents 1 out of 5 plays. 

 

Like I said, on a game-deciding play in a season-deciding game, I'm fine with QB sneak. In any other situation, the statistical advantage of QB sneak isn't as great as you're making it out to be, and even if it was, it's not worth the risk to Luck's health.

 

I'm also curious whether Manning ran any QB sneaks in 2012, fresh off his neck injury. Not to mention the very different nature of that injury and recovery.

[Superman]

9 minutes ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

Obviously I agree about the shoulder thing, it definitely makes me nervous, but at the same time, if that shoulder isn't rehabbed enough to run a QB sneak behind Kelly & Nelson if the situation calls for it, that's probably not a good thing.

 

It's just risk mitigation. Do you run a play that likely ends with 1200-1500 pounds of linemen piled on top of your QB with a surgically repaired shoulder if there's only a marginal statistical advantage to that play? It's not that I don't think Luck can handle it, it's just "why risk it?"

[DaColts85]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

The further Luck gets from his surgery, and assuming he makes it through this season with no issues, the more comfortable everyone will get with him running such a physical play. For now, I don't think it's worth the risk, when there are other plays that are nearly as effective as QB sneak, but far less risky.

 

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

It's just risk mitigation. Do you run a play that likely ends with 1200-1500 pounds of linemen piled on top of your QB with a surgically repaired shoulder if there's only a marginal statistical advantage to that play? It's not that I don't think Luck can handle it, it's just "why risk it?"

The only reason I disagree with you here is that during the year he is going to get hit. He is going to have times that his shoulder is tested with the weight of a DL guy falling on him. With a QB sneak you honestly have far more control and just looking at multiple times that it is ran (ran correctly that is) you shoot a gap and after you get the 1 or maybe 2 yards you fall to the ground and the play is essentially dead. It is not like a DL guy is jumping right on top of Luck or even a Brady or whoever. The risk is there every time he drops back and to me I hope our coaching staff doesn't restrict a possible game changing situation because he might have someone fall on him. This is just me  of course.

[ColtStrong2013]

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

It's just risk mitigation. Do you run a play that likely ends with 1200-1500 pounds of linemen piled on top of your QB with a surgically repaired shoulder if there's only a marginal statistical advantage to that play? It's not that I don't think Luck can handle it, it's just "why risk it?"

Why risk dropping him back more than 3 steps? Why risk putting him on the field if we are down more than 2 touchdowns late in the game? Risk... makes people do funny things. 

 

8 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

You using the Pats number is a fallacy. League average makes much more sense. 

 

This study (posted earlier) found that there were about five 4th and short play calls per team per year between 2010 and 2012. 

 

Let's say for the sake of argument the Colts did have five games that possibly could have been decided by one 4th and short play call (they didn't, no single team did). If league average for QB sneaks on 4th and short is 80%, then 4 of those 5 games could be won with QB sneak. If league average for other runs (pitches, spread runs, read options) on 4th and short is 70%, then 3.5 of those 5 games could be won with QB sneak.

 

As a matter of fact, based on the success rates from your FO piece, but with much smaller sample sizes, I could argue that pitches, spread runs, read options and bootlegs are under-utilized on 4th and short.

 

You're acting like this one play is the deciding factor between winning and losing games, and it's probably not. It's certainly not the deciding factor for a winning season. And it's arguable whether it's significantly more effective than other run plays, on average. It's certainly not 21% more effective, but even if it was, that represents 1 out of 5 plays. 

 

Like I said, on a game-deciding play in a season-deciding game, I'm fine with QB sneak. In any other situation, the statistical advantage of QB sneak isn't as great as you're making it out to be, and even if it was, it's not worth the risk to Luck's health.

 

I'm also curious whether Manning ran any QB sneaks in 2012, fresh off his neck injury. Not to mention the very different nature of that injury and recovery.

Why are we talking 4th and short all of a sudden? I am talking 2nd, 3rd and 4th and short... which comes to a hell of a lot more than just a handful of times in a game. How many 3rd and shorts have stalled Colts drives over the last several seasons? I'd be scared to death to know, but what I do know without looking is that they were 90 plus percent predictable, without the success of a qb sneak, percentage-wise. 

 

Football is a numbers game. This organization wouldn't hire analytical staffing if it were not important. I know for certain that Frank Reich is going to use statistics and variations 100% more than Chuck Pagano... and he will RISK a lot more than Pagano did offensively.

 

I understand that we want to protect Andrew. I think we are making great strides in order to do that. But I don't think this organization will eliminate a high percentage play because they are afraid of the risk it poses on him... It's not any different than he getting hit while throwing the football (which will happen this season) compared to any other team' quarterbacks. The risk is there... so is the reward.

[ColtStrong2013]

14 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

It's just risk mitigation. Do you run a play that likely ends with 1200-1500 pounds of linemen piled on top of your QB with a surgically repaired shoulder if there's only a marginal statistical advantage to that play? It's not that I don't think Luck can handle it, it's just "why risk it?"

This is somewhat absurd. All 4 defensive lineman are going to land on him? Do you have faith that Ryan Kelly and Quenton Nelson can hold their ground and perhaps push their guys back enough to where not a single pound lands on Andrew in a sneak at midfield? 

 

I'm against goal line sneaks. I think they are dangerous. I think middle of the field, high percentage quarterback sneaks with defenses spread out, is safe, efficient and smart football. 

[gspdx]

10 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

 Risk... makes people do funny things. 

 

Like buying insurance even if you don't need it.

[Superman]

7 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

This is somewhat absurd. All 4 defensive lineman are going to land on him? Do you have faith that Ryan Kelly and Quenton Nelson can hold their ground and perhaps push their guys back enough to where not a single pound lands on Andrew in a sneak at midfield? 

 

I'm against goal line sneaks. I think they are dangerous. I think middle of the field, high percentage quarterback sneaks with defenses spread out, is safe, efficient and smart football. 

 

 

QB is under several players, including some of his own teammates. Please show me a QB sneak where no one lands on top of the QB.

[Superman]

16 minutes ago, DaColts85 said:

 

The only reason I disagree with you here is that during the year he is going to get hit. He is going to have times that his shoulder is tested with the weight of a DL guy falling on him. With a QB sneak you honestly have far more control and just looking at multiple times that it is ran (ran correctly that is) you shoot a gap and after you get the 1 or maybe 2 yards you fall to the ground and the play is essentially dead. It is not like a DL guy is jumping right on top of Luck or even a Brady or whoever. The risk is there every time he drops back and to me I hope our coaching staff doesn't restrict a possible game changing situation because he might have someone fall on him. This is just me  of course.

 

Of course he's going to get hit, but not on purpose. How often does a QB run a sneak without being at the bottom of a pile? Does it ever happen?

 

To me, it's the same as not wanting him to risk a big hit on the sideline for a couple extra yards. He can get out of bounds and take no contact, or he can be a tough guy and get hit. Sure, the extra yards help, but how much are you willing to risk for them?

 

And again, to the bolded, I think the statistical advantage of a QB sneak is being overstated. 

[DaColts85]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Of course he's going to get hit, but not on purpose. How often does a QB run a sneak without being at the bottom of a pile? Does it ever happen?

 

To me, it's the same as not wanting him to risk a big hit on the sideline for a couple extra yards. He can get out of bounds and take no contact, or he can be a tough guy and get hit. Sure, the extra yards help, but how much are you willing to risk for them?

 

And again, to the bolded, I think the statistical advantage of a QB sneak is being overstated. 

Well I will say first and foremost I am meaning a 4th and short in a solid game changing situation. So yes my number is fall smaller than the other poster.  I am saying that if it is a focal point and I am Frank I am calling the play with no hesitation. Again, this is just me though. A QB can since pressure and drop to the ground every time to avoid a sack and avoid contact as well. Not happening all the time though. With a QB sneak they are going to be touch but they do not have some 300 pounder belly flopping on them. A sack allows for FAR more contact to the body and his shoulder.

[NannyMcafee]

In short yardage situations maybe occasionally. But with the line “beefing up” our RBs can be just as successful. 

[IinD]

If he's cleared to be on the field their shouldn't be any restrictions in theory. You won't be able to baby him in an NFL game.

 

I'd guess everything is on the table honestly.

[Introspect]

In this short yardage scenario, place Jacoby under center. He is a competent QB and I have confidence he can make 1 yard behind our improved left side.

[Superman]

53 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

Why risk dropping him back more than 3 steps? Why risk putting him on the field if we are down more than 2 touchdowns late in the game? Risk... makes people do funny things. 

 

When the risk outweighs the potential reward, you mitigate the risk. It's the defining principle behind throwing the ball away, sliding, dumpoffs, not forcing the ball into double coverage, etc.

 

Quote

Why are we talking 4th and short all of a sudden? I am talking 2nd, 3rd and 4th and short... which comes to a hell of a lot more than just a handful of times in a game. How many 3rd and shorts have stalled Colts drives over the last several seasons? I'd be scared to death to know, but what I do know without looking is that they were 90 plus percent predictable, without the success of a qb sneak, percentage-wise. 

 

It's not all of a sudden, the OP said 3rd and 4th and short. 

 

I'm not sure but it sounds like you're advocating running a QB sneak on any down if it's short yardage? That's a terrible idea. Maybe you'd convert on 2nd and 1 more often, but the points added when you pop a big play on 2nd down are a big factor in efficient offensive output. A QB sneak, even successful, probably takes points off the board on second down.

 

And even if the Colts were less efficient on 3rd and short in recent years, you're still ignoring the other highly successful play calls that can be used in shortage, and how they compare to QB sneak. For instance, Robert Turbin has been basically automatic in short yardage situations.

 

Another thing, the Colts have had a big problem with offensive play calling for a while now, including in short yardage. Let's not try to reduce that to something as simple as 'they don't run QB sneak often enough.'

 

Quote

Football is a numbers game. This organization wouldn't hire analytical staffing if it were not important. I know for certain that Frank Reich is going to use statistics and variations 100% more than Chuck Pagano... and he will RISK a lot more than Pagano did offensively.

 

I agree with this, but you're stuck on one number and ignoring everything else because you think it's all-telling and conclusive, but that's not the case.

 

Quote

I understand that we want to protect Andrew. I think we are making great strides in order to do that. But I don't think this organization will eliminate a high percentage play because they are afraid of the risk it poses on him... It's not any different than he getting hit while throwing the football (which will happen this season) compared to any other team' quarterbacks. The risk is there... so is the reward.

 

You can eliminate a high percentage play if you have other high percentage options to replace it, especially if those other options are less risky. The statistical advantage of QB sneak in short yardage is not so significant that the risk of QB sneak becomes unworthy of consideration.

 

Edit: By the way, you stated that you're against QB sneak on the goal line, because it's dangerous. You admit that at some point, the risk outweighs the reward. 

[Superman]

23 minutes ago, DaColts85 said:

Well I will say first and foremost I am meaning a 4th and short in a solid game changing situation. So yes my number is fall smaller than the other poster.  I am saying that if it is a focal point and I am Frank I am calling the play with no hesitation. Again, this is just me though. A QB can since pressure and drop to the ground every time to avoid a sack and avoid contact as well. Not happening all the time though. With a QB sneak they are going to be touch but they do not have some 300 pounder belly flopping on them. A sack allows for FAR more contact to the body and his shoulder.

 

So with the smaller number of plays in question, the average difference between QB sneak and other well run plays is about 10 percentage points. 

 

In a game changing situation, you want all the advantage you can get, but if my team converts 70% of the time on outside runs in short yardage, and 80% on QB sneak, and my QB just missed a season with a surgically repaired throwing shoulder, I'm not as thrilled by those 10 percentage points, because of the added risk.

[Statiik82]

Andrew Luck Qb Sneak on the year... I will go with an over under of 3.5.

 

[Superman]

The Eagles ran a ton of QB sneak over the last two seasons, with great effectiveness. I think Wentz has converted every time, from what I can see. So it's likely that Reich is a fan of the play in short yardage.

 

So am I. I just think it's risky with Luck, for right now. 

[DaColts85]

11 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

So with the smaller number of plays in question, the average difference between QB sneak and other well run plays is about 10 percentage points. 

 

In a game changing situation, you want all the advantage you can get, but if my team converts 70% of the time on outside runs in short yardage, and 80% on QB sneak, and my QB just missed a season with a surgically repaired throwing shoulder, I'm not as thrilled by those 10 percentage points, because of the added risk.

This is where we differ. You error on the side of caution. Nothing wrong with that but I would not.

[chrisfarley]

all it would take is for somebody to come in spearing toward his shoulder or looking to nail him shoulder-to-shoulder to take him out.  I doubt QB Sneaks will even be given a look.  At least not with #12.  Coordinators like the former Saints guy Gregg Williams will gear their defense to attack injured QB parts.