Questionable rb use

[Nickster]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

Hines has converted inside runs on short yardage several times this season. He also has been as a route runner in those situations, with pretty good success. And as Reich said, none of our backs would have converted on that failed play because the OL got blown up.

But Frank is wrong.  The OLine didn't get blown up at all, and I think a bigger back (JT) has a chance to slide off the tackle there and finish forward.  There was a seal by Nelson, Kelly had his man occupied enough for a 1st down or even a TD.

 

The issue was Burton coming in and whiffing on the Block.  This is the just unbelievably poor call by Frank and staff.  You have Moe Cox who a guy would have to run about a half mile to get around.  You have Jack Doyle also known for run blocking.  

 

Who does Frank Reich have leading up on this, the most important play of the game?  He has Trey Burton a tweener gadget type of player, who suffice it to say, is NOT known for his run blocking.  

 

This is egregious personnel mismanagement, not a bad play call per se.  Burton screwed up bad on this play but should NEVER have been put in that position at that point in the game.

[Superman]

23 minutes ago, Nickster said:

But Frank is wrong.  The OLine didn't get blown up at all, and I think a bigger back (JT) has a chance to slide off the tackle there and finish forward.  There was a seal by Nelson, Kelly had his man occupied enough for a 1st down or even a TD.

 

The issue was Burton coming in and whiffing on the Block.  This is the just unbelievably poor call by Frank and staff.  You have Moe Cox who a guy would have to run about a half mile to get around.  You have Jack Doyle also known for run blocking.  

 

Who does Frank Reich have leading up on this, the most important play of the game?  He has Trey Burton a tweener gadget type of player, who suffice it to say, is NOT known for his run blocking.  

 

This is egregious personnel mismanagement, not a bad play call per se.  Burton screwed up bad on this play but should NEVER have been put in that position at that point in the game.

 

Trey Burton is actually a really good blocker. If you just looked at his size profile and compared it to MAC's, or to Doyle's reputation (who is actually just an average blocker, but gets credit for being better than he is), then I could see why you'd say that Burton was out of place on that play. In reality, he wasn't. He's played that role as blocking TE for the last three years, with good success.

 

I just rewatched the play. Ryan Kelly got beat, and his man (#92) was first to the ball. Cunningham (#41) was unblocked. Burton missed his block on #50, who joined the three-headed tackle. Behind them was #23 unblocked at the line of scrimmage. Maybe Refrigerator Perry runs over those defenders. It's unreasonable to suggest that any back on our roster was going to make that play.

 

I think it's a bad play call for several reasons. Situationally, just kick the FG and go up seven points. On the sideline, they were unsure what the decision would be. Rivers tried to come off the field, JB was standing next to Reich with his helmet on, they appeared to call a set play on the field, but there was plenty of confusion. The Texans lined up tight inside to stop a QB sneak, then stayed in that alignment even though Rivers (who never sneaks) was on the field, and in shotgun. The run game was inconsistent to that point. I don't like the decision or the call.

 

My objection to this particular criticism is only about Hines being the back. Hines can run inside, and has done so successfully this season. I believe this is just hyper-critical fans identifying what they think is a simple failure on the part of the coach and acting like they know something to be true -- "so why doesn't the coach see it?" -- when the conclusion everyone is landing on isn't accurate.

 

Using Hines on short yardage inside runs is not a fundamental failure. It's probably not our best option, but there are advantages to having Hines on the field on 4th and short. 

[Nickster]

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Trey Burton is actually a really good blocker. If you just looked at his size profile and compared it to MAC's, or to Doyle's reputation (who is actually just an average blocker, but gets credit for being better than he is), then I could see why you'd say that Burton was out of place on that play. In reality, he wasn't. He's played that role as blocking TE for the last three years, with good success.

 

I just rewatched the play. Ryan Kelly got beat, and his man (#92) was first to the ball. Cunningham (#41) was unblocked. Burton missed his block on #50, who joined the three-headed tackle. Behind them was #23 unblocked at the line of scrimmage. Maybe Refrigerator Perry runs over those defenders. It's unreasonable to suggest that any back on our roster was going to make that play.

 

I think it's a bad play call for several reasons. Situationally, just kick the FG and go up seven points. On the sideline, they were unsure what the decision would be. Rivers tried to come off the field, JB was standing next to Reich with his helmet on, they appeared to call a set play on the field, but there was plenty of confusion. The Texans lined up tight inside to stop a QB sneak, then stayed in that alignment even though Rivers (who never sneaks) was on the field, and in shotgun. The run game was inconsistent to that point. I don't like the decision or the call.

 

My objection to this particular criticism is only about Hines being the back. Hines can run inside, and has done so successfully this season. I believe this is just hyper-critical fans identifying what they think is a simple failure on the part of the coach and acting like they know something to be true -- "so why doesn't the coach see it?" -- when the conclusion everyone is landing on isn't accurate.

 

Using Hines on short yardage inside runs is not a fundamental failure. It's probably not our best option, but there are advantages to having Hines on the field on 4th and short. 

Well look I am not going to argue with you about what happened on the play.  Just suffice it to say, you are seeing it very wrong IMO.  

[Superman]

Just now, Nickster said:

Well look I am not going to argue with you about what happened on the play.  Just suffice it to say, you are seeing it very wrong IMO.  

 

That's cool, but I'm not wrong. He got tackled by three defenders, behind the line of scrimmage, and there was a 4th defender in waiting.

[SteelCityColt]

28 minutes ago, Nickster said:

Well look I am not going to argue with you about what happened on the play.  Just suffice it to say, you are seeing it very wrong IMO.  

Translation, I cba to watch the play in detail like @Superman clearly did. 
 

Come on now, even to the naked eye there were multiple guys with a free shot. Busted play.
 

I still don’t like the call, but let’s not ignore how it actually went down. 

[stitches]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Hines has converted inside runs on short yardage several times this season. He also has been as a route runner in those situations, with pretty good success. And as Reich said, none of our backs would have converted on that failed play because the OL got blown up.

I don't think that's a good benchmark to set. If you give a player tons and tons of opportunities they will convert one or two here and there. This is not the question. @EastStreet posted the stats in the other thread about Reich's playcalling and use of RBs and the difference is pretty clear about just how ineffective using Hines is in those situations and with that playcall(run between the tackles, short yardage situation, etc.). I'm done making excuses for Reich. This continues to happen AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN! And it needs to change. Or next time the opponent won't fumble inside the 5 to gift us the win. We were lucky yesterday. 

 

Yes, in this particular case maybe it wouldn't have mattered if it was Taylor or Hines. But in some other situations it would matter... and what's much more important - it would matter that Reich again chooses the most predictable of calls in those 3d and 4th and shorts. 

[Superman]

1 minute ago, stitches said:

I don't think that's a good benchmark to set. If you give a player tons and tons of opportunities they will convert one or two here and there. This is not the question. @EastStreet posted the stats in the other thread about Reich's playcalling and use of RBs and the difference is pretty clear about just how ineffective using Hines is in those situations and with that playcall(run between the tackles, short yardage situation, etc.). I'm done making excuses for Reich. This continues to happen AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN! And it needs to change. Or next time the opponent won't fumble inside the 5 to gift us the win. We were lucky yesterday. 

 

Yes, in this particular case maybe it wouldn't have mattered if it was Taylor or Hines. But in some other situations it would matter... and what's much more important - it would matter that Reich again chooses the most predictable of calls in those 3d and 4th and shorts. 

 

Can you link the post?

 

Edit: By the way, much of that is fair criticism. I'm waiting to see EastStreet's post, but if that's true it makes sense. No one would ever call Hines a power back. Yet, when he's on the field on 4th and short, there are several variables that matter.

 

And my point in response to this thread is that the play didn't fail strictly because Hines was the back, and I personally think that's an important distinction. Doesn't mean there is a larger conversation in which this particular scenario doesn't have to be relevant.

[stitches]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

Can you link the post?

 

[Fat Clemenza]

31 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

That's cool, but I'm not wrong. He got tackled by three defenders, behind the line of scrimmage, and there was a 4th defender in waiting.

 

Yes.

 

I have two larger questions: why do we keep running for short yardage out of jumbo formation? Everyone on the field knows Rivers can't  run a stretch or bootleg, so the middle is clogged, and we try and fail over and over.  Why not spread the field? We are 31st in the league in 3rd and one.

 

Why is Reich letting Rathman decide who plays at any given moment (as has been reported)?  "We view all our running backs as interchangeable." What? I understand the desire for position versatility, and maybe that quote is a fancy way of covering for their concerns about Taylor fumbling, but I can't believe Reich truly thinks JT and NH are interchangeable.  I don't trust Taylor to beat a defensive back one on one.  I don't trust Hines to carry defenders for 2 extra yards.  

 

Put in the player that will best execute your play call.  Leave in the back that is hot and gaining yards.  That's how you run the damn ball, IMHO.  

 

 

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, stitches said:

 

 

How is this relevant statistical analysis? From ES post that you linked:

Quote

 

Direction Rushing AVG (all downs) between the tackles

Player        /  LG  /  C  /  RG

Taylor        / 3.7 / 3.4  / 3.0

Hines        / 3.4  / 2.9  / 1.4

*So pretty obvious difference

 

Also to note, between the goal line and 10 yard line, Taylor has 13 carries (1.8 ypc) and Hines 11 carries (0.9 ypc). That's a 200% delta. On 3rd and 4th downs, both have 4 carries. Taylor's ypc is 1.73 vs Hines 0.75. That's a 231% delta.

 

 

I think we want to know how each back converts on short yardage carries, right? This does next to nothing to identify either player's short yardage performance. We need to know down, distance, personnel, formation (at least shotgun vs under center) and game situation. Just taking every carry from the 10 yard line in doesn't help.

 

I'm looking for those numbers, haven't found them yet. I'm relying on my not-chronicled memory to say that Hines has converted on short yardage carries this season. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am. 

[stitches]

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Can you link the post?

 

Edit: By the way, much of that is fair criticism. I'm waiting to see EastStreet's post, but if that's true it makes sense. No one would ever call Hines a power back. Yet, when he's on the field on 4th and short, there are several variables that matter.

 

And my point in response to this thread is that the play didn't fail strictly because Hines was the back, and I personally think that's an important distinction. Doesn't mean there is a larger conversation in which this particular scenario doesn't have to be relevant.

I agree that in this particular case the play got blown up mainly because of poor blocking and not because the back was Hines. But you don't know that before you run the play. What you know is that Hines has had horrendous success in situations like that and with similar playcalls throughout the season. 

[Nickster]

14 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

Translation, I cba to watch the play in detail like @Superman clearly did. 
 

Come on now, even to the naked eye there were multiple guys with a free shot. Busted play.
 

I still don’t like the call, but let’s not ignore how it actually went down. 

He only got hit by Kelly's man because he is absolutely stonewalled by the LB in the hole.  I said I wouldn't argue with supe about it, but I will argue with you.  Kelly's man would get a arm or even a shoulder into him, but that shouldn't be enough to stop a forward lean for a yard.  The play is made possible by an almost impossible whiff by Burton.

[stitches]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

How is this relevant statistical analysis? From ES post that you linked:

 

I think we want to know how each back converts on short yardage carries, right? This does next to nothing to identify either player's short yardage performance. We need to know down, distance, personnel, formation (at least shotgun vs under center) and game situation. Just taking every carry from the 10 yard line in doesn't help.

 

I'm looking for those numbers, haven't found them yet. I'm relying on my not-chronicled memory to say that Hines has converted on short yardage carries this season. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am. 

I'd like to know that information too(conversion %), but I wouldn't guess it would be favorable to Hines when he runs under 1 yard per carry in those situations. 

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, stitches said:

I agree that in this particular case the play got blown up mainly because of poor blocking and not because the back was Hines. But you don't know that before you run the play. What you know is that Hines has had horrendous success in situations like that and with similar playcalls throughout the season. 

 

I'd like to see that statistical analysis, in comparison with the other backs on our roster. (I think our team has been bad in short yardage, period, with the exception of JB sneaks.) 

[Superman]

1 minute ago, stitches said:

I'd like to know that information too(conversion %), but I wouldn't guess it would be favorable to Hines when he runs under 1 yard per carry in those situations. 

 

What do you suspect Taylor's % would be? Wilkins? 

 

I don't think any of our backs have been "good" in short yardage, and I think that's less about the backs and more about the play calling and run blocking.

[stitches]

Just now, Superman said:

 

What do you suspect Taylor's % would be? Wilkins? 

 

 

I don't think any of our backs have been "good" in short yardage, and I think that's less about the backs and more about the play calling and run blocking.

Not great, but better. Agree that the short yardage situations have been pretty poor for this team this year and indeed I too think it's mainly the playcalling that's the culprit. 

[Nickster]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Trey Burton is actually a really good blocker. If you just looked at his size profile and compared it to MAC's, or to Doyle's reputation (who is actually just an average blocker, but gets credit for being better than he is), then I could see why you'd say that Burton was out of place on that play. In reality, he wasn't. He's played that role as blocking TE for the last three years, with good success.

 

I just rewatched the play. Ryan Kelly got beat, and his man (#92) was first to the ball. Cunningham (#41) was unblocked. Burton missed his block on #50, who joined the three-headed tackle. Behind them was #23 unblocked at the line of scrimmage. Maybe Refrigerator Perry runs over those defenders. It's unreasonable to suggest that any back on our roster was going to make that play.

 

I think it's a bad play call for several reasons. Situationally, just kick the FG and go up seven points. On the sideline, they were unsure what the decision would be. Rivers tried to come off the field, JB was standing next to Reich with his helmet on, they appeared to call a set play on the field, but there was plenty of confusion. The Texans lined up tight inside to stop a QB sneak, then stayed in that alignment even though Rivers (who never sneaks) was on the field, and in shotgun. The run game was inconsistent to that point. I don't like the decision or the call.

 

My objection to this particular criticism is only about Hines being the back. Hines can run inside, and has done so successfully this season. I believe this is just hyper-critical fans identifying what they think is a simple failure on the part of the coach and acting like they know something to be true -- "so why doesn't the coach see it?" -- when the conclusion everyone is landing on isn't accurate.

 

Using Hines on short yardage inside runs is not a fundamental failure. It's probably not our best option, but there are advantages to having Hines on the field on 4th and short. 

I stand corrected on Burton as a run blocker.  Looked it up.  You are right about that, but this was a terrible play on his part.  

[Nickster]

9 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

What do you suspect Taylor's % would be? Wilkins? 

 

I don't think any of our backs have been "good" in short yardage, and I think that's less about the backs and more about the play calling and run blocking.

taylor was very indecisive in short yardage earlier in the year as well.  He should be better going forward IMO.  He's ran really well v. GB and HOU.

 

I wasn't saying though that he would have made a play, but there definitely would have been a bigger collision, and a possibility of sliding foward.  Burton's play was terrible on this down.

 

 

[Superman]

1 minute ago, Nickster said:

I stand corrected on Burton as a run blocker.  Looked it up.  You are right about that, but this was a terrible play on his part.  

 

Agreed fully. He blew his block for sure. 

 

I still think #41 is in the hole, and #23 is right behind him. (Also, I mentioned #92 earlier, but he doesn't make that tackle on his own. I only mentioned him because I don't think Kelly executed his block properly.)

[Nickster]

Just now, Nickster said:

taylor was very indecisive in short yardage earlier in the year as well.  He should be better going forward IMO.  He's ran really well v. GB and HOU.  Good short yardage backs often get skinny in the hole in addtion to sometimes having power.  

 

I wasn't saying though that he would have made a play, but there definitely would have been a bigger collision, and a possibility of sliding foward.  Burton's play was terrible on this down.  He has got to get there.  If they ever run that again, I bet you dollard to donuts, they'll have him coming in motion.

 

 

 

[Nickster]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

Agreed fully. He blew his block for sure. 

 

I still think #41 is in the hole, and #23 is right behind him. (Also, I mentioned #92 earlier, but he doesn't make that tackle on his own. I only mentioned him because I don't think Kelly executed his block properly.)

Kelly got held up just a bit, but the play is made by an untouched 50.  23 and 92 join in after the play is stonewalled.  Remember we are only needing to get 3 feet. You aren't looking for monster truck holes here.  Thats' just my opinion.  I'd still like to see Mo Cox barelling through there.

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, Nickster said:

Kelly got held up just a bit, but the play is made by an untouched 50.  23 and 92 join in after the play is stonewalled.  Remember we are only needing to get 3 feet. You aren't looking for monster truck holes here.  Thats' just my opinion.  I'd still like to see Mo Cox barelling through there.

 

Do they ever use MAC as a move blocker? I think it's usually Doyle and Burton.

[Nickster]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Do they ever use MAC as a move blocker? I think it's usually Doyle and Burton.

They do on the edge, and the only reason I know that is when I was at the Jets game he almost killed someone on a play like that.

[Two_pound]

That same inside handoff to Hines hadn't worked the entire game so I thought it was a little odd to try there in that situation. And ofcourse it didn't work again. Go figure. And yes superman is right there were 3 guys waiting for him.

[Stephen]

21 minutes ago, Two_pound said:

That same inside handoff to Hines hadn't worked the entire game so I thought it was a little odd to try there in that situation. And ofcourse it didn't work again. Go figure. And yes superman is right there were 3 guys waiting for him.

Should have been a play action fake on that call

[hoosierhawk]

57 minutes ago, Stephen said:

Should have been a play action fake on that call

Should have been a FG to put u up by seven.

[Stephen]

37 minutes ago, hoosierhawk said:

Should have been a FG to put u up by seven.

I was referring to  the going for it scenario lol

[hoosierhawk]

1 hour ago, Stephen said:

I was referring to  the going for it scenario lol

Gotcha!

[Superman]

Regarding Hines in short yardage situations, he just converted third and 1 from shotgun (similar play, no pulling TE) last week against the Titans, it was the last play of the third quarter. 

 

Edit: Just found another one. Packers, third quarter, 3:35 to go, third and 1, shotgun, Hines up the middle for four yards.

 

Edit: First Titans game, first quarter drive started with 5:06 on the clock, Hines converted 2nd and 1 THREE TIMES on that drive. The first one went for 12 yards, then 3 yards, then 2 yards. Not third or fourth down, so it's probably fair to disregard these. But I'm sure we all remember the failed 4th downs in that game with other backs. 

 

I'm posting these in support of my earlier claim that Hines has been successful as a runner in short yardage situations earlier this season. That doesn't mean he's our best option, but people are acting like running Hines in that situation is the dumbest thing ever and should never be done, and I don't think that's a reasonable take.

[NewColtsFan]

40 minutes ago, Superman said:

Regarding Hines in short yardage situations, he just converted third and 1 from shotgun (similar play, no pulling TE) last week against the Titans, it was the last play of the third quarter. 

 

Edit: Just found another one. Packers, third quarter, 3:35 to go, third and 1, shotgun, Hines up the middle for four yards.

 

Edit: First Titans game, first quarter drive started with 5:06 on the clock, Hines converted 2nd and 1 THREE TIMES on that drive. The first one went for 12 yards, then 3 yards, then 2 yards. Not third or fourth down, so it's probably fair to disregard these. But I'm sure we all remember the failed 4th downs in that game with other backs. 

 

I'm posting these in support of my earlier claim that Hines has been successful as a runner in short yardage situations earlier this season. That doesn't mean he's our best option, but people are acting like running Hines in that situation is the dumbest thing ever and should never be done, and I don't think that's a reasonable take.

 

Thank you for doing all that homework.    I'll take your facts over the opinions of others here every time.

 

And I'm especially with you on your last sentence.   It's not my favorite call,  but it's not as bad as many here are complaining about.    

[Superman]

7 hours ago, Fat Clemenza said:

 

Yes.

 

I have two larger questions: why do we keep running for short yardage out of jumbo formation? Everyone on the field knows Rivers can't  run a stretch or bootleg, so the middle is clogged, and we try and fail over and over.  Why not spread the field? We are 31st in the league in 3rd and one.

 

Why is Reich letting Rathman decide who plays at any given moment (as has been reported)?  "We view all our running backs as interchangeable." What? I understand the desire for position versatility, and maybe that quote is a fancy way of covering for their concerns about Taylor fumbling, but I can't believe Reich truly thinks JT and NH are interchangeable.  I don't trust Taylor to beat a defensive back one on one.  I don't trust Hines to carry defenders for 2 extra yards.  

 

Put in the player that will best execute your play call.  Leave in the back that is hot and gaining yards.  That's how you run the damn ball, IMHO.  

 

Just coming back to this. I think our OL has struggled in the run game this year for various reasons. 

 

1) Coaching. I'm hesitant to say that an OL change that happened last season is now hurting our OL play, I just think that's kind of a scape-goaty thing to do. But, I think the holding penalties are partly a function of coaching, and it's something that needs to be cleaned up asap. So there might be something to the connection between the OL coaches and the apparent regression of the OL play this year. (Also, Howard Mudd was not in the mix at all this year. He was in the building throughout the offseason program in 2019.)

 

2) Injuries. The OL was highly cohesive last year, not so much this year. And even Nelson has battled injuries, even though he hasn't missed a game. 

 

3) The QB. Rivers' lack of mobility limits what we do in the run game, as you mentioned. I've begun to suspect that this is a prime reason for the lack of play action in general, not to mention the lack of bootlegs. There are options that are simply off the table with Rivers at QB, specific to the type of run plays we give to the backs (not to mention read option, etc.) 

 

4) The backs. Losing Mack in Week 1 hurt, and caused us to pile a lot more responsibility on Taylor than expected, and Taylor has taken some time to get in a groove. He's still finding his way. Wilkins has been used much more than expected. And Mack's success at breaking tackles in 2019 -- not elite, but pretty good -- is a factor we're missing also.

 

So we're struggling in short yardage, we're inefficient on play action (Rivers has one of the worst differentials in yards/attempt and completion percentage), and we don't have a go-to back in short yardage. 

 

(By the way, I'm close to talking myself into a box score-driven study of the backs in short yardage. Preliminary observation just from skimming the play by play suggests there's not much difference in success rate for any of our three backs this season.)

 

Yeah.

[EastStreet]

8 hours ago, stitches said:

I don't think that's a good benchmark to set. If you give a player tons and tons of opportunities they will convert one or two here and there. This is not the question. @EastStreet posted the stats in the other thread about Reich's playcalling and use of RBs and the difference is pretty clear about just how ineffective using Hines is in those situations and with that playcall(run between the tackles, short yardage situation, etc.). I'm done making excuses for Reich. This continues to happen AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN! And it needs to change. Or next time the opponent won't fumble inside the 5 to gift us the win. We were lucky yesterday. 

 

Yes, in this particular case maybe it wouldn't have mattered if it was Taylor or Hines. But in some other situations it would matter... and what's much more important - it would matter that Reich again chooses the most predictable of calls in those 3d and 4th and shorts. 

I think the key points are

1. don't use your smallest back, one that is clearly not a power back, for your short yardage 3rd and 4th downs, but especially not near the goal lone. It's just bad personnel usage
2. don't got tight/bunch formation and not expect teams to stack the box and blow up holes
3. the call itself (telegraphing with bunch formation), situation (up by 4, late), and personnel usage are all suspect. it's a combination of all 3 things, not just one. In terms of the situation, I'm going to bet that the computers say go for 3. You're almost an auto 3pts, which requires them to score a TD at minimum, and that chance, plus the chances of a 2pt conversion are likely smaller. 

8 hours ago, Superman said:

 

How is this relevant statistical analysis? From ES post that you linked:

 

I think we want to know how each back converts on short yardage carries, right? This does next to nothing to identify either player's short yardage performance. We need to know down, distance, personnel, formation (at least shotgun vs under center) and game situation. Just taking every carry from the 10 yard line in doesn't help.

 

I'm looking for those numbers, haven't found them yet. I'm relying on my not-chronicled memory to say that Hines has converted on short yardage carries this season. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am. 

Sup, here's one good source 

https://www.sharpfootballstats.com/rushing.html

The link is to the general rushing page, but if you go to the header, there are drop downs to look at success, ypp, toxicity, etc where you can adjust down, field position, distance, etc...

 

As far as what I posted being relevant, sure there are other factors, but isn't it relevant how a RB does between the tackles in general? Or how they perform in the RZ or between the goal line and 10? Or 3rd and 4th down in those situations. I gave nuggets of all those stats. Not sure how it's irrelevant. 

 

And I want to clarify. It's about the combination of things, more than just one thing. Adding on to three things above in reply to @stitches, and just in general....

1. Taylor has been coming on. He also comes from a power system. Hines has always been seen by most that are intellectually honest, as an APB. And if you want to argue that, that's fine, but nobody should see him as a power back. I don't mind Hines being used occasionally in short yardage 3rd/4th down situations early and between the 20s, but when the game is late, is close, and is near the goal line, just not sure the personnel choice can be argued.
2. Going tight formation is broadcasting your intentions. Reich invited Houston to blow us up. He's done it regularly, has been called out in the past, and even this week (IIRC by and indystar guy). And that's fine if you want to go tight and "heavy" up front, but then to do it with a "lite" running back? I could see it if the plan was to be unpredictable and run the edge or with a pitch or toss, but it was about as telegraphed as can be. How any of us are surprised it was blown up under those circumstances is beyond me. So it's not really about "any RB would have failed" under those circumstances.
3. Honestly, what do you think the card (analytics) said about kicking a FG to go up 7 in that situation. I guarantee you that if it was close, the fundamental or underlying belief that the analytics were based on would assume that a coach would at minimum use the RB that most closely mirrored a power back, or with a mobile or big QB.

Full disclosure... None of my attitude on the topic should be construed as negative on Hines. I love him, and think he's one of our best offensive weapons. He's just not a guy you use in short down and distance situations when the game is on the line.

8 hours ago, stitches said:

I agree that in this particular case the play got blown up mainly because of poor blocking and not because the back was Hines. But you don't know that before you run the play. What you know is that Hines has had horrendous success in situations like that and with similar playcalls throughout the season. 

Agreed. You can assume some things about players, but you also can't assume everything. Hines could have possibly bounced and hit the side. Taylor may have done the same, or even bullied out of it. What we do know is Hines failed. We don't know what Taylor would have done. We do know that most coaches would have used a different type back in that situation. And we can probably assume both RBs would have had a better chance with a spread formation instead of heavy/tight formation. 

[EastStreet]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Just coming back to this. I think our OL has struggled in the run game this year for various reasons. 

 

1) Coaching. I'm hesitant to say that an OL change that happened last season is now hurting our OL play, I just think that's kind of a scape-goaty thing to do. But, I think the holding penalties are partly a function of coaching, and it's something that needs to be cleaned up asap. So there might be something to the connection between the OL coaches and the apparent regression of the OL play this year. (Also, Howard Mudd was not in the mix at all this year. He was in the building throughout the offseason program in 2019.)

 

2) Injuries. The OL was highly cohesive last year, not so much this year. And even Nelson has battled injuries, even though he hasn't missed a game. 

 

3) The QB. Rivers' lack of mobility limits what we do in the run game, as you mentioned. I've begun to suspect that this is a prime reason for the lack of play action in general, not to mention the lack of bootlegs. There are options that are simply off the table with Rivers at QB, specific to the type of run plays we give to the backs (not to mention read option, etc.) 

 

4) The backs. Losing Mack in Week 1 hurt, and caused us to pile a lot more responsibility on Taylor than expected, and Taylor has taken some time to get in a groove. He's still finding his way. Wilkins has been used much more than expected. And Mack's success at breaking tackles in 2019 -- not elite, but pretty good -- is a factor we're missing also.

 

So we're struggling in short yardage, we're inefficient on play action (Rivers has one of the worst differentials in yards/attempt and completion percentage), and we don't have a go-to back in short yardage. 

 

(By the way, I'm close to talking myself into a box score-driven study of the backs in short yardage. Preliminary observation just from skimming the play by play suggests there's not much difference in success rate for any of our three backs this season.)

 

Yeah.

On the OL. I agree scape goaty is a thing, but honestly more and more things are pointing to coaching. Penalties for the bigger part are typically coaching as you mentioned. Injuries weren't that much a thing until later in the season, but our OL has looked different most of the year. I don't know where to find the info, but I'd like to know if our blocking scheme has changed much. How much zone blocking vs man, how may G pulls, etc.. I don't think it's any secret that Guge was known as a hard XXX driver type OL coach. Having that type of OL coach on the team I played for as a young kid, and having that kind of coach on my favorite college team for many years, tells me that that particular type of coach brings a "nasty" demeanor. And the absence of such a personality is also likely to have an effect. 

 

On the second bolded, the site I posted to you will give you a lot of that data. What that sight doesn't give you, is a way to select directionality under specific D&D, but it does show you directionality if you limit it to one back. I did a dive into a few games, and posted the info from one game (using nitty gritty play by play level) a few weeks ago, and published it. In that game (and the other I did not publish), there was a clear difference. One thing that stood out to me, was the overwhelming use of of Taylor in very predictable situations. In one of the games, I even matched up several plays to video that I was curious about. Most if not all were telegraphed. Hines has had a lot more benefit of edge runs (which Taylor is also good at, and was great at in college), and a lot more runs in sets that were not jumbo (telegraphed).

[Superman]

9 hours ago, EastStreet said:

Sup, here's one good source 

https://www.sharpfootballstats.com/rushing.html

The link is to the general rushing page, but if you go to the header, there are drop downs to look at success, ypp, toxicity, etc where you can adjust down, field position, distance, etc...

 

Incredibly helpful, and saved me some time. I always forget about his site...

 

Colts backs rushing, 3rd and 4th down, two yards to go or less:

Jonathan Taylor -- 10/14, 1.6 yards/carry, 2 TDs, 71% success rate

Nyheim Hines -- 2/3, 2.0 yards/carry, 0 TDs, 67% success rate

Jordan Wilkins -- 0/4, -0.5 yards/carry, 0 TDs, 0% success rate

 

Colts backs rushing, all downs, two yards to go or less:
Jonathan Taylor -- 15/21, 2.1 yards/carry, 3 TDs, 71% success rate

Nyheim Hines -- 6/7, 3.6 yards/carry, 1 TD, 86% success rate

Jordan Wilkins -- 2/6, 0.7 yards/carry, 0 TDs, 33% success rate

 

Colts backs receiving, 3rd and 4th down, all yardage:

Jonathan Taylor -- 3/8, 9.8 yards/attempt, 1 TD, 38% success rate

Nyheim Hines -- 5/11, 5.4 yards/attempt, 1 TD, 45% success rate

Jordan Wilkins -- 1/4, 10.5 yards/attempt, 0 TD, 25% success rate

(I'm not sure these success  rates reflect first downs.)

 

Quote

As far as what I posted being relevant, sure there are other factors, but isn't it relevant how a RB does between the tackles in general? Or how they perform in the RZ or between the goal line and 10? Or 3rd and 4th down in those situations. I gave nuggets of all those stats. Not sure how it's irrelevant. 

 

Without situational context, the between the tackles numbers don't really have any bearing on the discussion. First and 10 between the tackles is different than 4th and 1 between tackles, and all RZ carries are not the same. 

 

To some of your other points, yeah, Taylor is the better option for an inside run on short yardage. This wasn't a good decision (just kick it), not a good play call, not the right personnel, and not well executed. If you ARE gonna go for it there, it should probably be a JB package (and it seemed like Rivers thought it would be). If it's Rivers and Hines, it should probably be an optin route. Not arguing any of that.

 

(I'd like to point out that the Colts went for it on 4th and 4 earlier in the game, 2x2 formation with 11 personnel, but the WR/TE lined up tight to the strong side, and they threw it to the back (Taylor) for a long gain and a TD. On the failed 4th down, it was a 2x2 formation with 12 personnel, and the TE/TE lined up tight to the strong side. It's not like they went goal line. (I'm pretty sure it's the same personnel grouping (with MAC instead of Burton) and alignment they used on 3rd and 1 against the Titans last week, with Hines successfully converting on an inside run.)

 

I'm just saying that using Hines for an inside run on short yardage isn't as foolish as people claim. Particularly when we're talking about a play where the blocking broke down and the back was tackled by multiple defenders behind the line of scrimmage.

[Superman]

7 hours ago, EastStreet said:

On the OL. I agree scape goaty is a thing, but honestly more and more things are pointing to coaching. Penalties for the bigger part are typically coaching as you mentioned. Injuries weren't that much a thing until later in the season, but our OL has looked different most of the year. I don't know where to find the info, but I'd like to know if our blocking scheme has changed much. How much zone blocking vs man, how may G pulls, etc.. I don't think it's any secret that Guge was known as a hard XXX driver type OL coach. Having that type of OL coach on the team I played for as a young kid, and having that kind of coach on my favorite college team for many years, tells me that that particular type of coach brings a "nasty" demeanor. And the absence of such a personality is also likely to have an effect. 

 

Not dismissing any of that at this point. My resistance has been because the OL was better in 2019 than in 2018, there have been several injuries this year + a challenging offseason, so it initially strikes me as lazy analysis. 

 

By the way, injuries have been a thing all year at OL. AC and Kelly missed practice time early, and Nelson had injuries also. And it was already the thinnest position on the roster, outside of the starting five.

 

But with the penalties and the failure to get the running game going, it points to coaching issues.

[Myles]

7 hours ago, EastStreet said:

7 hours ago, EastStreet said:

 

1. don't use your smallest back, one that is clearly not a power back, for your short yardage 3rd and 4th downs, but especially not near the goal lone. It's just bad personnel usage
2.  
3. I don't mind Hines being used occasionally in short yardage 3rd/4th down situations early and between the 20s, but when the game is late, is close, and is near the goal line, just not sure the personnel choice can be argued

This is the the issue.   A 3rd or 4th and short is a much different play depending when, in the game, it happens.  

 

[EastStreet]

13 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Incredibly helpful, and saved me some time. I always forget about his site...

 

Colts backs rushing, 3rd and 4th down, two yards to go or less:

Jonathan Taylor -- 10/14, 1.6 yards/carry, 2 TDs, 71% success rate

Nyheim Hines -- 2/3, 2.0 yards/carry, 0 TDs, 67% success rate

Jordan Wilkins -- 0/4, -0.5 yards/carry, 0 TDs, 0% success rate

 

Colts backs rushing, all downs, two yards to go or less:
Jonathan Taylor -- 15/21, 2.1 yards/carry, 3 TDs, 71% success rate

Nyheim Hines -- 6/7, 3.6 yards/carry, 1 TD, 86% success rate

Jordan Wilkins -- 2/6, 0.7 yards/carry, 0 TDs, 33% success rate

 

Colts backs receiving, 3rd and 4th down, all yardage:

Jonathan Taylor -- 3/8, 9.8 yards/attempt, 1 TD, 38% success rate

Nyheim Hines -- 5/11, 5.4 yards/attempt, 1 TD, 45% success rate

Jordan Wilkins -- 1/4, 10.5 yards/attempt, 0 TD, 25% success rate

(I'm not sure these success  rates reflect first downs.)

 

 

Without situational context, the between the tackles numbers don't really have any bearing on the discussion. First and 10 between the tackles is different than 4th and 1 between tackles, and all RZ carries are not the same. 

 

To some of your other points, yeah, Taylor is the better option for an inside run on short yardage. This wasn't a good decision (just kick it), not a good play call, not the right personnel, and not well executed. If you ARE gonna go for it there, it should probably be a JB package (and it seemed like Rivers thought it would be). If it's Rivers and Hines, it should probably be an optin route. Not arguing any of that.

 

(I'd like to point out that the Colts went for it on 4th and 4 earlier in the game, 2x2 formation with 11 personnel, but the WR/TE lined up tight to the strong side, and they threw it to the back (Taylor) for a long gain and a TD. On the failed 4th down, it was a 2x2 formation with 12 personnel, and the TE/TE lined up tight to the strong side. It's not like they went goal line. (I'm pretty sure it's the same personnel grouping (with MAC instead of Burton) and alignment they used on 3rd and 1 against the Titans last week, with Hines successfully converting on an inside run.)

 

I'm just saying that using Hines for an inside run on short yardage isn't as foolish as people claim. Particularly when we're talking about a play where the blocking broke down and the back was tackled by multiple defenders behind the line of scrimmage.

The first group of #s you posted doesn't give directionality/gap. I gave that in the earlier game breakout (breakdown of all runs and situation). That particular game, and the game I didn't post, clearly led me to believe that JT's lack of #s (AVG and success rate) were hampered severely by predictableness (D&D, lack of outside attempts, etc.), while Hines' #s were inflated due to less predictableness, better D&D, outside attempts, and less tight formations. In short, the pure AVGs are a tale of very different context. 

 

As far as the two bolded, you're kinda riding both sides of the fence. We'll need to agree to disagree on the second bolded. 

 

While I agree it may not be ultra foolish to use Hines (in the purest sense), it is foolish when it's clearly your 3rd best option (at best). It's kinda like, is using Mack in that situation foolish? No. Now if you have the Bus in your backfield with Mack, it would be foolish not to use the Bus. Not comparing Mack to Hines, or JT to the Bus, but you get my drift. Hines was simply not the best honest, and any coach should be using his best option with the game on the line (especially when telegraphing).

 

 

[EastStreet]

13 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Not dismissing any of that at this point. My resistance has been because the OL was better in 2019 than in 2018, there have been several injuries this year + a challenging offseason, so it initially strikes me as lazy analysis. 

 

By the way, injuries have been a thing all year at OL. AC and Kelly missed practice time early, and Nelson had injuries also. And it was already the thinnest position on the roster, outside of the starting five.

 

But with the penalties and the failure to get the running game going, it points to coaching issues.

IIRC, we had dings (not game misses) last year too. I agree on the OL performing better in 2019, but they were great out of the gate (not really different from end of 2018), and it's also not a leap to assume a soph jump for two of the guys. It was also AC's contract year. So, there are logical reasons aside from coaching for the 2018 to 2019 jump. 

 

And what's your take on blocking scheme? Does it look the same to you? Just seems a bit different to me compared to last year. I've asked Walker twice now in the mailbag if Strausser has tweaked things, but he's not chosen those for the mail bag.

 

Did you see that NYGs picked up Guge a few weeks ago. And what did they do? Only allowed 2 sacks in 2 games, and had their two best rushing games (Gallman) by far.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, EastStreet said:

The first group of #s you posted doesn't give directionality/gap. I gave that in the earlier game breakout (breakdown of all runs and situation). That particular game, and the game I didn't post, clearly led me to believe that JT's lack of #s (AVG and success rate) were hampered severely by predictableness (D&D, lack of outside attempts, etc.), while Hines' #s were inflated due to less predictableness, better D&D, outside attempts, and less tight formations. In short, the pure AVGs are a tale of very different context. 

 

As far as the two bolded, you're kinda riding both sides of the fence. We'll need to agree to disagree on the second bolded. 

 

While I agree it may not be ultra foolish to use Hines (in the purest sense), it is foolish when it's clearly your 3rd best option (at best). It's kinda like, is using Mack in that situation foolish? No. Now if you have the Bus in your backfield with Mack, it would be foolish not to use the Bus. Not comparing Mack to Hines, or JT to the Bus, but you get my drift. Hines was simply not the best honest, and any coach should be using his best option with the game on the line (especially when telegraphing).

 

Directionality without down and distance doesn't help. There are far more inside runs in neutral situations than there are in short yardage. I don't really understand why you're tying the discussion to the direction of the run play, when we're talking about success in short yardage. The situation is far more relevant. 

 

If the question is about who is a better inside runner, show me the direction of the rushing attempt. We're talking about success in short yardage situations. The most relevant factor is the situation. There are other relevant variables, but direction of the attempt without situational context provides almost no insight on the topic.

 

(Since Hines only had three short yardage runs on third and fourth down, it wasn't hard for me to find and watch them. They were inside runs. The same is true of his three 2nd and 1 carries in the first Titans game.)

 

To the bolded, no I'm not. It's very simple, and I've said it several times in this thread: Hines running -- even inside -- in short yardage situations is not our best option, but that doesn't mean it's a foolish option. In fact, Hines has been successful on inside runs in short yardage this season. That's not fence sitting. It's just an instance of two things being true at the same time, which is how real life works.

 

To the last bolded, if Hines were awful in short yardage situations, I'd agree. He's has not been awful in short yardage this year. That's my point. It's a red herring to pin the failure of that play on the back being used. The play didn't fail because Hines can't convert in short yardage (in fact, he can convert in short yardage). The play got blown up due to poor blocking.

 

It's not what I would have done in that situation. I believe I would have kicked the FG. But even if we're gonna go for it, I don't think the situation was handled well, and I don't think they called a high percentage play.

 

If I had a more fundamental grasp on the numbers in the moment, and the analytics guys are saying 'this is a clear go,' then I think I would have used a different personnel package entirely. I think a JB package is the best option there: we've done four different things successfully with JB in short yardage, in the run game alone, in just the last three weeks. Sneak, jet sweep, read option, inside handoff. And that's what it looked like JB and Rivers expected. 

 

My second choice would be a pass play, with Hines option route being the #1 read.

 

And if you have to use a timeout in a high leverage situation like that to get it right, that's okay.

[Superman]

2 hours ago, EastStreet said:

IIRC, we had dings (not game misses) last year too. I agree on the OL performing better in 2019, but they were great out of the gate (not really different from end of 2018), and it's also not a leap to assume a soph jump for two of the guys. It was also AC's contract year. So, there are logical reasons aside from coaching for the 2018 to 2019 jump. 

 

And what's your take on blocking scheme? Does it look the same to you? Just seems a bit different to me compared to last year. I've asked Walker twice now in the mailbag if Strausser has tweaked things, but he's not chosen those for the mail bag.

 

Did you see that NYGs picked up Guge a few weeks ago. And what did they do? Only allowed 2 sacks in 2 games, and had their two best rushing games (Gallman) by far.

 

Now we're getting into legend status for Gug, when he can come in and instantly whip a bad OL into shape. I don't know about all that. Admittedly, I haven't paid much attention to the play of the Giants OL, but if he's making that much difference in a month, he's much better than I've ever given him credit for, and we shouldn't have let him go. More likely -- from a distant observer -- they've doubled down on the run, the defense has had a couple of good games against struggling teams (esp the Bengals), and Gallman had a couple nice series against Seattle. We'll see...

 

There are some differences in the run blocking, but it's not major IMO. I think the biggest thing is they're not running off left tackle as much as they did last year, and they're running out of shotgun more. And I think both of those changes are more about Rivers than they are about the OL.