Red Zone Woes Part 1: Pre-stat opinions

[EastStreet]

1 minute ago, Nickster said:

Come on East quit reaching.  

 

You are behaving as if simply being a red zone target is the only factor that goes into a players rating.  Most of MACs rating comes from the fact that he is a friggin bull dozer in the running game.  That goes for all 3 of our guys too.  

 

Are you actually saying that having a higher PFF number PROVES that a player is a better Red zone target?

 

Context East.  Context.

Reaching... dude you have zero facts, zero stats..... What is MACs receiving PFF? You have zero clue. What is MAC's situation success rate in the RZ... you have zero clue.... 

 

who's reaching?

[chad72]

One thing is for certain, the arm strength is not there for back shoulder zips (you know the ones Rodgers hits Adams on) or pylon area outs (something Big Ben threw and we thwarted with a 4th down stop in the Steelers game, he could risk it because of his arm with the worst result being an incompletion) with the risk of Rivers throwing INTs.

 

Not just in the RZ area but between the 20s as well. Not many comeback routes or outs thrown by Rivers. One sideline out he tried to throw was picked off on a throw to TY in the Browns game for a pick six. I think it is intentional that such throws are not being called by Frank. You know, the throws Peyton in his prime would make with his eyes closed to Marvin and Reggie where the ball would be released before Marvin or Reggie are out of the break, come back 2 yards towards the sideline and catch it, those kinds I am talking about.  It takes arm strength and zip, plus lots of chemistry and practice as well, I should qualify for such throws. 

[Nickster]

1 minute ago, EastStreet said:

I'll tell you what, Doyle, MAC, and Burton have the 3 best situational success rates in the RZ of all of our pass catchers....... but none are in the top 3 in RZ targets....

 

So tell me oh wise Nickster, what statistical evidence do you have lol... 

 

Well East Sage, aren't they asked to block quite a bit?  I think so, but I could be wrong. Collectively, what is their percentage Sage?  

 

Oh it's quite a bit higher isn't it?  Our TE group are all true TEs, meaning they block and pass.  We have three good ones.  Most teams only have 1 or less good one.  You need to combine your stats Sage East.  

 

Context my friend.  Context. 

 

 

[EastStreet]

Just now, chad72 said:

One thing is for certain, the arm strength is not there for back shoulder zips (you know the ones Rodgers hits Adams on) or pylon area outs (something Big Ben threw and we thwarted with a 4th down stop in the Steelers game, he could risk it because of his arm with the worst result being an incompletion) with the risk of Rivers throwing INTs.

 

Not just in the RZ area but between the 20s as well. Not many comeback routes or outs thrown by Rivers. One sideline out he tried to throw was picked off on a throw to TY in the Browns game for a pick six. I think it is intentional that such throws are not being called by Frank. You know, the throws Peyton would make with his eyes closed to Marvin and Reggie where the ball would be released before Marvin or Reggie are out of the break, come back 2 yards towards the sideline and catch it, those kinds I am talking about. 

meh. he threw beautiful back shoulders to Pascal and Harris. The one to Harris was fantastic, and I was surprised Frank called that to him being he's a newb route runner. 

[EastStreet]

2 minutes ago, Nickster said:

 

Well East Sage, aren't they asked to block quite a bit?  I think so, but I could be wrong. Collectively, what is their percentage Sage?  

 

Oh it's quite a bit higher isn't it?  Our TE group are all true TEs, meaning they block and pass.  We have three good ones.  Most teams only have 1 or less good one.  You need to combine your stats Sage East.  

 

Context my friend.  Context. 

lol... what are you even trying to say... or spin....

 

quit being lazy. I've provided facts.... again, our TEs have the 3 best situational pass success rates in the RZ. what is your response to that? 

 

what do you have Nickster.... anything factual, or just hot takes, and comments like "context my friend"... 

[chad72]

4 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

meh. he threw beautiful back shoulders to Pascal and Harris. The one to Harris was fantastic, and I was surprised Frank called that to him being he's a newb route runner. 

 

Yeah, in wide spaces, he does but not in tight spaces in the red zone, that is the difference, IMO.

 

That missed 4th & goal throw to Pittman, Big Ben had a similar situation vs Browns and zipped it into JuJu's numbers, but Rivers, once he got on his back foot, that touch was lost and it was a little bit of a line drive throw that even a diving young Pittman could not get to. Yes, even at this age, Big Ben's and Brees' and Brady's mobility just inside the pocket (not even talking outside) is better than that of Rivers, giving them an edge in red zone situations, IMO. 

 

Can you teach an old dog new tricks? Can footwork be worked on for a vet QB? I don't know

[EastStreet]

2 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

Yeah, in wide spaces, he does but not in tight spaces in the red zone, that is the difference, IMO.

 

That missed 4th & goal throw to Pittman, Big Ben had a similar situation vs Browns and zipped it into JuJu's numbers, but Rivers, once he got on his back foot, that touch was lost and it was a little bit of a line drive throw that even a diving young Pittman could not get to. Yes, even at this age, Big Ben's and Brees' and Brady's mobility just inside the pocket (not even talking outside) is better than that of Rivers, giving them an edge in red zone situations, IMO. 

 

Can you teach an old dog new tricks? Can footwork be worked on for a vet QB? I don't know

I rewatched the Pittman throw several times. Pittman slowed into his break as Rivers was releasing. IMO, it was a timing issue. Pittman's situational success rate is one of lower rates on the team, which should not shock folks. Xs as rooks typically take longer to transition. 

[chad72]

Just now, EastStreet said:

I rewatched the Pittman throw several times. Pittman slowed into his break as Rivers was releasing. IMO, it was a timing issue. Pittman's situational success rate is one of lower rates on the team, which should not shock folks. Xs as rooks typically take longer to transition. 

 

That is a valid point if Pittman did slow down. JuJu never slowed down while running across and kept running in the back of the end zone and maintaining separation and Big Ben found him. 

[EastStreet]

2 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

That is a valid point if Pittman did slow down. JuJu never slowed down while running across and kept running in the back of the end zone and maintaining separation and Big Ben found him. 

Pittman has been best in slants, and in general, in-stride catches. I thought he'd be more advanced on route running, but he isn't. Pascal still is king in terms of X route running. And it shows with a lot of the connections Pascal has with Rivers. Pittman is better than Johnson with the tree, but that's not saying a lot. Pittman will be fine though. He's just thinking too much. It's caused penalties too. Things will slow down for him in year 2. 

[Four2itus]

In the RZ, it is often a game of inches. The depth of field is compressed. The "5 yard" rule is less in play, and winning one on one blacking matches for those "inches" becomes paramount. 

 

Playcalling/personnel. First and foremost, is the playcalling as the season rolls on....in the RZ....... giving defenses enough looks to lessen predictability? Second,  is the right personnel on the field for the play with regards to matchups, and if calls are changed at the line....is it a call that the personnel at that time can execute? Lastly, do the players execute?

[Flash7]

I'm certain that the red zone woes relate to Philip Rivers. I like Rivers, but every QB has a certain style and has certain limitations. Rivers is limited in mobility, and that's even more magnified in the red zone. Riviers' limitations places a limit on what Reich can call in the red zone. 

 

Certainly, the coaches have seen this issue with Rivers. For that reason, they have elected on many occasions to bring in JB when close to the goal line. JB offers a different set of abilities that PR does not possess.

 

 

[EastStreet]

4 minutes ago, Flash7 said:

I'm certain that the red zone woes relate to Philip Rivers. I like Rivers, but every QB has a certain style and has certain limitations. Rivers is limited in mobility, and that's even more magnified in the red zone. Riviers' limitations places a limit on what Reich can call in the red zone. You notice that with Reich and Luck, the play calls were very different.

 

Certainly, the coaches have seen this issue with Rivers. For that reason, they have elected on many occasions to bring in JB when close to the goal line. JB offers a different set of abilities that PR does not.

JB is running or handing the ball off on the goal line. He threw zero times 0-10 yard lines, and he's 0-1 10-20 yard lines.

 

LAC was #8 in RZ % in 2018. I think you're over generalizing a bit. Rivers is 10th in RZ completion % (QBs with at least 50 RZ attempts). Inside the 10, he's 6th in completion % (QBs with at least 25 attempts). He's thrown zero INTs inside the 10, and only 1 inside the 20. That's well above average.

[Fisticuffs111]

Already been talked about here and elsewhere, but I think Rivers lack of mobility hurts us most in the RZ.

 

If you’re an opposing DC, you don’t have to worry about a bootleg/rollout/scramble/etc. We’re limited in what we can do.

 

 

[Hoose]

4 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

JB is running or handing the ball off on the goal line. He threw zero times 0-10 yard lines, and he's 0-1 10-20 yard lines.

 

LAC was #8 in RZ % in 2018. I think you're over generalizing a bit. Rivers is 10th in RZ completion % (QBs with at least 50 RZ attempts). Inside the 10, he's 6th in completion % (QBs with at least 25 attempts). He's thrown zero INTs inside the 10, and only 1 inside the 20. That's well above average.

I would agree that Rivers was not the problem so far as his actual performance.  So would you agree that the culprit, at least for the most part, is play calling? And in that regard, how often was Rivers changing the call at the line of scrimmage that caused the play to fail? I’m hard on Frank about his decision making in the RZ; I do wonder if Rivers shares some of the blame as well. 

[Nickster]

58 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

lol... what are you even trying to say... or spin....

 

quit being lazy. I've provided facts.... again, our TEs have the 3 best situational pass success rates in the RZ. what is your response to that? 

 

what do you have Nickster.... anything factual, or just hot takes, and comments like "context my friend"... 

 

I'm honestly not sure what a hot take is.  What are you accusing me of?

 

My feeling, and I could be wrong (and it really doesn't matter to me if I am, I do this crap for diversion; it's fun for me, we spent our teens in my group arguing about baseball; like Richard Pryor said his dad would be in the Barber shop), My feeling is that if you take our TEs as a group that what your suggesting of undersuage is not as valid as it might appear to be if you cite our TEs as individuals.  I am WAY TOO LAZY to add up all that crap by hand.  I wish there were engines you could look up stats by postion like baseball.

 

We had 900 receptions and 8 TDs from TEs which I am almost certain is top 10.  I don't know and don't know how to look it up.  I'd rather goad you into looking it up for me and you seem to like to do that kind of thing.

 

So now if I am wrong I'm cool with that, but I doubt I am about this looking over the leage after you get thorough Waller and Kelce this year.  

 

Now if the stats prove that we are using TEs less by the goal line than we do in the middle of the field, then we might need to rethink that.

 

But context is important in sports.  Do you have a coaching background East?  Sometimes it seems like you might and other times maybe not.  I am far from an expert, but I coached some pretty good wrestlers in my day that had some success and sometimes you lose a match and people will be like why didn't you do this and why didn't you do that?  And the answer is often contextual.  For instance the dude was 6'2 and my single didn't work like it normally does becuase I can't reach his leg with my normal set ups.

 

The point of this is that, I think Frank wants to try to run the ball in the end zone when possible. I think he's goofy with the JB stuff.  I can't stand it when we need more than a yard.  So he will stick with his philosphy even when the defense is onto it on occasion.  Like man that single is too far away, lets crotch the near leg or hit a double.  

 

I think Frank philosophically wants to run the ball in the end zone, and big bulldozing TE's make a differencne here

 

Our QB can move within the pocket adequately but can't go laterally to save his life.  

 

All of the teams you've cited in top 5 RZ get their QBs moving laterally on the goal line.  There is a lot more creativity.  For TEs, a rolling pocket creates a lot of opportunities.  You can have RPO with the possiblitly of running or passing for the QB, and have the TE stay in and block, and then fade out to catch a pass.  

  

SOme how my son became a GB fan and I watch almost all of theire games.  They do stuff  like this all the time.

IMO we don't have this option with PR.  He can't move sideways.

 

I think this is what Frank's idea is with JB, but JB is slow as % so it won't be effective long term.  I wish we could find a goal line QB like Hill to do some of this.   

 

With Rivers, the play has to pretty much work like it's designed too.  It was to happen pretty quick because he is probably not going to extend the play.  I would guess that the QBs of those top 5 teams (including NO becasue they will use Hill near the goal alot) alot of there RZ efficiency is created by creative QBs.  We have really no opportunity for that with PR.

[compuls1v3]

14 hours ago, EastStreet said:

Thanks to a hot take by someone else, I've decided to dig into the Colts RZ offense a bit.

 

There will be a part 2 with stats after I dig a bit tomorrow or the next day, but wanted to see what everyone's thoughts are pre-stats. I'll like do stats in part 2, and also a poll with everyone's opinion on causes.

 

Not sure what's out there in terms of free stats on RZ performance (team and players), but I'll try and dig as much as possible. If anyone has any great sites with info, please share. I know teamrankings.com, nflsavant.com, PFR, Sharp, etc..

 

I'll do a little comparison to past years (Colts centric), and also across teams. 

 

In terms of my pre-stat opinion, my gut says 

 

1) we didn't use Bigs (6-3 or more) enough in the passing game (I already know there was decline from past years in TE use)

2) our rushing was mostly predictable. 

 

So what are your thoughts on our 21st ranked RZ offense, and the causes? And also, any specific areas you want me to dig into?

 

Just from a fan's perspective without stats, it feels like we did not use tall guys in the RZ consistently, and we had shotgun runs that killed us.

[compuls1v3]

5 hours ago, EastStreet said:

our target share to TEs absolutely dropped.

and looking at the top 5 RZ teams, they all have more TE and Bigs targets. 

 

Going to try and spit some stats out tomorrow. It's tedious stuff, and I want to dig in a few more areas.

Hmm....not rocket science.  Go to your big guys in the RZ....lol.  Good find.

[Nickster]

1 hour ago, EastStreet said:

lol, trying hard to find something that supports your opinion... 

completion % going down, lol.. 

 

The top 5 RZ Os are GB, TN, SEA, CLE, and NO... The TEs from those teams are Smith, Cook, Trautman, Tonyan, Old Olsen, Hollister, Sternberger, Lewis, Firkser, Swaim, Pruitt, Dissly, Parkinson, Hooper, Njoku, Bryant, Hill..... Not sure any of those guys rate as high as MAC's 78.3

 

Except for SEA, every one of those teams has a TE in their top 2 RZ targets. SEA has DK Metcalf at 6-5 as their #2, who is taller than most TEs lol.. 

 

I noticed you aren't taking into account that each one of those teams have players you better think about doubling and we don't.  If you send a safety over to help out with Adams, that creates more space for Tonyan (who by the way is very very talented).

 

Another think I think you are basing your argumets off of Red Zone Efficiency, percentage of TDs in the RZ.

 

But then, when you do that, raw total Red zone targets become irrelevant.  To make the point you claim to be making, you would have to find the PERCENTAGE of TE red zone targets compared to the number of times in the red zone.  

But this is stats 101 and you wouldn't possibly skew the stats with confirmation bias would you East?

[Smoke317]

I think we struggled in the red zone due to River’s limitations which lead to more predictable play calling.  With Rivers in shotgun, the defense knows Rivers isn’t going anywhere.  No need to worry about escaping and extending a play.  So in that tight area with 22 bodies jammed in it, Rivers doesn’t have long to get the ball off.  And his arm isn’t as strong as it used to be to just grip it and rip it with every defender in the end zone staring him down.  Guys have to be schemed open IMMEDIATELY or Rivers has to go quickly to the check down or throw it away. 
 

With Luck or Jacoby, Frank could call bootlegs or get either on the move to give them a run/pass option and improve our ability to outflank the defense and get guys open.  Another HUGE factor (pun intended) is not using our bigger receivers.  Since we know Rivers has to get it out immediately, scheme our bigger targets into match up advantages.  Many may hate this, but I think Rivers would have had a much better year if we still had Ebron.  He would have been perfect for Rivers. And our red zone numbers would have been much better. 

[Nickster]

2 minutes ago, Smoke317 said:

I think we struggled in the red zone due to River’s limitations which lead to more predictable play calling.  With Rivers in shotgun, the defense knows Rivers isn’t going anywhere.  No need to worry about escaping and extending a play.  So in that tight area with 22 bodies jammed in it, Rivers doesn’t have long to get the ball off.  And his arm isn’t as strong as it used to be to just grip it and rip it with every defender in the end zone staring him down.  Guys have to be schemed open IMMEDIATELY or Rivers has to go quickly to the check down or throw it away. 
 

With Luck or Jacoby, Frank could call bootlegs or get either on the move to give them a run/pass option and improve our ability to outflank the defense and get guys open.  Another HUGE factor (pun intended) is not using our bigger receivers.  Since we know Rivers has to get it out immediately, scheme our bigger targets into match up advantages.  Many may hate this, but I think Rivers would have had a much better year if we still had Ebron.  He would have been perfect for Rivers. And our red zone numbers would have been much better. 

 

Oh Ebron is a much bigger mismatch than anyone we have.  No doubt IMO. 

 

Your first paragraph is similar to some of my thoughts on it.   It has to happen on script.  

[EastStreet]

28 minutes ago, Hoose said:

I would agree that Rivers was not the problem so far as his actual performance.  So would you agree that the culprit, at least for the most part, is play calling? And in that regard, how often was Rivers changing the call at the line of scrimmage that caused the play to fail? I’m hard on Frank about his decision making in the RZ; I do wonder if Rivers shares some of the blame as well. 

I've looked at a decent amount of stuff thus far, and what I see is play calling (our mix went from very balanced in 2018, to very unbalanced/predictable in 2020), personnel usage (we're not calling plays to our highest success rate pass catchers), and it appears our LT success rate (rushing) has really taken a hit in 2020. 

 

Given the mix I see, it's unlikely Rivers is changing the play calling much at all. We'll never know though.

[csmopar]

14 hours ago, EastStreet said:

Thanks to a hot take by someone else, I've decided to dig into the Colts RZ offense a bit.

 

There will be a part 2 with stats after I dig a bit tomorrow or the next day, but wanted to see what everyone's thoughts are pre-stats. I'll like do stats in part 2, and also a poll with everyone's opinion on causes.

 

Not sure what's out there in terms of free stats on RZ performance (team and players), but I'll try and dig as much as possible. If anyone has any great sites with info, please share. I know teamrankings.com, nflsavant.com, PFR, Sharp, etc..

 

I'll do a little comparison to past years (Colts centric), and also across teams. 

 

In terms of my pre-stat opinion, my gut says 

 

1) we didn't use Bigs (6-3 or more) enough in the passing game (I already know there was decline from past years in TE use)

2) our rushing was mostly predictable. 

 

So what are your thoughts on our 21st ranked RZ offense, and the causes? And also, any specific areas you want me to dig into?

in my opinion, we tried to get cute inside the RZ instead of going with what works.  We relied too heavily on analytic percentages instead of simplicity.  We barely used any of our TEs or even bigger WRs.  When we did, they seemed to be draped all over by the D and/or the passes were off/dropped. 

[compuls1v3]

2 hours ago, Nesjan3 said:

To me Reich, his playcalling and the teams culture just doesnt have that killer instinct to close drives or games. It shows time and time again where we look unstoppable going down the field just to clam up and get cute in the red zone.  Same with games, we cant close simple. How many times this season did we only show up for 2 quarters. Thats culture and failure to prepare.

 

Franks also needs to learn how to feel the game and not just make decisions strictly based on the analytic numbers. Honestly why dont we just have the analytics guy in their making decisions then. A head coaches job is to evaluate ALL the information available to him and make the right decisions. Not just read a stat off a sheet of paper

I have to agree with this completely.  It does seem like Frank just uses stats to make his decision.  But I am hopefully he will learn and grow and become a better coach in the future, know that stat are only part of the decision making.

[EastStreet]

5 minutes ago, Nickster said:

 

I noticed you aren't taking into account that each one of those teams have players you better think about doubling and we don't.  If you send a safety over to help out with Adams, that creates more space for Tonyan (who by the way is very very talented).

 

Another think I think you are basing your argumets off of Red Zone Efficiency, percentage of TDs in the RZ.

 

But then, when you do that, raw total Red zone targets become irrelevant.  To make the point you claim to be making, you would have to find the PERCENTAGE of TE red zone targets compared to the number of times in the red zone.  

But this is stats 101 and you wouldn't possibly skew the stats with confirmation bias would you East?

lol... 

again, what actual facts or stats are you bringing to the conversation? You're gonna nit pick on Adams and Tonyan lol. 

 

still waiting... 

[EastStreet]

25 minutes ago, compuls1v3 said:

 

Just from a fan's perspective without stats, it feels like we did not use tall guys in the RZ consistently, and we had shotgun runs that killed us.

Nope, we didn't use the tall guys... problem #1 or #2. Not sure if that's the biggest issue, or run/pass mix at this point. 

Got to do more digging and comps tonight.

[EastStreet]

24 minutes ago, compuls1v3 said:

Hmm....not rocket science.  Go to your big guys in the RZ....lol.  Good find.

Nope, not rocket science. Just like you run against bad run Ds. Oh wait, we don't always do that either :-)

[csmopar]

1 minute ago, EastStreet said:

Nope, not rocket science. Just like you run against bad run Ds. Oh wait, we don't always do that either :-)

my question is, who's calling the plays? Is it Frank giving crap plays from the sidelines, or is it Rivers checking into those plays? or someone else?  I don't see Frank going stupid from 2018 to now in the RZ.  Unless he's really bought into that analytic percentages game i mentioned above since then, the only thing that's changed is the QB.  Even with JB last year, we seemed to be better in the RZ than this year. 

[EastStreet]

41 minutes ago, Nickster said:

 

I'm honestly not sure what a hot take is.  What are you accusing me of?

 

My feeling, and I could be wrong (and it really doesn't matter to me if I am, I do this crap for diversion; it's fun for me, we spent our teens in my group arguing about baseball; like Richard Pryor said his dad would be in the Barber shop), My feeling is that if you take our TEs as a group that what your suggesting of undersuage is not as valid as it might appear to be if you cite our TEs as individuals.  I am WAY TOO LAZY to add up all that crap by hand.  I wish there were engines you could look up stats by postion like baseball.

 

We had 900 receptions and 8 TDs from TEs which I am almost certain is top 10.  I don't know and don't know how to look it up.  I'd rather goad you into looking it up for me and you seem to like to do that kind of thing.

 

So now if I am wrong I'm cool with that, but I doubt I am about this looking over the leage after you get thorough Waller and Kelce this year.  

 

Now if the stats prove that we are using TEs less by the goal line than we do in the middle of the field, then we might need to rethink that.

 

But context is important in sports.  Do you have a coaching background East?  Sometimes it seems like you might and other times maybe not.  I am far from an expert, but I coached some pretty good wrestlers in my day that had some success and sometimes you lose a match and people will be like why didn't you do this and why didn't you do that?  And the answer is often contextual.  For instance the dude was 6'2 and my single didn't work like it normally does becuase I can't reach his leg with my normal set ups.

 

The point of this is that, I think Frank wants to try to run the ball in the end zone when possible. I think he's goofy with the JB stuff.  I can't stand it when we need more than a yard.  So he will stick with his philosphy even when the defense is onto it on occasion.  Like man that single is too far away, lets crotch the near leg or hit a double.  

 

I think Frank philosophically wants to run the ball in the end zone, and big bulldozing TE's make a differencne here

 

Our QB can move within the pocket adequately but can't go laterally to save his life.  

 

All of the teams you've cited in top 5 RZ get their QBs moving laterally on the goal line.  There is a lot more creativity.  For TEs, a rolling pocket creates a lot of opportunities.  You can have RPO with the possiblitly of running or passing for the QB, and have the TE stay in and block, and then fade out to catch a pass.  

  

SOme how my son became a GB fan and I watch almost all of theire games.  They do stuff  like this all the time.

IMO we don't have this option with PR.  He can't move sideways.

 

I think this is what Frank's idea is with JB, but JB is slow as % so it won't be effective long term.  I wish we could find a goal line QB like Hill to do some of this.   

 

With Rivers, the play has to pretty much work like it's designed too.  It was to happen pretty quick because he is probably not going to extend the play.  I would guess that the QBs of those top 5 teams (including NO becasue they will use Hill near the goal alot) alot of there RZ efficiency is created by creative QBs.  We have really no opportunity for that with PR.

that's a lot of words, to say very little, and to more or less hedge your bets at being wrong lol... 

 

if you're willing to put the effort in to type all that, trying using a little effort and look up some stats on your own.

 

i lost count on how many tangents you went off on... 

[compuls1v3]

1 minute ago, csmopar said:

my question is, who's calling the plays? Is it Frank giving crap plays from the sidelines, or is it Rivers checking into those plays? or someone else?  I don't see Frank going stupid from 2018 to now in the RZ.  Unless he's really bought into that analytic percentages game i mentioned above since then, the only thing that's changed is the QB.  Even with JB last year, we seemed to be better in the RZ than this year. 

That's a fair question.  I'd like to know the answer as well.

[EastStreet]

9 minutes ago, csmopar said:

in my opinion, we tried to get cute inside the RZ instead of going with what works.  We relied too heavily on analytic percentages instead of simplicity.  We barely used any of our TEs or even bigger WRs.  When we did, they seemed to be draped all over by the D and/or the passes were off/dropped. 

i agree on the too cute, and too much analytics... still digging into personnel use, but looks that way (not using bigs) so far.

[EastStreet]

4 minutes ago, csmopar said:

my question is, who's calling the plays? Is it Frank giving crap plays from the sidelines, or is it Rivers checking into those plays? or someone else?  I don't see Frank going stupid from 2018 to now in the RZ.  Unless he's really bought into that analytic percentages game i mentioned above since then, the only thing that's changed is the QB.  Even with JB last year, we seemed to be better in the RZ than this year. 

I've said several times, I don't think Frank messed with the O scheme much in 2018. IMO, he let Luck continue being Luck, and running the O he always had. Play calling obviously changed, and for good reason in 2019. The mix in 2020 actually got more predictable though, instead of going back closer to 2018. 

 

Given the mix, I just don't see Rivers making those changes a bunch. The personnel groupings in general are Franks call, and Rivers has no control over that. I'm still a bit shocked that Frank let's Rathman dictate when RBs go in and out.

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

I'm still a bit shocked that Frank let's Rathman dictate when RBs go in and out.

 

I doubt that applies for situational play calls, like goal line / short yardage carries.

 

Also, I think Rivers changed a lot of plays at the line, based on some commentary from TV broadcasts and comments Reich and Rivers have made. Not like Manning basically doing whatever he wanted, but definitely a good amount of checks changing run to pass and vice versa.

[Fisticuffs111]

Not sure how much it happened in the RZ but Rivers did change plays at the line. Reich even said it once post game, not in a bad way or anything, but it came off as Rivers having a lot of freedom.

[EastStreet]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I doubt that applies for situational play calls, like goal line / short yardage carries.

 

Also, I think Rivers changed a lot of plays at the line, based on some commentary from TV broadcasts and comments Reich and Rivers have made. Not like Manning basically doing whatever he wanted, but definitely a good amount of checks changing run to pass and vice versa.

Frank was pretty adamant that Rathman is in charge of the rotation and RB personnel subbing. And he basically said Taylor and Hines were interchangeable as far as play calling. So there's just nothing there that would suggest situational plays are any different.

 

Based on the simple run/pass mix in the RZ, and 0-10, I'd be surprised if there's much change. It's incredibly tilted to run. I'm sure Rivers changes it every once in a while, but given the mix, just doesn't make since given some of the success rates. If he's changing runs to pass, the mix is still very tilted to runs. If he's changing passes to runs, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt.

[csmopar]

Sad part is, even the stats from 18, 19 and 20 aren't going to be able to tell us the full picture im afraid.  3 years, 3 different QBs. Each with a different play style.  That's why I say I kind of want another year with Rivers, we just haven't seen the same QB under the same HC those years.  

 

and a side question, how many teams/coaches have had 3 different starting QBs in their first 3 years as HC? and actually have a .500 record?

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Frank was pretty adamant that Rathman is in charge of the rotation and RB personnel subbing. And he basically said Taylor and Hines were interchangeable as far as play calling. So there's just nothing there that would suggest situational plays are any different.

 

Based on the simple run/pass mix in the RZ, and 0-10, I'd be surprised if there's much change. It's incredibly tilted to run. I'm sure Rivers changes it every once in a while, but given the mix, just doesn't make since given some of the success rates. If he's changing runs to pass, the mix is still very tilted to runs. If he's changing passes to runs, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

The fact that Taylor received significantly more short yardage runs than Hines suggests that situational play calls are different. 

 

Also, not sure why run/pass mix in the red zone is being used as an indicator of how often Rivers did or did not change plays at the line. I'm not suggesting that he only changed runs to passes, or the other way around. So no matter the mix, how does it indicate whether Rivers changed the play?

[Nickster]

48 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

lol... 

again, what actual facts or stats are you bringing to the conversation? You're gonna nit pick on Adams and Tonyan lol. 

 

still waiting... 

Did you actually read before responding?

 

40 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

that's a lot of words, to say very little, and to more or less hedge your bets at being wrong lol... 

 

if you're willing to put the effort in to type all that, trying using a little effort and look up some stats on your own.

 

i lost count on how many tangents you went off on... 

Well I'm never going to be factually wrong about wheter or not we are misusing our TE group.  That is opinion.  

 

1.  Are you biasing your point by false comparison?  ie.  Red zone effieciency=TDs/Number of times in the end zone

You claim that we have lower TE usage in the RZ than the top 5 teams.  You support this by saying we have less RZ targets to TEs in the RZ; however, # of targets to tight ends does not make a valid comparison. The logic is simply not valid.  You need to compare them proportionally ie. Number of TE targets in the RZ/Number of times in the RZ.

 

If there is a giant disparity here then you have a valid statistical comparison.  If not, then the research is worthless.

 

2.  Are you comparing the number of RZ targets to TEs for personnel groups for each team rather than individual players.  Since we use our 3 TEs about equally, you would have to take them as a group to see how often we use them compared to others.  We have good production overall from the TE position.  Better than all but a few teams.  900 yds and 8 TDs don't suggest low TE usage.  Maybe the RZ numbers do, but once again citing individual stats for Doyle, Burton, and MAC would be irrelevant and out of contex.  Most teams don't use 2 TEs equally let alone 3 like we do.  

 

3.  Are stats available in TE RZ targets for the number of times they were targeted on roll out plays?  If so, then you would need to subract these plays from the equation of RZ TE targets becasue it is not possible for PR to make this type of play.

 

4.  Are you taking into account on the number of TE RZ targets that occur when the play is broken and the QB scrambles?  If so, you would need to subtract these plays form the equation because PR cannot do this.

 

 

Now, if you did a statistical analysis that included all of these contigencies and it still supported what you were trying to say, then I would say, hmm, good point East.  I'll have to rethink what you are saying.  If not, then your statistics are going to be farily meaningless.

 

 

On the tangent, thing dude.  I read a lot of Kerouac back in the day, as in like every book he wrote.

 

  

[Nickster]

40 minutes ago, compuls1v3 said:

That's a fair question.  I'd like to know the answer as well.

It seemed like to me that PR seemed to call (or appear to call; PM used to fake audible), many more audibles Sunday than I recall in other games.  Did anyone else notice this?

[EastStreet]

9 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

The fact that Taylor received significantly more short yardage runs than Hines suggests that situational play calls are different. 

Yes, Taylor has more RZ and 0-10 carries, but check out the % from all carries, to RZ, to 0-10. To me it should be the opposite. They actually decrease JT's % in the RZ and 0-10... 

 

All Carries
JT 232 72%
NH 89  28%

 

Inside the 20 
JT 47 64%
NH 26 36%

 

Inside the 10
JT 25 62.5%
NH 15 37.5%

9 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Also, not sure why run/pass mix in the red zone is being used as an indicator of how often Rivers did or did not change plays at the line. I'm not suggesting that he only changed runs to passes, or the other way around. So no matter the mix, how does it indicate whether Rivers changed the play?

In short, the mix is extremely tilted towards rushing. If Rivers is changing it with any frequency from Run to Pass, it means an even more extreme tilt to begin with. If he's changing it from pass to run, which I doubt because teams have keyed on our run in the RZ due to the existing mix, then I wouldn't predict it would be much at all. I'm sure he changes it some, but doubt the frequency is above average.

[EastStreet]

16 minutes ago, Nickster said:

Did you actually read before responding?

 

Well I'm never going to be factually wrong about wheter or not we are misusing our TE group.  That is opinion.  

 

1.  Are you biasing your point by false comparison?  ie.  Red zone effieciency=TDs/Number of times in the end zone

You claim that we have lower TE usage in the RZ than the top 5 teams.  You support this by saying we have less RZ targets to TEs in the RZ; however, # of targets to tight ends does not make a valid comparison. The logic is simply not valid.  You need to compare them proportionally ie. Number of TE targets in the RZ/Number of times in the RZ.

 

If there is a giant disparity here then you have a valid statistical comparison.  If not, then the research is worthless.

 

2.  Are you comparing the number of RZ targets to TEs for personnel groups for each team rather than individual players.  Since we use our 3 TEs about equally, you would have to take them as a group to see how often we use them compared to others.  We have good production overall from the TE position.  Better than all but a few teams.  900 yds and 8 TDs don't suggest low TE usage.  Maybe the RZ numbers do, but once again citing individual stats for Doyle, Burton, and MAC would be irrelevant and out of contex.  Most teams don't use 2 TEs equally let alone 3 like we do.  

 

3.  Are stats available in TE RZ targets for the number of times they were targeted on roll out plays?  If so, then you would need to subract these plays from the equation of RZ TE targets becasue it is not possible for PR to make this type of play.

 

4.  Are you taking into account on the number of TE RZ targets that occur when the play is broken and the QB scrambles?  If so, you would need to subtract these plays form the equation because PR cannot do this.

 

 

Now, if you did a statistical analysis that included all of these contigencies and it still supported what you were trying to say, then I would say, hmm, good point East.  I'll have to rethink what you are saying.  If not, then your statistics are going to be farily meaningless.

 

 

On the tangent, thing dude.  I read a lot of Kerouac back in the day, as in like every book he wrote.

 

  

lol...

still waiting on your facts and stats....

 

you're doing what you always do

1. express an opinion without any factual basis or stats to back it up...

2. react when challenged by stats or facts

3. use big words and zingy catch phrases like "confirmation bias" and "false comparison", and suggest someone is misusing, or not interpreting things correctly... it's hilarious.

4. write very long posts saying nothing, and going off on 100 tangents to distract, spin, or move the goal posts instead of addressing fact based arguments.

 

Nickster, I don't really care about your opinion. You've admitted your too lazy to hunt stats yourself, yet act like a sage and master of statistical analysis. It's the same story over and over... And not sure how you can be critical of what I'm looking at, or basing my opinion on.... I've said in the OP, and to you directly (because you were likely too lazy to read the OP), that I'd be publishing stats later in the week. Yet you've already hung like 4 of your zingy catch phrases on me in an attempt to sound smart... You're MO is pretty clear, and it's rinse/repeat...