Red Zone Woes Part 1: Pre-stat opinions

[Nickster 881]

10 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

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%

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.

 

Yeah Frank is pretty stubborn with this idea of running the ball IMO in the RZ.

 

It's been conventional wisdom for quite some time that in the NFL you might run the ball to the red zone but you are probably going to have to throw it to score most of the time.

 

[Superman 9,409]

2 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

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%

 

Down and distance? Without that, we're not looking at situational usage, just field zone usage. You're conflating two different things. My point was that they use Taylor more often in short yardage, not just more in the red zone, and that points to the theory that they have situational calls for each back. In the same way, Hines got more third down snaps than first and second down, because he was used situationally on third downs. So I don't know if the 'Rathman Hot Hand Theorem' is as definitive as people are making it out to be.

 

Quote

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.

 

Same thing here. I know your objective is to analyze red zone trends and success, which is fine and useful. But I was not saying that Rivers does anything specifically in the red zone. Just saying that I think he changes plays at the line a considerable percentage of the time. Not saying he checks into or out of runs, or that he makes more checks in the red zone than he does in other field zones.

 

Tie that to the Rathman Theory, and it's possible that Rathman's influence over when and how backs are used might be slightly overstated. If it's third and 2, 11 personnel, and a shotgun/RPO call, and Rathman sends in Hines, but Rivers checks to an under center run, that's out of Rathman's hands. Doesn't mean it's right or wrong, and I'm not criticizing the play caller, position coach, or Rivers, just saying without accounting for those variables we're not getting a full picture.

[stitches 8,437]

To me it looked like the playcalling became way too conservative. 

 

First, when it comes to run/pass balance. And second when it comes to the type of runs we were running - it looked like we were going straight between the tackles a ton. 

 

Something interesting Reich said in the interview after the Bills game about the 3d and goal toss run play from the 1 - he said they had not done that so he wanted to diversify the offense and break a tendency and potentially catch the Bills with something surprising... they were not surprised though... so I don't know. Maybe Reich does know a lot about his own tendencies, which still begs the question why does he not try improving on the ones that seem suboptimal. 

 

But yeah... that's just my intuition from watching, without actually keeping stats on it. Maybe my intuition is wrong? 

[Nickster 881]

10 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

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 the 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...

 

 

 

 

 

 

What opinions did I express in the post you just responded too?  Do you actually disagree with what I said in any of them?

 

My guess is no, because that is your MO.  You simply don't respond to basic questions that don't fall in line with what you are trying to prove.

 

My zingy catch phrases are just trying to be fun East.  I know you are BSing me man and I appreciate it.

 

 

 

 

[Nickster 881]

8 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Down and distance? Without that, we're not looking at situational usage, just field zone usage. You're conflating two different things. My point was that they use Taylor more often in short yardage, not just more in the red zone, and that points to the theory that they have situational calls for each back. In the same way, Hines got more third down snaps than first and second down, because he was used situationally on third downs. So I don't know if the 'Rathman Hot Hand Theorem' is as definitive as people are making it out to be.

 

 

Same thing here. I know your objective is to analyze red zone trends and success, which is fine and useful. But I was not saying that Rivers does anything specifically in the red zone. Just saying that I think he changes plays at the line a considerable percentage of the time. Not saying he checks into or out of runs, or that he makes more checks in the red zone than he does in other field zones.

 

Tie that to the Rathman Theory, and it's possible that Rathman's influence over when and how backs are used might be slightly overstated. If it's third and 2, 11 personnel, and a shotgun/RPO call, and Rathman sends in Hines, but Rivers checks to an under center run, that's out of Rathman's hands. Doesn't mean it's right or wrong, and I'm not criticizing the play caller, position coach, or Rivers, just saying without accounting for those variables we're not getting a full picture.

 

There are lots of variables in this discussion. 

 

[Superman 9,409]

4 minutes ago, stitches said:

Something interesting Reich said in the interview after the Bills game about the 3d and goal toss run play from the 1 - he said they had not done that so he wanted to diversify the offense and break a tendency and potentially catch the Bills with something surprising... they were not surprised though... so I don't know. Maybe Reich does know a lot about his own tendencies, which still begs the question why does he not try improving on the ones that seem suboptimal. 

 

I thought the third and goal toss was a great play call, based on the personnel and the coverage look. Toss play in short yardage against man coverage is typically a winner. The safety didn't bite on the fake, but Taylor would have been one on one with him coming around the corner. Doyle's man got penetration and disrupted the play.

[lollygagger8 3,361]

Man, remember when the Colts had Bradshaw and would run that throw play to him and score every time? That was money! 

 

 

 

Play calling becomes even more important the shorter the field gets. 

 

 

[stitches 8,437]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I thought the third and goal toss was a great play call, based on the personnel and the coverage look. Toss play in short yardage against man coverage is typically a winner. The safety didn't bite on the fake, but Taylor would have been one on one with him coming around the corner. Doyle's man got penetration and disrupted the play.

Yeah, it's weird... at first I was mad during the game, but then I realized this is precisely what I've been begging him to do - to try something other than run behind Q and Kelly. It wasn't the playcall's fault. It was just good defensive stop and not ideal execution. Rivers being so limited movement-wise really doesn't give us much margin for error in those situations. Teams are not biting on fakes and we have hard time punishing them for it. 

[EastStreet 9,983]

14 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Down and distance? Without that, we're not looking at situational usage, just field zone usage. You're conflating two different things. My point was that they use Taylor more often in short yardage, not just more in the red zone, and that points to the theory that they have situational calls for each back. In the same way, Hines got more third down snaps than first and second down, because he was used situationally on third downs. So I don't know if the 'Rathman Hot Hand Theorem' is as definitive as people are making it out to be.

Not conflating anything. Sharps situation rushing success rate has Taylor at 49%, and Hines at 36%. And to be more basic, Taylor has a 19% TD rate vs Hines 12% in the RZ, and Taylor has a 36% rate vs Hines 13% in the 0-10 area.

 

You can get lost in the weeds, but those are some very clear basic. The situational success rate from Sharps actually isn't so basic.

 

And there isn't a real delta on 3rd down carries from % standpoint in the RZ. Of Taylors 53 RZ carries, 8 were on 3rd down (15%). Of Hines 28 RZ carris, 4 were on 3rd down (14%). Pretty interchangeable % to me.

Quote

Same thing here. I know your objective is to analyze red zone trends and success, which is fine and useful. But I was not saying that Rivers does anything specifically in the red zone. Just saying that I think he changes plays at the line a considerable percentage of the time. Not saying he checks into or out of runs, or that he makes more checks in the red zone than he does in other field zones.

What makes you think Rivers changes the plays at a decent frequency, other than Reich mentioning once that Rivers changed a play or two?

Quote

 

Tie that to the Rathman Theory, and it's possible that Rathman's influence over when and how backs are used might be slightly overstated. If it's third and 2, 11 personnel, and a shotgun/RPO call, and Rathman sends in Hines, but Rivers checks to an under center run, that's out of Rathman's hands. Doesn't mean it's right or wrong, and I'm not criticizing the play caller, position coach, or Rivers, just saying without accounting for those variables we're not getting a full picture.

We'll never know the play change %, or if what amount of Rathman's rotation is changed by Frank, so not worth debating IMO. My opinion is Reich sees JT and NH as interchangeable like he said, and Is also not someone who would be OK with a lot of play changing at the line (unless he an Rivers are in synch on what to change and when).

[EastStreet 9,983]

24 minutes ago, Nickster said:

What opinions did I express in the post you just responded too?  Do you actually disagree with what I said in any of them?

 

My guess is no, because that is your MO.  You simply don't respond to basic questions that don't fall in line with what you are trying to prove.

 

My zingy catch phrases are just trying to be fun East.  I know you are BSing me man and I appreciate it.

I'll make you a deal. When you start responding to facts and stats I address to you with facts and stats, I'll start responding to your hypothetical and off topic questions meant to distract..... 

[Smoke317 1,310]

11 minutes ago, lollygagger8 said:

Man, remember when the Colts had Bradshaw and would run that throw play to him and score every time? That was money! 

 

 

 

Play calling becomes even more important the shorter the field gets. 

 

 

Be careful.  We had Pep as OC back then and apparently to most people he was the one holding Luck & our offense back...  I seem to remember the opposite.  I remember Luck arguably being his most efficient and doing great work in the red zone using Bradshaw, Allen, Fleener, and even Richardson to great success.  

[Smoke317 1,310]

I have a question for all.  Can we look up and see our success rate in the red zone when we go to the tight bunched up formations?  I hate them.  Taylor got most of his telegraphed runs from outta that formation.  Whereas Hines would get more runs from us being more spread out.  I would like to have seen Taylor get more carries with the defense spread out and not all 11 defenders with their eyes in the backfield.  Taylor has shown that he can often make the first guy miss.  But when it's 2-3 guys waiting for him in the hole, not much he can do.

[EastStreet 9,983]

6 minutes ago, Smoke317 said:

Be careful.  We had Pep as OC back then and apparently to most people he was the one holding Luck & our offense back...  I seem to remember the opposite.  I remember Luck arguably being his most efficient and doing great work in the red zone using Bradshaw, Allen, Fleener, and even Richardson to great success.  

Pep was there in 14, when Luck had his best year. And that was without the stud OL he had in 2018, or running game.... He had 2 WRs and a LT. Or two turntables and a microphone.

[EastStreet 9,983]

5 minutes ago, Smoke317 said:

I have a question for all.  Can we look up and see our success rate in the red zone when we go to the tight bunched up formations?  I hate them.  Taylor got most of his telegraphed runs from outta that formation.  Whereas Hines would get more runs from us being more spread out.  I would like to have seen Taylor get more carries with the defense spread out and not all 11 defenders with their eyes in the backfield.  Taylor has shown that he can often make the first guy miss.  But when it's 2-3 guys waiting for him in the hole, not much he can do.

i wish. it's a comment i've made (bunch vs wide) a few times about wanting the data. i can only find shotgun vs under center

[Superman 9,409]

33 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Not conflating anything. Sharps situation rushing success rate has Taylor at 49%, and Hines at 36%. And to be more basic, Taylor has a 19% TD rate vs Hines 12% in the RZ, and Taylor has a 36% rate vs Hines 13% in the 0-10 area.

 

You can get lost in the weeds, but those are some very clear basic. The situational success rate from Sharps actually isn't so basic.

 

And there isn't a real delta on 3rd down carries from % standpoint in the RZ. Of Taylors 53 RZ carries, 8 were on 3rd down (15%). Of Hines 28 RZ carris, 4 were on 3rd down (14%). Pretty interchangeable % to me.

 

Situational accounts for down and distance, not just field zone, not just down. Third and two is a different situation than third and eight. What you're presenting doesn't include any breakdown for down and distance.

 

You're definitely conflating two things. You're presenting red zone stats as if they represent a down and distance breakdown, and they don't. 

 

Quote

What makes you think Rivers changes the plays at a decent frequency, other than Reich mentioning once that Rivers changed a play or two?

 

Multiple things: commentary (second hand), statements from Reich and Rivers, and Rivers appearing to change plays at the line. Not definitive, but I'm not saying it is. Just my belief.

 

Quote

We'll never know the play change %, or if what amount of Rathman's rotation is changed by Frank, so not worth debating IMO. My opinion is Reich sees JT and NH as interchangeable like he said, and Is also not someone who would be OK with a lot of play changing at the line (unless he an Rivers are in synch on what to change and when).

 

Not sure I agree with the bolded, but it's not important. We're in the weeds, and all I'm saying is that I think the whole Rathman decides which back plays thing is overstated, based on what I've previously mentioned in this thread.

[EastStreet 9,983]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Situational accounts for down and distance, not just field zone, not just down. Third and two is a different situation than third and eight. What you're presenting doesn't include any breakdown for down and distance.

I'm not trying to portray down and distance. I'm simply talking RZ success/woes. 

You can keep peeling the onion, but what I just posted is pretty clear. 

Feel free to go to Sharp (you can factor D&D). Not sure what that will tell you over the simple/basic stats I posted.

And you were the one that mentioned by down. I just showed there was no difference between the two in carries/%. 

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

You're definitely conflating two things. You're presenting red zone stats as if they represent a down and distance breakdown, and they don't. 

Again, I didn't say anything about D&D (you're the only one that brought that into this thread), although I'm sure the Sharp situational success rate takes that into account... no? I could do a quad plot, but that's over kill lol.

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

Multiple things: commentary (second hand), statements from Reich and Rivers, and Rivers appearing to change plays at the line. Not definitive, but I'm not saying it is. Just my belief.

I'm simply putting more stock into what Reich has actually said, not what I think, although I've been specific on what I think (if it is counter to what Reich has said).

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

Not sure I agree with the bolded, but it's not important. We're in the weeds, and all I'm saying is that I think the whole Rathman decides which back plays thing is overstated, based on what I've previously mentioned in this thread.

We'll never know unless they tell us. I've looked at the play by play on a few games, and the rotation I've seen doesn't look too situational. Very rarely was a guy just coming in for one play for example. IDK. 

[Nickster 881]

55 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

I'll make you a deal. When you start responding to facts and stats I address to you with facts and stats, I'll start responding to your hypothetical and off topic questions meant to distract..... 

 

Deal. 

 

Ok now this is not going to be totally accurate because I did it by hand, and this is about overall TE production as a group for teams, not RZ stuff.

 

There are certainly errors, and I didn't include players with less than 100 yds or 1 or less TDs.

 

But when looking at the entire personnel group for each team overall.  This was the production in Yds and Tds.

 

1. KC   1416    11

2.  LV  1196      9

3.  PHI  1204     6

4.  SF   1110       7

5.   TB   1050      9

6.   MIA   950      10

7.  LAR    938     6

8.  IND   895      8

9.  Tenn  884      11

10.   DET   850    6

 

SEA   733  5

Bal   704     7

NO    504   7

 

OK East like I said I am positive there are honest mistakes here, and I did not include players with less than 100 yds and 1 TD.

INDY is 8th in the NFL in TE yds and 6th in TE TDs.  This does not look like an under usage of TEs as a personnel group to me.  

Now like I said before, if you can prove that we are disproportionately using TEs less in the RZ then I am on board with you a little bit.  I would assume that most of if not all of the 8 TDs were RZ TDs though.

 

But I think we are getting great productions out of a group that I feel is not over talented at pass catching but is a very good group considering each man is superior blocker.

 

Our tight end group looks a little better than looking at our individual tight ends.

 

Eagerly awaiting your response and constructive or destructive criticism, and responses to my tangential sidebars.

[EastStreet 9,983]

3 minutes ago, Nickster said:

 

Deal. 

 

Ok now this is not going to be totally accurate because I did it by hand, and this is about overall TE production as a group for teams, not RZ stuff.

 

There are certainly errors, and I didn't include players with less than 100 yds or 1 or less TDs.

 

But when looking at the entire personnel group for each team overall.  This was the production in Yds and Tds.

 

1. KC   1416    11

2.  LV  1196      9

3.  PHI  1204     6

4.  SF   1110       7

5.   TB   1050      9

6.   MIA   950      10

7.  LAR    938     6

8.  IND   895      8

9.  Tenn  884      11

10.   DET   850    6

 

SEA   733  5

Bal   704     7

NO    504   7

 

OK East like I said I am positive there are honest mistakes here, and I did not include players with less than 100 yds and 1 TD.

INDY is 8th in the NFL in TE yds and 6th in TE TDs.  This does not look like an under usage of TEs as a personnel group to me.  

Now like I said before, if you can prove that we are disproportionately using TEs less in the RZ then I am on board with you a little bit.  I would assume that most of if not all of the 8 TDs were RZ TDs though.

 

But I think we are getting great productions out of a group that I feel is not over talented at pass catching but is a very good group considering each man is superior blocker.

 

Our tight end group looks a little better than looking at our individual tight ends.

 

Eagerly awaiting your response and constructive or destructive criticism.

 

Say it with me Nickster.... "this thread is about RZ woes" meaning only RZ stats are relevant here.....

 

So you're saying if you see disproportionate targets/use in the RZ, you're on board... lol... check.. 

[Nickster 881]

Just now, EastStreet said:

 

Say it with me Nickster.... "this thread is about RZ woes" meaning only RZ stats are relevant here.....

 

So you're saying if you see disproportionate targets/use in the RZ, you're on board... lol... check.. 

 

This thread is about red zone woes.  

[Superman 9,409]

13 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

I'm not trying to portray down and distance. I'm simply talking RZ success/woes. 

You can keep peeling the onion, but what I just posted is pretty clear. 

Feel free to go to Sharp (you can factor D&D). Not sure what that will tell you over the simple/basic stats I posted.

And you were the one that mentioned by down. I just showed there was no difference between the two in carries/%. 

 

I said I'm not sure Rathman's rotation accounts for situational play calling. You responded with red zone stats. Twice.

 

Without down and distance, we're not talking about the same thing.

[EastStreet 9,983]

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I said I'm not sure Rathman's rotation accounts for situational play calling. You responded with red zone stats. Twice.

 

Without down and distance, we're not talking about the same thing.

Sorry, I didn't not translate situational into a pure D&D conversation. Field zone is also part of situational. 

I did provide Sharps situational success rates, which I assume account for D&D though. And I did provide down info which showed same % usage. So now were just left with distance.... 

 

[Bolts2Colts 303]

3 hours 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.

This was my feeling too. When I think back on Rivers’ touchdowns with the Chargers, so many were high throws to leaping receivers. 

[Superman 9,409]

13 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Sorry, I didn't not translate situational into a pure D&D conversation. Field zone is also part of situational. 

I did provide Sharps situational success rates, which I assume account for D&D though. And I did provide down info which showed same % usage. So now were just left with distance.... 

 

It doesn't have to be, but I did say short yardage. There's a lot more that's included in situational, of course.

[Thunderbolt 456]

Red Zone Woes:

 

Solution, if you're at the 2 or 1 yd line and it's first down.  

1. Give it to Taylor maybe not this time a touchdown.

2. Give it to Taylor-possible touchdown

3. Give it to Taylor-no doubt a touchdown...

[EastStreet 9,983]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

It doesn't have to be, but I did say short yardage. There's a lot more that's included in situational, of course.

But would you agree the Sharp situational success rates likely include D&D.

[Superman 9,409]

19 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

But would you agree the Sharp situational success rates likely include D&D.

 

I'm sure it does.

[DiogoSales 106]

8 hours ago, EastStreet said:

I agree with 1 and 2. 

I agree partially on 2, but I don't think it's a big factor. What I'm seeing 2018 vs 2020 points to different things. 

2 or 3 you saw different? I'm lost

[EastStreet 9,983]

5 hours ago, DiogoSales said:

2 or 3 you saw different? I'm lost

sorry. typing to fast.

 

I agree with 1 100% and think it's similar to 3 to an extent. I don't think Pittman is an issue (he struggles, but he's a rook that's learning and needs snaps) at times, but agree we force it way too much to TY, who has lost some speed. I think play calling to both could be a lot better to exploit the skills they have, and buffer what they are still learning, or losing (in TY's case).

 

I don't necessarily agree with 2 (Rivers). I do agree his mobility is limiting in areas, but I also think his upsides outweigh the mobility factor. At the end of the day he's top 10ish in most core stats. And he's not top 10 because of great play calling, or because he has incredible WRs. He's top 10 because he reads Ds at an elite level, can pass it to anyone (he has the most individuals over 200 yards in the NFL), and has a quick time to throw and throws with anticipation.

 

 

[Nickster 881]

6 hours ago, EastStreet said:

sorry. typing to fast.

 

I agree with 1 100% and think it's similar to 3 to an extent. I don't think Pittman is an issue (he struggles, but he's a rook that's learning and needs snaps) at times, but agree we force it way too much to TY, who has lost some speed. I think play calling to both could be a lot better to exploit the skills they have, and buffer what they are still learning, or losing (in TY's case).

 

I don't necessarily agree with 2 (Rivers). I do agree his mobility is limiting in areas, but I also think his upsides outweigh the mobility factor. At the end of the day he's top 10ish in most core stats. And he's not top 10 because of great play calling, or because he has incredible WRs. He's top 10 because he reads Ds at an elite level, can pass it to anyone (he has the most individuals over 200 yards in the NFL), and has a quick time to throw and throws with anticipation.

 

 

Rivers is still great.  Better than I thought and I thought last year he’s the guy they should sign.

 

I think you are severely underestimating PRs limitations on the goal line coupled with our lack of a real individual mismatch type of player other than Hines on passing downs.

 

I agree with you about PRs reading and he has a Marino like quickness of release.  That being said, reading only gets you so far in the Red zone when you are immobile because you are going to get time for one maybe two reads before the pressure gets there on most downs.p, whereas in the middle of the field LBs And Dbs are not on the doorstep.  All the best RZ teams have mobile QBs and/or better RZ players than we do who command double teams.

 

We have excellent play calling from our staff IMO.  I definitely think we have other issues at times with personnel choices and I suppose it’s simply a semantic argument if you or I think there is a difference between that and play calling.
 

if you are finding we run too much, I believe that.  You usually have to throw more until you get really close.  I don’t like runs on 1st or 2nd down and goal with more than 7 or so yds very often.  It works sometimes but is often simply a wasted down since everything is compact.

 

But no matter what we call or what groups we put in, until we get a QB who can move laterally some and/or actually be a threat to run and/or have a more talented RZ type of pass catcher that commands a double, then we are going to be a less efficient RZ team than we are between the 20s.  

It’s too bad JB isn’t a mobile QB, because I think what Frank is trying to do with him could be really helpful, with somebody with some running talent.

 

[AwesomeAustin 697]

14 hours ago, Bolts2Colts said:

This was my feeling too. When I think back on Rivers’ touchdowns with the Chargers, so many were high throws to leaping receivers. 

I’m just reading this thread to soak up stats but wanted to say I really like your user name.  

[Nickster 881]

Bump

[Superman 9,409]

I intended to come back and look at Sharp's stats. Hope I'm not stepping on EastStreet's toe here.

 

Colts offense, in the red zone, all downs, 3 or fewer yards to go, rushing success:

Taylor: 15 attempts, 11 success, 1.5 yards/attempt, 7 TDs, 73% success rate

Hines: 6 attempts, 2 success, 1.2 yards/attempt, 1 TD, 33% success rate

Wilkins: 2 attempts, 1 success, 1.5 yards/attempt, 0 TDs, 50% success rate

 

Same situation, out of shotgun:

Taylor: 6 attempts, 3 success, 1.3 yards/attempt, 1 TD, 50% success rate

Hines: 4 attempts, 1 success, 1.3 yards/attempt, 1 TD, 25% success rate

Wilkins: 1 attempt, 0 success, 0 yards/attempt, 0 TD, 0% success rate

 

Inside the red zone, here are the play calling splits, all downs, 198 total plays:

98 pass plays (49%), 39% success rate, 4.3 yards/attempt

100 run plays (51%), 44% success rate, 2.3 yards/attempt

League average: 51% pass, 49% run, 44% success rate on pass plays, 4.0 yards/attempt; 54% success rate on run plays, 2.9 yards/attempt

 

[NewColtsFan 9,300]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

I intended to come back and look at Sharp's stats. Hope I'm not stepping on EastStreet's toe here.

 

Colts offense, in the red zone, all downs, 3 or fewer yards to go, rushing success:

Taylor: 15 attempts, 11 success, 1.5 yards/attempt, 7 TDs, 73% success rate

Hines: 6 attempts, 2 success, 1.2 yards/attempt, 1 TD, 33% success rate

Wilkins: 2 attempts, 1 success, 1.5 yards/attempt, 0 TDs, 50% success rate

 

Same situation, out of shotgun:

Taylor: 6 attempts, 3 success, 1.3 yards/attempt, 1 TD, 50% success rate

Hines: 4 attempts, 1 success, 1.3 yards/attempt, 1 TD, 25% success rate

Wilkins: 1 attempt, 0 success, 0 yards/attempt, 0 TD, 0% success rate

 

Inside the red zone, here are the play calling splits, all downs, 198 total plays:

98 pass plays (49%), 39% success rate, 4.3 yards/attempt

100 run plays (51%), 44% success rate, 2.3 yards/attempt

League average: 51% pass, 49% run, 44% success rate on pass plays, 4.0 yards/attempt; 54% success rate on run plays, 2.9 yards/attempt

 

I’m not sure where I read this in the last day or so...   but I believe I read Taylor led all RBs in yards in the Red Zone.  
 

The caveat is,  I’m not sure if it was all RBs, or all ROOKIE RBs.   Either way, I thought it was an important data point. 

[Superman 9,409]

10 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

I’m not sure where I read this in the last day ir so...   but I believe I read Taylor led all RBs in yards in the Red Zone.  
 

The caveat is I’m not sure if it was all RBs, or all ROOKIE RBs.   Either way, I thought it was an important data point. 

 

I'll see if I can look that up.

[EastStreet 9,983]

On 1/14/2021 at 6:45 AM, Nickster said:

Rivers is still great.  Better than I thought and I thought last year he’s the guy they should sign.

 

I think you are severely underestimating PRs limitations on the goal line coupled with our lack of a real individual mismatch type of player other than Hines on passing downs.

 

I agree with you about PRs reading and he has a Marino like quickness of release.  That being said, reading only gets you so far in the Red zone when you are immobile because you are going to get time for one maybe two reads before the pressure gets there on most downs.p, whereas in the middle of the field LBs And Dbs are not on the doorstep.  All the best RZ teams have mobile QBs and/or better RZ players than we do who command double teams.

 

We have excellent play calling from our staff IMO.  I definitely think we have other issues at times with personnel choices and I suppose it’s simply a semantic argument if you or I think there is a difference between that and play calling.
 

if you are finding we run too much, I believe that.  You usually have to throw more until you get really close.  I don’t like runs on 1st or 2nd down and goal with more than 7 or so yds very often.  It works sometimes but is often simply a wasted down since everything is compact.

 

But no matter what we call or what groups we put in, until we get a QB who can move laterally some and/or actually be a threat to run and/or have a more talented RZ type of pass catcher that commands a double, then we are going to be a less efficient RZ team than we are between the 20s.  

It’s too bad JB isn’t a mobile QB, because I think what Frank is trying to do with him could be really helpful, with somebody with some running talent.

 

PR, like most QBs is better at some things, and limited at others. Sure he limits us in areas like goal line sets, be I think we we also do things to limit ourselves, and don't do enough to highlight what he's good at. I took a week off from the board and will be doing a part 2 on this topic, but I can tell you, our run/pass mix is very slanted in the RZ compared to between the 20s, and the use of bigs (6-4 and over) is also down from previous years. You'd think if you have a statue, you'd be creating mismatches that you can, instead of making your primary target, or one of your primary targets, a tiny guy like Hilton. Give me a guy like MAC running a slant vs DBs any day. And we just didn't do that. Instead our run/pass mix was very predictable, and we had a lot of questionable personnel packages when we did pass. Like I said, I'll post some #s in part 2, and hope to have that out in the next two days.

[Nickster 881]

38 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

PR, like most QBs is better at some things, and limited at others. Sure he limits us in areas like goal line sets, be I think we we also do things to limit ourselves, and don't do enough to highlight what he's good at. I took a week off from the board and will be doing a part 2 on this topic, but I can tell you, our run/pass mix is very slanted in the RZ compared to between the 20s, and the use of bigs (6-4 and over) is also down from previous years. You'd think if you have a statue, you'd be creating mismatches that you can, instead of making your primary target, or one of your primary targets, a tiny guy like Hilton. Give me a guy like MAC running a slant vs DBs any day. And we just didn't do that. Instead our run/pass mix was very predictable, and we had a lot of questionable personnel packages when we did pass. Like I said, I'll post some #s in part 2, and hope to have that out in the next two days.

I am definitely for passing more on most red zone downs.  

[SteelCityColt 4,473]

So I don't have the knowledge to add much to the discussion, but it's nice to see 3 posters 'going at it', when they clearly don't have consensus but are discussing this in wholesome and mostly respectful way, while trying to bring evidence to the discussion where possible.

 

This is how you do it, good stuff @EastStreet@Superman @Nickster

[EastStreet 9,983]

10 minutes ago, Nickster said:

I am definitely for passing more on most red zone downs.  

I am too. Inside the 10, the decrease in pass attempt % from 2018 was very surprising. It was even down from last year which is just incredible to me. 

[Nickster 881]

1 hour ago, EastStreet said:

PR, like most QBs is better at some things, and limited at others. Sure he limits us in areas like goal line sets, be I think we we also do things to limit ourselves, and don't do enough to highlight what he's good at. I took a week off from the board and will be doing a part 2 on this topic, but I can tell you, our run/pass mix is very slanted in the RZ compared to between the 20s, and the use of bigs (6-4 and over) is also down from previous years. You'd think if you have a statue, you'd be creating mismatches that you can, instead of making your primary target, or one of your primary targets, a tiny guy like Hilton. Give me a guy like MAC running a slant vs DBs any day. And we just didn't do that. Instead our run/pass mix was very predictable, and we had a lot of questionable personnel packages when we did pass. Like I said, I'll post some #s in part 2, and hope to have that out in the next two days.

Ebron is over 6 4 and is a better receiver than any of our bigs, so that shouldn’t be surprising.  Data also shows throws to tight ends are down league wide over the last 4 or so years.  One reason is because of all the nickel.

 

It’s not too hard to figure out why we are somewhat predictable.  We don’t threaten much in the edges of the field with our receivers or our QB. We need a true alpha receiver and/or a mobile QB.  Teams don’t have to do more than man up on our outside and can disregard rushing lanes and pocket containment when rushing.  

We are limited in what we can call on the goal and in the red zone with our personnel.  This should be pretty clear.

 

Brady has 4.  Mahomes has 2 and forces the edge and buys time himself.  Rodgers and Allen both have one and both force the edge and buy time themselves.

 

[EastStreet 9,983]

8 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

So I don't have the knowledge to add much to the discussion, but it's nice to see 3 posters 'going at it', when they clearly don't have consensus but are discussing this in wholesome and mostly respectful way, while trying to bring evidence to the discussion where possible.

 

This is how you do it, good stuff @EastStreet@Superman @Nickster

Thanks Steel City. On a totally different topic, you ref'd me in a now-closed thread (JB). I also find the whole conversation interesting lol. As you know, I wasn't a fan of JB last year (contract or sustainable performance), but I've also been a fan of his use this year, and have been pro bringing him back (on a team friendly back up deal). Never ever hated (disparaged in a non-stat/fact way) on him although I know most people put me in the hater category last year. While I still think the contract was poor value and poor risk, some of the stuff still being said is pretty silly. I'd take a repeat of 2020 (PR#1/JB#2 and GL) in a heart beat. It'll be interesting to see what happens. For JB's sake, I'd prefer him find a team that gives him a chance to start, but not sure there's a market for him right now. If he's not picked up, would love him back if he's willing to embrace the role he had in 2020.

 

Anyway, didn't mean to take this thread off topic, just wanted to reply to your post in that thread.