Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Run vs pass perspective


Four2itus
 Share

Recommended Posts

I will start by acknowledging my severe lack of knowledge when it comes to the deeper understanding of play calling in the NFL. I will try to share my thoughts, and also what I find incredibly astounding when it comes to fans opinions about the head coaches abilities regarding pass vs run. 

 

The "balance" that is commonly referenced, is about how many plays are executed that are pass designed, or run designed. It should seem obvious that the more a team leans in either direction, the more they tip their hand as to how they "usually" play the game. What amazes me, is how fans just use the percentages or numbers to ridicule a coaches decision, yet fail to provide the context.

 

What was the defensive personnel at the time of the play call? What was the down and distance? how many plays has each skill player already played that drive? Quarter? Game? 

 

Also......what are your offense's tendencies when facing this defensive front? What is on film already this season? 

 

My point is, the decision about whether or not to call a pass or a run, has a hell of a lot more to that decision....than..."We got JT.....run the damned ball!" As if Frank, a former NFL QB who has a SB ring on his finger as a coach, might actually be so stupid, as to not know this. Seriously? 

 

I feel that much in the same way a DE or DT has to "set up" his opponent by creating false tendencies, it's a powerful and necessary skill to succeed. The exact same approach is needed by play callers. Sometimes a half of a game might contribute to the success of one or two plays. The competition is commonly THAT close. 

 

Don't agree? Fine, post away. But to come across arrogant as if the coach is stupid and as a fan, one knows more that said coach, it's pretty funny actually. Frank makes mistakes, as ALL play callers do. However, until you know all the context around that call, it might serve to simply disagree with the call or calls.....and not try to degrade the coach of the team you...I guess.... root for. 

 

Would love to hear opinions of anyone on this, especially those who do study film and break it down. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether its right or wrong people are going to criticize and nit pick when we play bad. Fans don't know as much the coaches thats for sure, but dont sell fans short either a lot of people know a lot about football. 

 

It's the same thing with the Eason or Kelly drama. Frank's specialty is quarterbacks. I fully believe he knows whether Eason had it or not, same with Kelly. Yet there are some Eason fan club people who will think till the end of time that we messed up not giving him a shot. 

 

There are some moments earlier in the season if Frank would have balanced the offense more we would have had a better chance to win. Hindsight is always 20/20 though and you have to remember it's always easier to dissect the game afterwards then actually be in the game calling plays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's actually funny to me that there's a narrative we don't run the ball enough. Reich is historically a run heavy play caller.

 

There have been situations where I think we should have been pounding the ball, based on game situation, down and distance, etc. But I'm not concerned with a specific run/pass ratio.

 

The big issue was the last Titans game. To me, it wasn't just a failure to run the ball. There were a bunch of early down penalties that influenced the play calling. Also, the QB was off all game, just not sharp, and there were stretches were Taylor's number wasn't called, while the offense sputtered. There were also short yardages situations where we didn't run the ball, and probably should have. It wasn't just about not running the ball enough, it was about icing our best player, while the QB was struggling.

 

And what's weird about that is the strength of the offense is clearly the run game, and the most effective weapon is clearly Taylor, so not featuring him, while you're up two scores, and the offense is sputtering, is professional malpractice. It's not about specific play calls. It's about having an offensive identity, and sticking to it.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Colts have a stud, so it is in their best interest to keep the opposing defense guessing on the utilization, of said stud.  Taylor has been a joy, as I was a running back in school and always admired the Jim Browns, OJ Simpsons, Eric Dickersons, Earl Campells of the NFL....w got one and I hope they use him wisely....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Superman said:

It's actually funny to me that there's a narrative we don't run the ball enough. Reich is historically a run heavy play caller.

I would say that Reich has been a total mixed bag in the area. Here's Reich's history (run %) with context. I've also included Pederson's so you can kinda glean Pederson before and after Reich.

 

  • Reich
    • Colts
      • 2021: #8
        • last three games we are #3 which has driven up our rank
      • 2020: #9 (with Rivers and JT after Mack went down)
      • 2019: #5 (Reich with JB/Mack)
      • 2018: #24 (Reich with Luck/Mack)
      • Not Reich 2017: #6 (Pagano with JB, Gore, and Mack)
    • Philly (wasn't calling plays)
      • 2017: #9
      • 2016: #17
    • Chargers (called plays)
      • 2015: #27
      • 2014: #20
      • Not Reich 2013: #7
  • Pederson
    • Philly (as HC and play caller)
      • 2020: #25 (Sanders missed 4 games), we all know about the collapse of the OL, WRs, RBs, and QB... 
      • 2019: #13 (picked up Sanders)
      • 2018: #26 (lost Blount, picked up Adams, musical chairs at RB)
      • 2017: #9
      • 2016:  #17
    • Chiefs as OC (Reid gave Pederson play calling duties at some point, but not sure what year, which kinda launched him into the HC promotion)
      • 2015: #6
      • 2014: #9
      • 2013: #14
         

Regarding the Chargers, when Reich was let go, most said it was because the lack of balance. Personally I know there were other factors, but you can't ignore the immediate 13 spot drop when he took over, and further decline in year two to #27. 

 

Hard to glean that much about Reich at Philly because he wasn't calling plays. We know Pederson came from 2 run heavy years at KC without Reich, so not sure you can really even indirectly credit Reich with the run heavy 2017. 2018 and 2020 fall offs can be explained a bit given some of the personnel issues. And this year, our last 3 games have really pushed our rank up. 

 

In terms of Frank's time in Indy, we went from #6 in 2016, to #20 in Reich's first year. We all know we went run heavy in 2019 due to JB, and started 2020 run heavy after some early INTs from Rivers.

 

So overall, huge mixed bag from Frank. 

 

 

11 hours ago, Superman said:

 

There have been situations where I think we should have been pounding the ball, based on game situation, down and distance, etc. But I'm not concerned with a specific run/pass ratio.

 

The big issue was the last Titans game. To me, it wasn't just a failure to run the ball. There were a bunch of early down penalties that influenced the play calling. Also, the QB was off all game, just not sharp, and there were stretches were Taylor's number wasn't called, while the offense sputtered. There were also short yardages situations where we didn't run the ball, and probably should have. It wasn't just about not running the ball enough, it was about icing our best player, while the QB was struggling.

 

And what's weird about that is the strength of the offense is clearly the run game, and the most effective weapon is clearly Taylor, so not featuring him, while you're up two scores, and the offense is sputtering, is professional malpractice. It's not about specific play calls. It's about having an offensive identity, and sticking to it.

 

I agree with most of this. Like I've said in the past and echoing you, don't ice your best player. But what drives me just as nuts is tossing it all over the yard against bad run Ds (we've done that several times in Reich's tenure), and simply forgetting about the run game at times when it's obviously been working.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/21/2021 at 10:36 PM, Four2itus said:

I will start by acknowledging my severe lack of knowledge when it comes to the deeper understanding of play calling in the NFL. I will try to share my thoughts, and also what I find incredibly astounding when it comes to fans opinions about the head coaches abilities regarding pass vs run. 

 

The "balance" that is commonly referenced, is about how many plays are executed that are pass designed, or run designed. It should seem obvious that the more a team leans in either direction, the more they tip their hand as to how they "usually" play the game. What amazes me, is how fans just use the percentages or numbers to ridicule a coaches decision, yet fail to provide the context.

 

What was the defensive personnel at the time of the play call? What was the down and distance? how many plays has each skill player already played that drive? Quarter? Game? 

 

Also......what are your offense's tendencies when facing this defensive front? What is on film already this season? 

 

My point is, the decision about whether or not to call a pass or a run, has a hell of a lot more to that decision....than..."We got JT.....run the damned ball!" As if Frank, a former NFL QB who has a SB ring on his finger as a coach, might actually be so stupid, as to not know this. Seriously? 

 

I feel that much in the same way a DE or DT has to "set up" his opponent by creating false tendencies, it's a powerful and necessary skill to succeed. The exact same approach is needed by play callers. Sometimes a half of a game might contribute to the success of one or two plays. The competition is commonly THAT close. 

 

Don't agree? Fine, post away. But to come across arrogant as if the coach is stupid and as a fan, one knows more that said coach, it's pretty funny actually. Frank makes mistakes, as ALL play callers do. However, until you know all the context around that call, it might serve to simply disagree with the call or calls.....and not try to degrade the coach of the team you...I guess.... root for. 

 

Would love to hear opinions of anyone on this, especially those who do study film and break it down. 

 

 We are watching Frank and his staff building this offense brick by brick.

As i understand it, the offensive line and RB coaches are heavily involved in setting up each weeks game plan. Coming up with plays and ways to block them. Always looking for creativity and execution.
 We line up, then the D sets up, and the games begin. Kelly and Wentz are calling out changes right up to a few seconds before the snap and then everyone has to adapt to what the other tries to do. 
 I know i was absolutely Loving our bully formations, against the #1 D,

and as Frank said in his press conf., our guys were just knocking them off the line. It gave Frank the confidence to just keep on going at them with the run.

 A great job by our TE's and WR'S supporting this too.
Our next opponent will have to prepare for this, and our staff will be adding some surprises from these formations in the passing game.
Frank can play this chess game. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the oline isn't dominating, which they were in BUF and vs. NYJ getting JT to the second level untouched, and are struggling, like they did against TEN, then the common sense play calls are short passes that get the ball out quickly.

 

Maybe quite a few of them.

 

If the players don't execute, then I guess the HC looks like he's a dumber-than-a-fan play caller, LOL.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/21/2021 at 10:36 PM, Four2itus said:

I will start by acknowledging my severe lack of knowledge when it comes to the deeper understanding of play calling in the NFL. I will try to share my thoughts, and also what I find incredibly astounding when it comes to fans opinions about the head coaches abilities regarding pass vs run. 

 

The "balance" that is commonly referenced, is about how many plays are executed that are pass designed, or run designed. It should seem obvious that the more a team leans in either direction, the more they tip their hand as to how they "usually" play the game. What amazes me, is how fans just use the percentages or numbers to ridicule a coaches decision, yet fail to provide the context.

 

What was the defensive personnel at the time of the play call? What was the down and distance? how many plays has each skill player already played that drive? Quarter? Game? 

 

Also......what are your offense's tendencies when facing this defensive front? What is on film already this season? 

 

My point is, the decision about whether or not to call a pass or a run, has a hell of a lot more to that decision....than..."We got JT.....run the damned ball!" As if Frank, a former NFL QB who has a SB ring on his finger as a coach, might actually be so stupid, as to not know this. Seriously? 

 

I feel that much in the same way a DE or DT has to "set up" his opponent by creating false tendencies, it's a powerful and necessary skill to succeed. The exact same approach is needed by play callers. Sometimes a half of a game might contribute to the success of one or two plays. The competition is commonly THAT close. 

 

Don't agree? Fine, post away. But to come across arrogant as if the coach is stupid and as a fan, one knows more that said coach, it's pretty funny actually. Frank makes mistakes, as ALL play callers do. However, until you know all the context around that call, it might serve to simply disagree with the call or calls.....and not try to degrade the coach of the team you...I guess.... root for. 

 

Would love to hear opinions of anyone on this, especially those who do study film and break it down. 

Your correct in wanting context...but there is plenty of context to question Frank in the BAL and 2nd TEN game...I will say since the loss to Tennesse and the ridicule Frank caught sure prioritized our run game aa our identity quick...Frank tends to need to be pushed toward the run a little often for my liking...Wentz can manage good and find some greats looks throwing if we just disguise it all in with the run game...I believe the RPO could always be fresh and endless with our personnel...Frank has made some weird choices in tight games the last two seasons...he needs to prove he can be counted on as much as our players...we have the talent to win it all this year if we play our game...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, DougDew said:

If the oline isn't dominating, which they were in BUF and vs. NYJ getting JT to the second level untouched, and are struggling, like they did against TEN, then the common sense play calls are short passes that get the ball out quickly.

 

Maybe quite a few of them.

 

If the players don't execute, then I guess the HC looks like he's a dumber-than-a-fan play caller, LOL.

 

Did you know our OL graded well vs TN.... lol... 

And Taylor ran well... It's not like he had a huge/long run to skew things. He had like a 4.4 avg, and his longest was 12... 

 

Sometimes it's like you just make stuff up as substance to your opinion. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me "balance" is overrated. What you should be doing is what maximizes your chance of winning a game, no matter if it means throwing 80% of the time or running 80% of the time. And every week the game will give you different game scripts, different situations, and every week that % might be wildly different. 

 

What they call "game neutral situations" is what we really should be talking about when considering "balance". I really don't know what is optimal in those situations and again it will depend on opponent and personnel groupings, but overall if I had to guess a good balance is about 60-62% pass, 38-40% run. A while ago Kevin Pelton was asked about the NBA what is the optimal number of 3s your team should be taking and he pretty much said - whatever you took last year - raise it by 5%... And then next year by another 5%... And so on and so forth until you reach a point where it's obviously hindering your efficiency. I kind of want an NFL team to do something similar with the pass% in game neutral situations. If it's 50%, raise it by 5 this year... And another 5 next year and so on... Until it obviously starts harming your efficiency. I said I think something in the low 60 would be a good balance, but I wouldn't be shocked if for most teams that perfect "balance" ended up in the 70s percent passing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, EastStreet said:

Did you know our OL graded well vs TN.... lol...

 Right.  The oline graded well based upon the plays that were called.  That is the fact here.  It does not say that other plays should have been called.  So that stat is completely useless towards adding anything given the focal context of the myriad of posts about Frank's play calling all season long.  

7 hours ago, EastStreet said:

And Taylor ran well... It's not like he had a huge/long run to skew things. He had like a 4.4 avg, and his longest was 12...

Right, but not well enough.  JT had few runs that deviated from the 4.4 ypc mean. We all saw that at the time.  The actual numeric data point is useless.  That low deviation from the mean is why the oline grading is irrelevant, and why it struggled.   He's not a 20 to 30 carry plow horse that's supposed to get 4.4 yards each carry as a scoring strategy.   He's drafted because his speed can make chunk plays though a hole or at the second level.  That's his value in a close game.  The 4.4 yards each carry is useful where we have a big lead.  The online struggled to get JT to the second level, or make their second level block.  Giving him 4 or 5 more carries for 17 to 23 yards would have accomplished as much as converting about 2 or 3 of the 0 for 8 plays where Dulin and MAC were targeted.  

 

7 hours ago, EastStreet said:

Sometimes it's like you just make stuff up as substance to your opinion

 

You continue to confuse certain stats, rankings, and ratings with substance; and worse, judge others based upon it. 

 

 Did you know that mining a lot of useless information is as valuable as mining none at all? 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, DougDew said:

 Right.  The oline graded well based upon the plays that were called.  That is the fact here.  It does not say that other plays should have been called.  So that stat is completely useless towards adding anything given the focal context of the myriad of posts about Frank's play calling all season long.  

Right, but not well enough.  JT had few runs that deviated from the 4.4 ypc mean. We all saw that at the time.  The actual numeric data point is useless.  That low deviation from the mean is why the oline grading is irrelevant, and why it struggled.   He's not a 20 to 30 carry plow horse that's supposed to get 4.4 yards each carry as a scoring strategy.   He's drafted because his speed can make chunk plays though a hole or at the second level.  That's his value in a close game.  The 4.4 yards each carry is useful where we have a big lead.  The online struggled to get JT to the second level, or make their second level block.  Giving him 4 or 5 more carries for 17 to 23 yards would have accomplished as much as converting about 2 or 3 of the 0 for 8 plays where Dulin and MAC were targeted.  

useless.... lol... .No, the OL graded well. Period. 

Here's how well, in just the running game. And I won't give just OL grades that you'll call subjective. 

I'll give you pure running success rates from Sharp compared to leave average for all of JT's carries that week....

 

JTs average success rate for the day was 68.8%, vs league average of 48.5%.... 20+ pts over average...

 

JT over LG (3 runs): 100% (49% is league average)

JT over C (2): 50% (57% AVG)

JT over RG (2): 100% (44%)

JT over RT (3): 67% (44%)

JT over R Edge (6): 50% (45%)

 

The only area he was below league average was on his 2 runs over C (Kelly needs to earn that pay).... His runs over LG and RG were 100%... yes, 100%... lol... and he was well above average over RT, and a bit over average on the edge... 

 

And 4.4 not good enough? Are you serious Clark... Derrick Henry's year average is 4.3 lol... Mixon, who is another top 5 back this year is only 4.3... Every week doesn't have to be 5+ AVG. Some weeks it's going to be lower than 4, some higher than 4. The fact is, his average that week was plenty good enough. 

 

8 hours ago, DougDew said:

 

You continue to confuse certain stats, rankings, and ratings with substance; and worse, judge others based upon it. 

 

 Did you know that mining a lot of useless information is as valuable as mining none at all? 

Dude, you're hilarious. I wonder how much you really pay attention. Just like you said we were pass heavy the first two series vs the Bills, when in fact we were 7 runs / 3 passes the opening drive, and 8 and 8 over the first two series. Uh that's actually run heavy dude, compared to league average lol.... 

 

I mean, you can't get much more wrong than you were about that. So if you completely miss the side of the barn on something so simple, why would anyone buy your narrative which has zero substance above. You discard all stats and grades when they counter your narrative... 

 

Anyway, great post dude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, EastStreet said:

useless.... lol... .No, the OL graded well. Period. 

Here's how well, in just the running game. And I won't give just OL grades that you'll call subjective. 

I'll give you pure running success rates from Sharp compared to leave average for all of JT's carries that week....

 

JTs average success rate for the day was 68.8%, vs league average of 48.5%.... 20+ pts over average...

 

JT over LG (3 runs): 100% (49% is league average)

JT over C (2): 50% (57% AVG)

JT over RG (2): 100% (44%)

JT over RT (3): 67% (44%)

JT over R Edge (6): 50% (45%)

 

The only area he was below league average was on his 2 runs over C (Kelly needs to earn that pay).... His runs over LG and RG were 100%... yes, 100%... lol... and he was well above average over RT, and a bit over average on the edge... 

 

And 4.4 not good enough? Are you serious Clark... Derrick Henry's year average is 4.3 lol... Mixon, who is another top 5 back this year is only 4.3... Every week doesn't have to be 5+ AVG. Some weeks it's going to be lower than 4, some higher than 4. The fact is, his average that week was plenty good enough. 

 

Dude, you're hilarious. I wonder how much you really pay attention. Just like you said we were pass heavy the first two series vs the Bills, when in fact we were 7 runs / 3 passes the opening drive, and 8 and 8 over the first two series. Uh that's actually run heavy dude, compared to league average lol.... 

 

I mean, you can't get much more wrong than you were about that. So if you completely miss the side of the barn on something so simple, why would anyone buy your narrative which has zero substance above. You discard all stats and grades when they counter your narrative... 

 

Anyway, great post dude.

Yawn. 

 

As expected, when pointed out how meaningless your stats are, you respond with a long winded post that has yet more meaningless stats in it. 

 

The oline graded well after the conclusion of the TEN game, because the stat is simply a compilation of the success of the plays that were called.  The grade says nothing else.  The grade of the oline does not say that JT would have been sprung for longer running plays if given 5 more running attempts.   Not sure what about that you don't understand.   

 

JT is not a plow horse RB.  If he's basically running for 4 yds each run, you don't rely on that that and rely something else.  That something else resulted in a lot of first downs, very few punts, and 24 offensive points.

 

Which is my point in the post that  you quoted, relative to this thread of run vs pass, is that an OC will call a lot of short pass plays when he feels the QB can't set up for longer vertical routes to TY or the oline is not springing his big play RB for big plays.  That logical approach by the HC is going to logically result in a (short) pass heavy ratio at the conclusion of the game.  Calling a game like that is not dumb, apparently thought to be dumb because it doesn't fit into a  "balanced" ideology or because it was an outlier relative to meaningless NFL average stats.  

 

BTW, I don't have a narrative. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Yawn. 

 

As expected, when pointed out how meaningless your stats are, you respond with a long winded post that has yet more meaningless stats in it. 

 

The oline graded well after the conclusion of the TEN game, because the stat is simply a compilation of the success of the plays that were called.  The grade says nothing else.  The grade of the oline does not say that JT would have been sprung for longer running plays if given 5 more running attempts.   Not sure what about that you don't understand.   

 

JT is not a plow horse RB.  If he's basically running for 4 yds each run, you stop doing that and try something else.  That something else resulted in a lot of first downs, very few punts, and 24 offensive points.

 

Which is my point in the post that  you quoted, relative to this thread of run vs pass, is that an OC will call a lot of short pass plays when he feels the QB can't set up for longer vertical routes to TY or the oline is not springing his big play RB for big plays.  That logical approach by the HC is going to logically result in a (short) pass heavy ratio at the conclusion of the game.  Calling a game like that is not dumb, apparently thought to be dumb because it doesn't fit into a  "balanced" ideology or because it was an outlier relative to meaningless NFL average stats.  

 

Your opinions typically have zero substance. Your attempts at subjective logic to counter basic logic and data aren't even good lol... Still wondering how you came to the conclusion we were pass heavy the first two series last week. No comment on that?? lol.. Are you even paying attention?

 

I can understand why you don't like stats, grades, or any pure empirical data, as all those things typically are directly counter to your hot takes. 

 

JT is not a plow horse like Henry (very few are), but he is capable of bell cow games. He was a bell cow his entire Wiscy career. He's not a freight train or bus... but he's easily a turbo powered F250 or Ford Raptor. Did you see him get hit by 4 different guys and still drive into the EZ last week. He's a speed and power back. He's just not Henry size, which very few if any are.

 

If you think running for 4 yards on 1D isn't good, not sure what to tell you. It's elementary football (like one of the most basic things lol) to stay ahead of the chains/downs, and getting 4 yards on 1D is the definition of staying ahead of the chains. The fact you sidestep this in your narrative is twilight zone next level when it comes to bad-faith debate. 

 

And then to ignore not only basic info like AVG and OL grading, but to totally dismiss basic success rates (which JT killed), is another in your long line of pivoting and avoidance. 

 

Good talk. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/24/2021 at 10:56 PM, EastStreet said:

 

Your opinions typically have zero substance. Your attempts at subjective logic to counter basic logic and data aren't even good lol... Still wondering how you came to the conclusion we were pass heavy the first two series last week. No comment on that?? lol.. Are you even paying attention?

 

I can understand why you don't like stats, grades, or any pure empirical data, as all those things typically are directly counter to your hot takes. 

 

JT is not a plow horse like Henry (very few are), but he is capable of bell cow games. He was a bell cow his entire Wiscy career. He's not a freight train or bus... but he's easily a turbo powered F250 or Ford Raptor. Did you see him get hit by 4 different guys and still drive into the EZ last week. He's a speed and power back. He's just not Henry size, which very few if any are.

 

If you think running for 4 yards on 1D isn't good, not sure what to tell you. It's elementary football (like one of the most basic things lol) to stay ahead of the chains/downs, and getting 4 yards on 1D is the definition of staying ahead of the chains. The fact you sidestep this in your narrative is twilight zone next level when it comes to bad-faith debate. 

 

And then to ignore not only basic info like AVG and OL grading, but to totally dismiss basic success rates (which JT killed), is another in your long line of pivoting and avoidance. 

 

Good talk. 

That's always been his MO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/24/2021 at 10:56 PM, EastStreet said:

 

Your opinions typically have zero substance. Your attempts at subjective logic to counter basic logic and data aren't even good lol... Still wondering how you came to the conclusion we were pass heavy the first two series last week. No comment on that?? lol.. Are you even paying attention?

 

I can understand why you don't like stats, grades, or any pure empirical data, as all those things typically are directly counter to your hot takes. 

 

JT is not a plow horse like Henry (very few are), but he is capable of bell cow games. He was a bell cow his entire Wiscy career. He's not a freight train or bus... but he's easily a turbo powered F250 or Ford Raptor. Did you see him get hit by 4 different guys and still drive into the EZ last week. He's a speed and power back. He's just not Henry size, which very few if any are.

 

If you think running for 4 yards on 1D isn't good, not sure what to tell you. It's elementary football (like one of the most basic things lol) to stay ahead of the chains/downs, and getting 4 yards on 1D is the definition of staying ahead of the chains. The fact you sidestep this in your narrative is twilight zone next level when it comes to bad-faith debate. 

 

And then to ignore not only basic info like AVG and OL grading, but to totally dismiss basic success rates (which JT killed), is another in your long line of pivoting and avoidance. 

 

Good talk. 

My opinions have substance.  They are not presented in numeric form, so that's why they whiz past you.

 

AVG ypc and OL grading can be ignored in the context of JT because they are not good metrics.   And you corroborated that (without knowing it) by noticing that JTs runs did not deviate much from the mean....akin to a plow horse RB, which he is not.   

 

I'll use numbers so you can understand my point better:

 

Nobody on this board wants or expects JT to be ran 22 times for 96.8 yards.  That only works when a team has a stout defense, which ours is not.  JTs value is big plays  (Compare: in the context of the current Colts season (not NFL averages or tendencies) we want to score points by having JT get the 20 and 30 yard runs we can't get from a more diverse vertical game...not be a 22 for 97 yard plow horse).  So the metric that I would think would have substance would be to see how many "big" runs he has (a quibble would be over what "big" means).  Quoting a simple AVG 4.4 ypc is irrelevant, IMO. 

 

Same with OL rating.  For the oline to perform well in our running game, it needs to get JT to the second level, again, big runs.  It was struggling to do that.  And despite its decent pass block rating, Wentz appeared to feel rushed and was making some "off" decisions and passes, described as playing hero ball.  IMO, the OLs rating does not tell the story.

 

Another irrelevant stat is 51 passes to 16 JT carries.  That pass heavy stats is not a good way to support the idea that Frank had a bad day calling plays or a bad strategy.  Give JT 8 more runs where he is not deviating from the mean and he gets an extra 35 yards.  Now, if he gets three of those carries in the shadow of his goal post, that's better than attempting a screen pass.  And we all know that the screen pass was a questionable call, but the 51 to 16 ratio does not tell the story.

 

A bigger story is told when looking at Dulin and MAC going 0 for 8 on targets.  Wentz was 27 for 51 or about a 50% completion rate.  He threw for 270 yards with a few big plays cluttering up the data, but he had an 8.5 yd per completion.  If that rate was 50% for Dulin/MAC, 4 x 8.5 is the 35 yards that JT would have gotten with 8 extra carries.  The play calling is irrelevant.  The ratio is irrelevant. 

 

The problem is not that JT did not get his extra 8 carries for 35 yards, the problem is that the targets to Dulin and MAC did not achieve a 50% completion rate (which would have resulted  in Wentz' overall game completion rate being higher than 50% of course).  See, the pass vs run play calling is irrelevant.

 

And what seems like it could be insincere, is the fact that you have touted the narrative that Dulin and MAC should be targeted more, so it seems easy to believe you are throwing up a bunch of irrelevant stuff to deflect from the fact that targeting Dulin and MAC more than usual is what was responsible for costing us the TEN game more so than by Frank failing to call JTs number 8 more times.

 

But, Frank/Wentz can't feed the ball to Pitt on every pass play, so he has little choice until he gets better players receivers on the field.  And it makes sense that Frank would try to get more targets to Dulin and MAC to score points in a close game when the oline and JT were achieving simple plow horse performances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/24/2021 at 10:56 PM, EastStreet said:

 

Your opinions typically have zero substance. Your attempts at subjective logic to counter basic logic and data aren't even good lol... Still wondering how you came to the conclusion we were pass heavy the first two series last week. No comment on that?? lol.. Are you even paying attention?

 

I can understand why you don't like stats, grades, or any pure empirical data, as all those things typically are directly counter to your hot takes. 

 

JT is not a plow horse like Henry (very few are), but he is capable of bell cow games. He was a bell cow his entire Wiscy career. He's not a freight train or bus... but he's easily a turbo powered F250 or Ford Raptor. Did you see him get hit by 4 different guys and still drive into the EZ last week. He's a speed and power back. He's just not Henry size, which very few if any are.

 

If you think running for 4 yards on 1D isn't good, not sure what to tell you. It's elementary football (like one of the most basic things lol) to stay ahead of the chains/downs, and getting 4 yards on 1D is the definition of staying ahead of the chains. The fact you sidestep this in your narrative is twilight zone next level when it comes to bad-faith debate. 

 

And then to ignore not only basic info like AVG and OL grading, but to totally dismiss basic success rates (which JT killed), is another in your long line of pivoting and avoidance. 

 

Good talk. 

It was actually a 9 to 7 pass run ratio in those first two series when the game was in question.  I conceptually skewed the numbers because the big play to JT was a 23 yard pass play, not a running play.  My point is that despite JT having success throughout the game and the stats showing heavy running for the game, when the game was more on the line, the pass was relied upon equally if not more than JTs running.  The exact numbers are not that relevant, because they rarely are, but you can't understand that.

 

That point was addressing the concept of pass vs run, where lazy comments were saying that we beat Buffalo by emphasizing running plays to JT.  Those comments overplay the importance of the run..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/24/2021 at 10:56 PM, EastStreet said:

And then to ignore not only basic info like AVG and OL grading, but to totally dismiss basic success rates (which JT killed), is another in your long line of pivoting and avoidance. 

BTW, this is really telling. 

 

You're so proud of your master of irrelevant information that you think that somebody not talking about it is them pivoting and avoiding, instead of you entertaining the notion that nobody cares about a lot of the information you present.  

 

You may need an ego check, but this just into the news desk : You don't dictate the conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

11 minutes ago, DougDew said:

BTW, this is really telling. 

 

You're so proud of your master of irrelevant information that you think that somebody not talking about it is them pivoting and avoiding, instead of you entertaining the notion that nobody cares about a lot of the information you present.  

 

You may need an ego check, but this just into the news desk : You don't dictate the conversation.

I love how you double and triple down on being wrong.     No one agrees with you on your long posts that offer nothing.   The team is better when they pound the rock.  Results prove it.   If a team is stacking the box and the pas game takes over,  it's because of the success of the run game.  Pretty simple. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

My opinions have substance.  They are not presented in numeric form, so that's why they whiz past you.

 

AVG ypc and OL grading can be ignored in the context of JT because they are not good metrics.   And you corroborated that (without knowing it) by noticing that JTs runs did not deviate much from the mean....akin to a plow horse RB, which he is not.   

 

I'll use numbers so you can understand my point better:

 

Nobody on this board wants or expects JT to be ran 22 times for 96.8 yards.  That only works when a team has a stout defense, which ours is not.  JTs value is big plays  (Compare: in the context of the current Colts season (not NFL averages or tendencies) we want to score points by having JT get the 20 and 30 yard runs we can't get from a more diverse vertical game...not be a 22 for 97 yard plow horse).  So the metric that I would think would have substance would be to see how many "big" runs he has (a quibble would be over what "big" means).  Quoting a simple AVG 4.4 ypc is irrelevant, IMO. 

 

Same with OL rating.  For the oline to perform well in our running game, it needs to get JT to the second level, again, big runs.  It was struggling to do that.  And despite its decent pass block rating, Wentz appeared to feel rushed and was making some "off" decisions and passes, described as playing hero ball.  IMO, the OLs rating does not tell the story.

 

Another irrelevant stat is 51 passes to 16 JT carries.  That pass heavy stats is not a good way to support the idea that Frank had a bad day calling plays or a bad strategy.  Give JT 8 more runs where he is not deviating from the mean and he gets an extra 35 yards.  Now, if he gets three of those carries in the shadow of his goal post, that's better than attempting a screen pass.  And we all know that the screen pass was a questionable call, but the 51 to 16 ratio does not tell the story.

 

A bigger story is told when looking at Dulin and MAC going 0 for 8 on targets.  Wentz was 27 for 51 or about a 50% completion rate.  He threw for 270 yards with a few big plays cluttering up the data, but he had an 8.5 yd per completion.  If that rate was 50% for Dulin/MAC, 4 x 8.5 is the 35 yards that JT would have gotten with 8 extra carries.  The play calling is irrelevant.  The ratio is irrelevant. 

 

The problem is not that JT did not get his extra 8 carries for 35 yards, the problem is that the targets to Dulin and MAC did not achieve a 50% completion rate (which would have resulted  in Wentz' overall game completion rate being higher than 50% of course).  See, the pass vs run play calling is irrelevant.

 

And what seems like it could be insincere, is the fact that you have touted the narrative that Dulin and MAC should be targeted more, so it seems easy to believe you are throwing up a bunch of irrelevant stuff to deflect from the fact that targeting Dulin and MAC more than usual is what was responsible for costing us the TEN game more so than by Frank failing to call JTs number 8 more times.

 

But, Frank/Wentz can't feed the ball to Pitt on every pass play, so he has little choice until he gets better players receivers on the field.  And it makes sense that Frank would try to get more targets to Dulin and MAC to score points in a close game when the oline and JT were achieving simple plow horse performances.

group-laugh.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

It was actually a 9 to 7 pass run ratio in those first two series when the game was in question.  I conceptually skewed the numbers because the big play to JT was a 23 yard pass play, not a running play.  My point is that despite JT having success throughout the game and the stats showing heavy running for the game, when the game was more on the line, the pass was relied upon equally if not more than JTs running.  The exact numbers are not that relevant, because they rarely are, but you can't understand that.

 

That point was addressing the concept of pass vs run, where lazy comments were saying that we beat Buffalo by emphasizing running plays to JT.  Those comments overplay the importance of the run..

"conceptually skewed"

hahaha-laugh.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

 

I love how you double and triple down on being wrong.     No one agrees with you on your long posts that offer nothing.   The team is better when they pound the rock.  Results prove it.   If a team is stacking the box and the pas game takes over,  it's because of the success of the run game.  Pretty simple. 

I've refrained from educating the forum about the TEN game until such time as the internet bullies' attempt to dominate the narrative and drown out dissent settled down.

 

Since East doesn't understand, maybe you will.  You are both wrong, and anybody who agrees with the idea that my opinion had no substance is wrong, :

 

Every offense benefits from a vertical threat.  Football jibberish talkers seeking to impress others with their trendy technical lingo would call that a "Z".

 

We don't have one.

 

We have a RB who the fans want to see break off 20 and 30 yard runs....even 70 yard TD runs.   That is not "pounding the rock".  80% of the forum does not want JT to be a rock pounder.  They want him to make Z type of plays.

 

In 2021 to win against playoff defenses, we need JT's runs to act as a proxy for the Luck to Ebron 30 yard plays and the Luck to TY 70 yard TDs.   You can't feed the ball to Pitt for every vertical play.

 

In 2021, the offense can win close games by scoring points against playoff caliber defense when JT BECOMES THE (proxy) Z.

 

If he isn't doing that...pounding the rock isn't going to be enough to score points in a playoff caliber game when we do not possess a playoff caliber defense.    The offense doesn't work well against playoff caliber Ds, because those D's keep JT from making Z type of plays.

 

 If the game planner doesn't expect JT to have many "Z" results due to the quality of the defensive personnel, its smart to rely upon other types of plays than to go into the game relying upon "Z" type of plays.  Just like the game plan changes when you expect the defense to take away a Z WR.  That explains Wentz 8.5 ypc on 27 completions and 51 attempts.

 

The game planner should expect to eventually see good Z plays from the running game against BUF but not TEN.   BUF has an undersized d line relative our our oline.  Game plans and success thereof are based upon personnel match ups team vs team, its not planned or explained by citing run defense rankings or run offense rankings of PAST games played against other teams.  

 

Using such stats to explain a football game or a football game plan is total jibberish.  Not engaging in point by point debate about jibberish is a smart use of time.

 

And, during the game, the QB at the LOS may change the plays to pass plays because he sees the oline not playing well enough to give JT the Z runs.  PFF grades are irrelevant.  They may be the standard, but a smart person would not use the standard if the standard fails to tell you what you need to know about JTs important Z type of runs.

 

The first TEN game plan was pass heavy.  It was fine.  The second game had a 51 to 16 ratio.  It was fine.  The problem rests in that 4 of those 8 targets to Dulin and Pascal failed to achieve the completion rate that Wentz was getting everywhere else. 

 

The fact that nobody saw that (other than Throwing BBZ )and piled on to the 51/16 ratio and Frank being a bad play caller is simply the result of the quick-strike internet bullies who pepper the forum with tons of posts and stats because they want to dictate the narrative to then gather the needed support for the bullies' egos.   

 

Results do not prove that pounding the rock at 4.4 yds (nearly each carry) leads to wins.  Results show that JT getting Z type of runs leads to wins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

 

I love how you double and triple down on being wrong.     No one agrees with you on your long posts that offer nothing.   The team is better when they pound the rock.  Results prove it.   If a team is stacking the box and the pas game takes over,  it's because of the success of the run game.  Pretty simple. 

If your attention span got you bored during my long post in response, read this summary:

 

Ballard traded up fro JTs sprinters speed.  He did not trade up for a 6'2 230 pound rock pounder.  Results prove that when JT breaks off "Z" type of plays from getting handoffs, we win.  That is the goal when running JT in close games.  Pounding the rock is the goal when we are enough ahead so that the opponent cant come back (with our D, that's hardly ever far enough ahead).

 

If a HC is game planning against a specific D personnel and figures that Z type of plays are going to be minimal, he game plans a lot of short passes.  If a QB sees that Z type of running plays are not happening, he checks out of running plays because he's not looking to pound the rock at that point of a close game.

 

No, neither the game plan or play calling in either TEN game that resulted in a pass heavy ratio was dumb.  It was smart.  It simply was not executed well enough to win, and in the second game was put into a hole by one very bad play call on that screen pass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, when you pound the rock in the RZ, you are basically doing so to settle for a FG because you figure the FG goes a long way towards winning the game. If you need to score TDs at that point in a game (nearly every point in a game for us (how that compares to NFL averages is irrelevant), a team is going to pass the ball a lot, and then settle for the FG where they are on the field (in case you're throwing to Dulin and MAC since results prove those targets result in incompletions, LOL).

 

For us, its smart to not pound the rock in the RZ,  Unless your personnel is matched up like it was against an undersized Dline at BUF, where you figure that you can string together 4 to 5 to 8 yard runs by pounding the rock a lot despite having a short field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, DougDew said:

If your attention span got you bored during my long post in response, read this summary:

 

Ballard traded up fro JTs sprinters speed.  He did not trade up for a 6'2 230 pound rock pounder.  Results prove that when JT breaks off "Z" type of plays from getting handoffs, we win.  That is the goal when running JT in close games.  Pounding the rock is the goal when we are enough ahead so that the opponent cant come back (with our D, that's hardly ever far enough ahead).

 

If a HC is game planning against a specific D personnel and figures that Z type of plays are going to be minimal, he game plans a lot of short passes.  If a QB sees that Z type of running plays are not happening, he checks out of running plays because he's not looking to pound the rock at that point of a close game.

 

No, neither the game plan or play calling in either TEN game that resulted in a pass heavy ratio was dumb.  It was smart.  It simply was not executed well enough to win, and in the second game was put into a hole by one very bad play call on that screen pass.

First off,  their is no such thing as a Z play.   That's a position.   It used to be called a flanker.  An off ball receiver.    Any way Ballard drafted him to be a chain mover.  He has said as much.   No one drafts a running back expecting him to break off 40 yard runs.   That is a theory you came up with on your own,  and wrong.    Ballard wanted him because he is versatile and can get a 4th and 1.   He is capable of breaking off a long one and move the pile in short yardage.   Congrats on being wrong again

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...