NFL: Analyzing NFL running games through 10 weeks

[Anomaly]

Quote:NFL teams are passing more frequently and more effectively than ever before. Given enough opportunities, most teams will eventually connect on big plays through the air. But while running backs have taken a backseat in most offenses, a successful rushing attack is still a significant component in most effective offenses.

As teams — and by extension, their opponents — become more prolific at passing, the opportunity cost of not passing increases. That makes an unsuccessful run particularly damaging. A run on third and short that forces a punt, or a run on 1st or 2nd down that makes it harder for his team to move the chains, hurts a team more significantly than ever before. In the ’70s, the running game was supposed to win games for teams, as running was a more effective optionthan passing. In some ways, the goal of the running game now is to not mess things up for the passing game, by forcing a punt or an unfavorable third down situation.

About 25 years ago, Bob Carroll, Pete Palmer and John Thorn wrote the Hidden Game of Football, a fascinating book on football theory and win probability. They went through and graded each play as a success or failure based on how many yards were gained as a percentage of how many yards were needed to pick up a first down or touchdown.

When I wrote a series on the most dominant running backs of all-time, I noted that yards per carry was a misleading statistic for running backs. Rushing is more about consistent success than passing, and rushing has a positive feedback loop in place that might lower yards per carry averages. Yards per carry is highly sensitive to large runs, decreasing the correlation it would have with the overall strength of a running game. I had a discussion with Brian Burke about this a couple of years ago, and he now uses rush success rate in his team efficiency models.

Click the link to see the rest of the article along with the stat tables.

http://smartfootball.com/stats/analyzing...h-10-weeks

[ggp]

Thank you for bringing an interesting analysis to these boards.

I like the approach the author took, but I don't totally agree with his methodology. His method for declaring a run a success is not clear enough. Still, the general overview of rushing attacks is reasonable and certainly jives with what I am seeing on the field.

First of all, I think that BVG has to be given great credit for the job he has done with the defense. Our defense stymies rush attacks....plain and simple. I don't think that BVG can get any more from our personnel in that regard. The single criticism of BVG's defense is the play of our secondary against the pass. Given the partial success our defense has displayed, BVG has earned our trust for at least one more season. I'd like to see TD find another good DT and Safety for BVG to use.


Our offense is full of Mularkey. (I guess I finally understand the meaning of the old saying.) We are supposed to be a dominant run-oriented team. Instead, we have an offense that can not reliably gain needed yards on the ground. Additionally, our pass offense suffers greatly because our WR's rarely get much separation from defenders. This may be because they are too focused on blocking down field.

I believe in giving coaches the benefit of the doubt and the time to establish a successful scheme. Mike Mularkey has been given enough weapons and time to create offensive success. In my opinion, he has failed. Consequently, I would replace him at the end of this season.

[m2Falcons]

I'll read the article BUT I don't need to really... I have known since the 2009 season what it gets at. The same reason I am NOT a huge fan of Turner and ultimately believe that he and Mularkey are the two primary reasons the Falcons' offense is underachieving.
The offense overall does NEED more "explosive plays"; but that is from both passing AND running.
BUT what I believe would MOST help toward increases in that production is having a more prodcutive (CONSISTENTLY Successful) run game. We constantly get into 2nd & Long, 3rd & Long scenarios that are very difficult to convert continually. It even impacts, more than most realize, our 3rd & Short play calls and offense effectiveness. It's one of the reasons we don't run on 3rd & 2 (or less) as much as you'd think a run-dominant team with a 245 lb. RB would.

Quizz is a better back, and more consistently successful, than is Turner. Quizz can enable us to run a larger variety of run scheme plays that would then lead to more success running, than does Turner. **Turner simply CAN'T and WON'T do things most other feature RB's do; Mularkey doesn't appear able to scheme an offense effectively for current football and player talents.**

I fully believe we have the players to be an elite offense (see >> Saints, Packers, old 49ers WCO, Patriots) Hell, even today's 49ers and Bears use a versatile RB offense and are showing it will work. All of these teams to some degree have RBs that are useful in the run AND pass game, and employ route schemes that CREATE open receivers.

Now I read the article and I have to laugh... it basically shows what I already knew. Turner is at/near the bottom in Success Rate %. Even better... the first primary RB with a worse rate is CJ2k; whom everyone knows has been a HUGE BUST and roasted him accordingly after getting his PayDay. Take out an unusually high number of explosive plays for Turner so far this season and his YPC # goes in the toilet also. The curse of his explosive plays tho' is... he can't frigg'in take it to the house if he's outside the 20 yard line because he's too slow and has limited 'moves/wiggle'... which just puts Falcons into a higher % of having to produce "sustained drives".

[Beef]

Our run offense epitomizes this notion.

Turner is a perfect example. 20 runs of -2 to +2 yards, 3 runs of +3 to +9 yards, and 2 runs of +10 to +30 yards.

Sounds like the exact same stat line that most pass-first offenses in this league have. Except they call their plays so that the run actually does set up the pass. The Falcons, on the other hand, when they don't execute a good run or set of runs, all of a sudden you know EXACTLY what's coming. And prior to that, you already pretty much know that we're running the ball on certain downs because we're labeled a "run-first offense".

I really think that Mularkey is incapable of being a pass-first offensive coordinator that uses the run to set up the pass at this point. Aside from Turner, we have the personnel to be like that too. Turner, however, is not a "set up the pass" RB. When he's in, we're more predictable, and odds are more likely we're running the ball. Which fucks up every other formation when he's not in. Because those become more predictable because when Turner is not in, odds are we're not running the ball.

I know it sounds crazy to think a team could be worse off with a 250 lb bulldozing RB, but with our weak OL and Mularkey's inability to adjust his plays, game schemes, and overall philosophy to fit or catch up to the new elite team template, it might just be so in our unique case.

I know there's a few of you who don't buy in to this "we're predictable" notion and think it's purely execution (or lack there of) by inconsistent and possibly over-rated players, but I believe it's a combination. A combination that stems from players inadvertent lack of confidence in the scheme and philosophy of our offense. I firmly believe that our players realize we have a predictable offense and this causes them to under-acheive.

Lord knows we've seen days where they've set that aside and made just the most incredibly ridiculous plays and absolutely dominated their opponent. So we know what they are capable of. So why then do they sometimes shut it off and play shitty for stretches at a time?

I watched the GB game Monday night and it was like watching perfection. Perfect harmony of effort, execution, and absolutely zero signs of hesitation or meandering confidence on every single play on every single down. I watch our team and it's just not like that. Something is just not clicking and I know it's not the quality of our talent. TD has put together a potentially great team with only a couple square pegs and round holes and maybe 1 or 2 consistently below average players. But there's easily enough to compensate and win a championship, for sure. Mike Smith seems like he's a great leader who gets heated when he needs to and plays the father/friend when he needs to. Plus he doesn't make bonehead decisions very often. So I think it's still Mularkey that's holding us back along with a few improperly used personnel.

[takeitdown]

We haven't had a successful run game in awhile. I like our style of run D, because while it will allow the occasional long run, it's very good against success rate.

However, our run game on offense doesn't do what it's supposed to. A power run game is supposed to be very consistent and give you very manageable 3rd down conversions. It simply hasn't been that. Even Ryan's rookie year, it seemed like it was all too often 3rd and 10 (and he'd manage to convert.) At least if people recognize that we don't have a good run game, it will make it easier to transition the offense to a better passing attack. It's not like you're giving up on a legitimately dominant run game. You're transitioning from a bottom tier run game, to a better passing attack with a different run game.

[FullMetalFalcon23]

Does anyone think that quizz is coach smith's guy. I mean he was in jacksonville for a period whilst Jones drew was still a back up, and saw what he could do. Again I am not saying quizz is a lock to become mjd, but a lot of the similarity in build and skill set is there. It seems to me that he could be the player we look to transition our short pass and ground game. One thing I noticed about our short routes is they seldom operate in open space. Again I think this is a product of us not playing more in that 20 to 30 yard range. Us playing in 20 to 10 gives our receivers little room so adding a back in to that is even more congestion. With the addition of Julio, this has opened up more, but is still tight. How many dump offs do we see to players with them having room and not them having to create it. I'm not talking acres if space but what I see us turner quizz ovie and now cox, make a catch and quickly have to shake someone.

[Beef]

(11-18-2011 07:46 PM)FullMetalFalcon23 Wrote:  Does anyone think that quizz is coach smith's guy. I mean he was in jacksonville for a period whilst Jones drew was still a back up, and saw what he could do. Again I am not saying quizz is a lock to become mjd, but a lot of the similarity in build and skill set is there. It seems to me that he could be the player we look to transition our short pass and ground game. One thing I noticed about our short routes is they seldom operate in open space. Again I think this is a product of us not playing more in that 20 to 30 yard range. Us playing in 20 to 10 gives our receivers little room so adding a back in to that is even more congestion. With the addition of Julio, this has opened up more, but is still tight. How many dump offs do we see to players with them having room and not them having to create it. I'm not talking acres if space but what I see us turner quizz ovie and now cox, make a catch and quickly have to shake someone.

Huh?

Quizz is a rookie. Came to us straight out of Oregon State. Not sure who you're mixing him up with.

[Radical]

(11-18-2011 08:53 PM)Beef Wrote:  Huh?

Quizz is a rookie. Came to us straight out of Oregon State. Not sure who you're mixing him up with.

He means Mike Smith was in Jacksonville when MJD was just getting started, so he wonders if Smith envisions him being in the mold of MJD, as well as being the future of our running game.