Pass efficiency is your # 1 priority, the #2 is pass defense. The stat that I believe in more than anything is called the pass differential rating - the difference between your QB rating and the QB rating you allow your foes to get. You want to open that chasm as wide as possible.Past that I will say not much matters. Running just has too low a spread to care about rushing efficiency. Rushing defense is primarily focused on countering rushing efficiency but that doesn't matter so I don't tend to care about that. I can accumulate a lot of running yards if I get enough carries on offense or I will give up a ton if I face enough carries in defense. Put another way, I want to see rushing effectiveness and passing efficiency. The latter causes the former though because if you get ahead you "prevent" running by the opposition and create opportunity for your team to run. My goal is to have the #1 ranked first half passing offense and the #1 ranked second half rushing offense.
One ideology is your defense makes your offense better since it has to practice against the defense every day. Based on that theory, a devastating defense not only supplies it's offense with better scoring opportunities during games it also gives it swagger and it's killer instinct.
Pass efficiency is your # 1 priority, the #2 is pass defense. The stat that I believe in more than anything is called the pass differential rating - the difference between your QB rating and the QB rating you allow your foes to get. You want to open that chasm as wide as possible.Past that I will say not much matters. Running just has too low a spread to care about rushing efficiency. Rushing defense is primarily focused on countering rushing efficiency but that doesn't matter so I don't tend to care about that. I can accumulate a lot of running yards if I get enough carries on offense or I will give up a ton if I face enough carries in defense. Put another way, I want to see rushing effectiveness and passing efficiency. The latter causes the former though because if you get ahead you "prevent" running by the opposition and create opportunity for your team to run. My goal is to have the #1 ranked first half passing offense and the #1 ranked second half rushing offense.
Interesting points Dal, thanks for the explanation.I guess I find it hard to quantify a team sport by one stat because in my own experience so many things are interrelated in real life even if they don't manifest themselves in the stats. As only one example, a QB may be more efficient one week over another because of less pressure and the less pressure could be a product of a running game or a game plan to neutralize a player, such as a DE who has to stay home because of a roll out or run threat. In other words, they all tie together. That said though, I get where you are coming from and I like the concept of QBR v. QBR as a telling stat, I guess I would just question whether QBR v. QBR is more a function of your great QB play or your great defense or even offensive systems, defensive systems etc. No doubt it helps to have a great QB because that gives you the best chance at the one side of the equation, even if your offense is not that great, but given the paucity of great QBs and the relative ease in creating a good defense (11 guys versus one, systems etc) what's the best approach if you only have access to a mid-level QB? I guess that is why running games and defense matter to me still
Pass efficiency is your # 1 priority, the #2 is pass defense. The stat that I believe in more than anything is called the pass differential rating - the difference between your QB rating and the QB rating you allow your foes to get. You want to open that chasm as wide as possible.Past that I will say not much matters. Running just has too low a spread to care about rushing efficiency. Rushing defense is primarily focused on countering rushing efficiency but that doesn't matter so I don't tend to care about that. I can accumulate a lot of running yards if I get enough carries on offense or I will give up a ton if I face enough carries in defense. Put another way, I want to see rushing effectiveness and passing efficiency. The latter causes the former though because if you get ahead you "prevent" running by the opposition and create opportunity for your team to run. My goal is to have the #1 ranked first half passing offense and the #1 ranked second half rushing offense.
Interesting points Dal, thanks for the explanation.I guess I find it hard to quantify a team sport by one stat because in my own experience so many things are interrelated in real life even if they don't manifest themselves in the stats. As only one example, a QB may be more efficient one week over another because of less pressure and the less pressure could be a product of a running game or a game plan to neutralize a player, such as a DE who has to stay home because of a roll out or run threat. In other words, they all tie together. That said though, I get where you are coming from and I like the concept of QBR v. QBR as a telling stat, I guess I would just question whether QBR v. QBR is more a function of your great QB play or your great defense or even offensive systems, defensive systems etc. No doubt it helps to have a great QB because that gives you the best chance at the one side of the equation, even if your offense is not that great, but given the paucity of great QBs and the relative ease in creating a good defense (11 guys versus one, systems etc) what's the best approach if you only have access to a mid-level QB? I guess that is why running games and defense matter to me still
Bingo!!! The idea that any team can control who the other team gets as a QB is non-existent. Thus, building a power running game and a devastating defense provides more of a chance to still win with a mediocre QB.
what's the best approach if you only have access to a mid-level QB? I guess that is why running games and defense matter to me still
I will say there is no mid level. That impleis there is a land between playoff calibre and not. I don't think that middle ground exists in any meaningful way. QB's are binary good enough or not. If they are not good enough nothing matters. Short of very odd events Fitzpatrick and Campbell aren't going to the playoffs. Those two guys are below average but not fully truly awful. Running games really doesn't matter. Seriously, there is no way to even pretend to find a correlation between running efficiency and winning. Effectiveness you can find because the team that is ahead tends to run more but building the run game assumes you are looking to improve efficiency. The range of ability and outcomes is too narrow to think there is marked difference between back. 4.8 is "elite" and 4.2 is mundane and the difference is one foot per carry. We tend to look at it as a wide gap because we are used to looking at people who by and large operate in that 4.0 - 4.9 range so we incorrectly view that range as being bigger than it is.All that said the real problem with running back effectiveness or efficiency is that it is lacks any sort of consistency. People who want a run game tend to imagine it as a U of Wisconsin level machine powering down the field at 4 and 5 yards per carry and grinding the other team into paste. The reality is that running backs at the NFL level tend to be a lot more hit and miss. Their run charts typically don't looks like 4,4,5,4,3,4,3,7,2,4,5,4 and instead look a lot more like 1,3,12,4,1,-1,3 where at least half of those runs aren't helping things at all. The grand example of these are the games where the back "goes off" for 105 yards on 20 carries but gets 70 on one carry and then is averaging around 1 yard per carry the rest of the time. Peterson in 2012 had a great RB season, just looking at the longest single run from a game he accumulated 643 yards on 16 carries. He got 30% of his yards on around 5% of his carries. That ratio BTW is not atypical, Martin in 2012 got 26% of his yards on just 16 carries (and frankly that is distorted by the OAK game where he had 70 and 67 and I am only counting one of those if I add in the 67 yarder he goes to 30% on 17 total carries. That figure is fairly consistent at 30% on 5% of the carries.The run game all too often isn't about hitting a lot of singles but is instead a lot of strikeouts surrounded by a couple of home runs. It is why the idea that you can "control" the clock with a run game is a myth. You can't very often hand off 3 times in a row and get a first down.
what's the best approach if you only have access to a mid-level QB? I guess that is why running games and defense matter to me still
I will say there is no mid level. That impleis there is a land between playoff calibre and not. I don't think that middle ground exists in any meaningful way. QB's are binary good enough or not. If they are not good enough nothing matters. Short of very odd events Fitzpatrick and Campbell aren't going to the playoffs. Those two guys are below average but not fully truly awful. Running games really doesn't matter. Seriously, there is no way to even pretend to find a correlation between running efficiency and winning. Effectiveness you can find because the team that is ahead tends to run more but building the run game assumes you are looking to improve efficiency. The range of ability and outcomes is too narrow to think there is marked difference between back. 4.8 is "elite" and 4.2 is mundane and the difference is one foot per carry. We tend to look at it as a wide gap because we are used to looking at people who by and large operate in that 4.0 - 4.9 range so we incorrectly view that range as being bigger than it is.All that said the real problem with running back effectiveness or efficiency is that it is lacks any sort of consistency. People who want a run game tend to imagine it as a U of Wisconsin level machine powering down the field at 4 and 5 yards per carry and grinding the other team into paste. The reality is that running backs at the NFL level tend to be a lot more hit and miss. Their run charts typically don't looks like 4,4,5,4,3,4,3,7,2,4,5,4 and instead look a lot more like 1,3,12,4,1,-1,3 where at least half of those runs aren't helping things at all. The grand example of these are the games where the back "goes off" for 105 yards on 20 carries but gets 70 on one carry and then is averaging around 1 yard per carry the rest of the time. Peterson in 2012 had a great RB season, just looking at the longest single run from a game he accumulated 643 yards on 16 carries. He got 30% of his yards on around 5% of his carries. That ratio BTW is not atypical, Martin in 2012 got 26% of his yards on just 16 carries (and frankly that is distorted by the OAK game where he had 70 and 67 and I am only counting one of those if I add in the 67 yarder he goes to 30% on 17 total carries. That figure is fairly consistent at 30% on 5% of the carries.The run game all too often isn't about hitting a lot of singles but is instead a lot of strikeouts surrounded by a couple of home runs. It is why the idea that you can "control" the clock with a run game is a myth. You can't very often hand off 3 times in a row and get a first down.
That's an interesting take, no doubt. I am not sure that it is as "all or nothing" with the running game as you suggest, but it is an interesting discussion. I would say that the problem lies in trying to capture reality in a stat. For example,a team that is a legitimate threat to run requires more defenders in the box to stop and more defenders in the box means more space to pass. The reverse is also true. So one compliments the other, they are not happening in a vacuum, which is sort of what the stats are. Also, no one says that a team has to run 3 downs for a first down, but a team that can get six yard on a first down running has a big advantage. The same can be said about a team that can pass for those 6 yards BUT its undeniable that it is easiest for the team that can do BOTH, right? Simply put, 3rd and 2 is easier than 3rd and 8 because there is a legitimate threat of both run and pass. Nonetheless, interesting points
If I am the Coach, I am doing what most coaches after the season is overdo? What do I need to be a better team. I would list my greatest needs by priority and can I fill those needs within the team, free agency,trades, and the draft. That's probably the way it will play out and I like others will accept it and support the team.
That's an interesting take, no doubt. I am not sure that it is as "all or nothing" with the running game as you suggest, but it is an interesting discussion. I would say that the problem lies in trying to capture reality in a stat. For example,a team that is a legitimate threat to run requires more defenders in the box to stop and more defenders in the box means more space to pass. The reverse is also true. So one compliments the other, they are not happening in a vacuum, which is sort of what the stats are. Also, no one says that a team has to run 3 downs for a first down, but a team that can get six yard on a first down running has a big advantage. The same can be said about a team that can pass for those 6 yards BUT its undeniable that it is easiest for the team that can do BOTH, right? Simply put, 3rd and 2 is easier than 3rd and 8 because there is a legitimate threat of both run and pass. Nonetheless, interesting points
You want to be good at everything all things being equal no doubt. The thing is in between 4.2 and 4.6 YPC isn't much difference in outcome. In an ideal world my running back would get me 4 yards a carry and put me in 2nd and 6. This is why I have always disliked Sanders. He was not putting his team into a lot of 2nd and 6 situations while a less spectacular guy like Smith or Martin or Bettis tended to be more prone to average runs but those runs tend to create wins because it creates good conversion situations. Running success as defined by rushing efficiency doesn't effect play action. In other words, Adrian Peterson doesn't help your play action passing the way most people think. Teams don't put 8 in the box because of Peterson. Having Peterson makes the Vikes more likely to run on any given play thus teams tend to play more 8 in the box because they expect a run. Play action is about self scouting and confusing the defenses expectations. A team like GB who has been poor at rushing has been very good at play action because they self scout and know their own tendencies and what the defense reacts to. The two aren't all that intertwined or else you should see bad passing teams with good rushing attacks become better passing teams as the opposition reacts to the run success, and in reverse a good passing team should eventually become a good rushing team. These things tend to not happen.
Running success as defined by rushing efficiency doesn't effect play action. In other words, Adrian Peterson doesn't help your play action passing the way most people think. Teams don't put 8 in the box because of Peterson. Having Peterson makes the Vikes more likely to run on any given play thus teams tend to play more 8 in the box because they expect a run. Play action is about self scouting and confusing the defenses expectations. A team like GB who has been poor at rushing has been very good at play action because they self scout and know their own tendencies and what the defense reacts to. The two aren't all that intertwined or else you should see bad passing teams with good rushing attacks become better passing teams as the opposition reacts to the run success, and in reverse a good passing team should eventually become a good rushing team. These things tend to not happen.
I get where you're coming from and the Green Bay example is a good one and I generally agree with the tendencies issue but the tendencies are impacted by success or failure, this is why the AP example is almost semantics. In other words, you say " Teams don't put 8 in the box because of Peterson. Having Peterson makes the Vikes more likely to run on any given play thus teams tend to play more 8 in the box because they expect a run" BUT the Vikes are only more likely to run because Peterson is GOOD at running. Their offense features AP because he is a good runner. If they had a guy with one leg (extreme example, obviously) the other team wouldn't put 8 guys in the box. Success and/or commitment to run (which is increased with success, obviously) legitimates or enhances the threat of running, this is why almost all (if not all) NFL teams try to stop the run first and make a team one dimensional. It works the other eay too, no doubt, so if they had AP and Aaron Rodgers they would be a really tough team to defend because defenses couldn't do what they do now to the Vikes, which is load up the box to stop AP and force the Vikes to abandon the run. The two go hand in hand, that's why a stat doesn't really capture what is happening in the real world scenario.For example, you say "you should see bad passing teams with good rushing attacks become better passing teams as the opposition reacts to the run success, and in reverse a good passing team should eventually become a good rushing team" but that is making a shades of gray analysis into a black & white analysis, even worse it is doing so when there are numerous other factors at play, such as teams having to abandon the run when falling behind etc. I just don't think you can "find" the real world of football, with its many moving parts, in a single stat. I will close with one example. There should be absolutely no doubt that the 49ers passing game becomes tougher to defend when both Gore and Kap are successfully running. Their offense uses the run, and in particular the potential running of Kap, to keep a DE from just flat out rushing on most downs. The threat of the run relieves pressure that should make it easier for the 49ers to pass . . . and yet I don't think that there is a single stat to illustrate that point because there are so many other factors in play, but you don't need a stat because common sense dictates that if Kap was Glennon the threat would be diminished and passing would be tougher because that DE is coming full speed ahead.interesting discussion though Dal, I appreciate your explanations and point of view
When I look at the staff being put together here I see an attempt to build an offense that scores in games. I also see an effort to build a return to or an outdoing of the best defensive scheme Tampa has had. It's a game of inches. The idea is to have more inches and points at the end of the game. Through the air or on the ground. On offense or on defense. Just be highly competitive and win.
I would hope they can put together an offense that scores in games. And a goal of being highly competitive and winning is another good goal. I suspect most if not all NFL HCs who are assembling a staff have similar goals
When I look at the staff being put together here I see an attempt to build an offense that scores in games. I also see an effort to build a return to or an outdoing of the best defensive scheme Tampa has had. It's a game of inches. The idea is to have more inches and points at the end of the game. Through the air or on the ground. On offense or on defense. Just be highly competitive and win.
a Super Bowl winning CB said that the real Super Bowl was played between Seattle and San Fran. He is probably right. Both those teams have good but not great QBs and win first with defense and running. If you're Lovie taking over you have to think the Bucs' current strengths are defense and running (work needed on both, admittedly, but still the strengths). You are also bringing an OC that is a QB guy. Sounds like we are headed in the right direction, but we'll see.
I would hope they can put together an offense that scores in games. And a goal of being highly competitive and winning is another good goal. I suspect most if not all NFL HCs who are assembling a staff have similar goals
Point taken. But, you and I both know the difference between having a goal and having a goal then achieving it.
I would hope they can put together an offense that scores in games. And a goal of being highly competitive and winning is another good goal. I suspect most if not all NFL HCs who are assembling a staff have similar goals
Point taken. But, you and I both know the difference between having a goal and having a goal then achieving it.
Absolutely - and I suspect the same most if not all NFL HCs intend to establish and achieve their goal(s)
I would hope they can put together an offense that scores in games. And a goal of being highly competitive and winning is another good goal. I suspect most if not all NFL HCs who are assembling a staff have similar goals
Point taken. But, you and I both know the difference between having a goal and having a goal then achieving it.
Yeah but the goal might be to score points but the question is how committed are you to it. This is always the concern with a guy like Lovie. If you say you want to score points but are actually happy "keeping it close and winning in the 4th quarter" you aren't serious about your goal. Do you want to score points but if you are more concerned about turning it over you aren't really serious about scoring points. Coaches need to understand how points are really scored in this league and what it takes to get an offense to be effective and not try and blame "execution" over and over because flawed offensive approaches and strategies don't get it done.
