I've lamented our offensive approach in many different ways:
* The general Iso approach of Air Coryell rather than route combination/concepts
* High 1st and down Run % and attendant Inefficiency and loss in EPA
* Lowest play-action # and % of plays
* Our orthodox deployment of play-action overwhelmingly as a "shot" rather than to outflank horizontally and attack the Intermediate
* Our running game not taking advantage of the horizontal dressing (Jet Action et al) + fakes + Outside Zone concepts that are so enormously successful in the modern NFL (Shanahan routinely works miracles despite UFAs and the morgue of their team, McVay, Reich, Reid, et al). These concepts also help the passing game in multiple ways.
Something else has been bothering me and I just heard BA speak to it in his press conference when asked if Jones will see the ball more on 3rd and Short. BA said "3rd and Short, we usually have a Back back there...3rd and 2, 3...that's totally different." So, philosophically, BA only considers 3rd and 1 as a "Running Down." 3rd and 2/3 aren't "Short" hence, aren't "Running Downs." Surely, if 3rd and 2/3 aren't Running Downs then 4 and 5 aren't either!
That feels like a pretty damn big neon sign of TENDENCY, TENDENCY, TENDENCY.
So I checked the data for us and against the top 5 DVOA Offenses in the NFL for runs and successes on 3rd and 2 through 5. Sure enough:
TAMPA BAY
2 Times
0 Successes
* NOTE - 0 Attempts on 4 and 5 yards while all the other teams below have at least 1 attempt.
KANSAS CITY
6 Times
12 Successes
GREEN BAY
7 Times
4 Successes
TENNESSEE
12 Times
8 Successes
LA
15 Times
8 Successes
SEATTLE
12 Times
7 Successes
NEW ORLEANS
18 Times
12 Successes
++++++++++++++++++++++
Yup. Add this to the list.
Tendency that teams can (and absolutely do/will, rest assured) take advantage of? Check!
Another high-efficiency trend that the Bucs are failing to take advantage of (that coincides with increasing the cognitive workload during gameplan prep and for defenders on the field in these situations!)? Check!
