Jump to content

Cool Article re: Play-Action


DCOrange

Recommended Posts

Football Outsiders published an article that came across my twitter timeline today. It basically suggests that a team's ability to run the ball has no impact on its success in play-action. It also suggests that play-action passing is super underutilized and points out that teams like Jacksonville and Philly ran it twice as often as the rest of the league during their playoff games against Pittsburgh and New England and obviously it worked out pretty amazingly for them.

 

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2018/rushing-success-and-play-action-passing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DCOrange said:

Football Outsiders published an article that came across my twitter timeline today. It basically suggests that a team's ability to run the ball has no impact on its success in play-action. It also suggests that play-action passing is super underutilized and points out that teams like Jacksonville and Philly ran it twice as often as the rest of the league during their playoff games against Pittsburgh and New England and obviously it worked out pretty amazingly for them.

 

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2018/rushing-success-and-play-action-passing

Lamar has one of the best playaction ball fakes I've ever seen. I'm just sayin

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DCOrange said:

Football Outsiders published an article that came across my twitter timeline today. It basically suggests that a team's ability to run the ball has no impact on its success in play-action. It also suggests that play-action passing is super underutilized and points out that teams like Jacksonville and Philly ran it twice as often as the rest of the league during their playoff games against Pittsburgh and New England and obviously it worked out pretty amazingly for them.

 

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2018/rushing-success-and-play-action-passing

????? if it has no impact.... how can it be considered underutilized?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, jdonley1180 said:

????? if it has no impact.... how can it be considered underutilized?

 

You're misunderstanding it.

 

1. Running the ball has no impact on play-action passing.

2. Play-action passing > regular passing and with it being used only 20% of the time, it is underutilized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Foreigner said:

What is the exact definition of play-action?

 

Is this the new trolling?

Screenshot_2018-03-27-22-59-00-1.png

33 minutes ago, DCOrange said:

 

You're misunderstanding it.

 

1. Running the ball has no impact on play-action passing.

2. Play-action passing > regular passing and with it being used only 20% of the time, it is underutilized.

 

I find it hard to believe that running the ball has no impact. When teams run the ball, the same play, multiple times out of specific formations, defenses notice, be it within their game or on film. When they see the offense line up in that same formation, the perception given is that it's a run. You would think there's some type of mental element to it. Also, if you're a terrible rushing team, defenses may not fear the run so much, and not sell out on the fake.

 

 

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, DCOrange said:

Football Outsiders published an article that came across my twitter timeline today. It basically suggests that a team's ability to run the ball has no impact on its success in play-action. It also suggests that play-action passing is super underutilized and points out that teams like Jacksonville and Philly ran it twice as often as the rest of the league during their playoff games against Pittsburgh and New England and obviously it worked out pretty amazingly for them.

 

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2018/rushing-success-and-play-action-passing

 

 

The answer to the author's question about why teams run the ball is often that they feel overmatched by the opposing passing game and therefore better off not fighting fire with fire.

 

Bills were a prime example of this last season.    

 

They won 5 of their first 7 games despite utter garbage at WR and a miscast QB(who should have been operating out of a RPO offense)............mainly by limiting their defensive exposure and protecting the football.

 

Passing is great but hyper conservative Jauron Ball if executed effectively will still win enough to keep you at least in the hunt for a wildcard in late November.

 

I love play action..........but in an era where DE's can be 80-100 pounds lighter than OT's it's a lot of risk to ask a QB to turn his head away from the defense.  

 

That's what's great about RPO........I took some heat on this board for saying the Eagles would be fine in the playoffs with Foles after Wentz got hurt.....I knew what he could do out of the RPO.....which they had used to greatly prop up Wentz to that point......... and trusted Pederson would further adapt his scheme to Foles strengths.

 

If the Bills had had a healthy Watkins in 2016 they might have finished in the top 2-3 teams in the NFL in scoring with non-franchise QB Tyrod Taylor.    It's just a very tough to defense version of to traditional play action.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Drunken Pygmy Goat said:

 

I find it hard to believe that running the ball has no impact. When teams run the ball, the same play, multiple times out of specific formations, defenses notice, be it within their game or on film. When they see the offense line up in that same formation, the perception given is that it's a run. You would think there's some type of mental element to it. Also, if you're a terrible rushing team, defenses may not fear the run so much, and not sell out on the fake.

 

 

That's what we've always believed, but the numbers suggest otherwise. There's nearly zero correlation between running effectiveness and play-action success or between running volume and play-action success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

That's what's great about RPO........I took some heat on this board for saying the Eagles would be fine in the playoffs with Foles after Wentz got hurt.....I knew what he could do out of the RPO.....which they had used to greatly prop up Wentz to that point......... and trusted Pederson would further adapt his scheme to Foles strengths.

 

If the Bills had had a healthy Watkins in 2016 they might have finished in the top 2-3 teams in the NFL in scoring with non-franchise QB Tyrod Taylor.    It's just a very tough to defense version of to traditional play action.  

 

And the thing is the league is such a shotgun and pistol heavy league now - as Blokes demonstrated in another thread the other day.  I think the reason traditional play action has died off a bit is that teams are in shotgun so often that it almost can be seen as tipping their hand when they go under centre.  RPO is so effective because it allows teams to do play action out of their "normal" offense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...