Jump to content
DCOrange

538: You ran the ball on first down. You’re already screwed.

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

Yep Yep. Goes hand in hand with the concept that you're screwed once you get to 3rd down.

Especially in the CFL...

  • Haha (+1) 7
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My head is spinning. That all felt kind of ambiguous. Rush-Rush-Pass is a weak sequence, yet good teams can execute it well. Right. If you have good players, your sequence doesn't matter as much. We have a 43% success rate with R-R-P. The Rams? 60% KC? 53%. Someone like New England has a 39% because they never R-R-P. They're constantly throwing on 1st down. Their frequency is at the bottom (along with other good teams). If you have a stellar line and RB, then you can R-R-P to your heart's content. 

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somewhere Baker Mayfield is smiling! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if 538.com says so, it's got to be true. :lol:

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Skeptical 1
  • Haha (+1) 3
  • Awesome! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, quinnearlysghost88 said:

My head is spinning. That all felt kind of ambiguous. Rush-Rush-Pass is a weak sequence, yet good teams can execute it well. Right. If you have good players, your sequence doesn't matter as much. We have a 43% success rate with R-R-P. The Rams? 60% KC? 53%. Someone like New England has a 39% because they never R-R-P. They're constantly throwing on 1st down. Their frequency is at the bottom (along with other good teams). If you have a stellar line and RB, then you can R-R-P to your heart's content. 

I get what you're saying, but the thesis isn't team specific. The article is more about probability and statistics than it is about football. As you stated, every team has a unique set of circumstances.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DCOrange said:

Not really all that surprising but here’s another one of those articles that bucks the standard coaching philosophies. 

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/you-called-a-run-on-first-down-youre-already-screwed/

 

Those are some very granular analytics, which I’m in no position to dispute.

 

To me, rush-rush-pass sounds like the old Chuck Knox philosophy, obviously very outdated in today’s NFL.

 

Mike Leach would never rush on 1st down.  

 

Nor 2nd, 3rd, or 4th. 😎

.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"A lot of things will get you into the playoffs and then a good QB will knock you out..." - Bruce Arians

Edited by Elite Poster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I played softball, I remember the coach always telling us never to swing on a 3-0 or 3-1 pitch; force the pitcher to throw consecutive strikes. Statistically speaking that's probably a good philosophy, as it likely results in more walks than outs. But if you never swing on those pitches, then the pitcher is just going to serve up one or two fat ones right down the middle. As a hitter, I liked to keep the pitcher honest, so my conventional wisdom is "rarely swing on a 3-0 or 3-1 pitch." (I finally convinced my coach of that when I swung on a 3-0 pitch and knocked in two runs.)

 

Likewise, a R-R-P pattern works best when used more often than not, but sometimes you have to take advantage of the fact that they're expecting a run, and sling it on first down.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looked at all data from 2009 - 2018. 

 

People make fun of sites like 538 and PFF. But they take the time to crunch math on every play of every game.

 

A majority of fans watch the game once with a beer in their hand and a sandwich in the other. 

 

I’ll take the engineering mindset all day over emotional fans. 

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Thanks! (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love stats but this seems empty of validity. The stats do not take into consideration anything about the make up of the team, the situations in which these calls are made, turnovers, field position, so many variables that i found nothing of interest here. It reminds me of the people who say you should always go for it on 4th since you have 60% chance of making it historically speaking- no context.

  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Elite Poster said:

"A lot of things will get you into the playoffs and then a good QB will knock you out..." - Bruce Arians

Remove:  ‘Good’

Substitute:  ‘Your crazy’

Welcome to Bruce’s world.

Edited by Ridgewaycynic2013
Tinkered it a bit...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I realize that I'm a visionary, and this just confirms it.  If only I had trademarked the phrase "pass to set up the run" when I first uttered it so many years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Foxx said:

i guess the Ravens are kinda screwed, huh?

well, by the looks of that playoff game..yes!

 

I did not read the article just yet, will later. But, in short with a conventional 3 down mindset, I can understand the thesis. My question would be if coaches start to understand the numbers better and adopt a 4 down mindset, does running then become a more viable option on all downs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, plenzmd1 said:

well, by the looks of that playoff game..yes!

 

I did not read the article just yet, will later. But, in short with a conventional 3 down mindset, I can understand the thesis. My question would be if coaches start to understand the numbers better and adopt a 4 down mindset, does running then become a more viable option on all downs?

Great point.  I’ve always felt that a coach with a 4-down mindset has a built-in advantage.  Many more options are available to you on 3rd and 4, etc, especially if the defense is operating from a 3-down mindset.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

well, by the looks of that playoff game..yes!

 

I did not read the article just yet, will later. But, in short with a conventional 3 down mindset, I can understand the thesis. My question would be if coaches start to understand the numbers better and adopt a 4 down mindset, does running then become a more viable option on all downs?

a 4 down mindset could only be employed on the other side of the 50 or late in games that you are down in. a 4 down mindset on your side of the fifty is a recipe for disaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Foxx said:

a 4 down mindset could only be employed on the other side of the 50 or late in games that you are down in. a 4 down mindset on your side of the fifty is a recipe for disaster.

That’s a common misperception.  From a statistical standpoint, the four-down mindset makes sense all game long, almost everywhere in the field, although there are of course plenty of situations where punting is the right call, depending on down and distance, field position and of course the score.

  • Skeptical 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

I get what you're saying, but the thesis isn't team specific. The article is more about probability and statistics than it is about football. As you stated, every team has a unique set of circumstances.

 

Probability and statistics should include those circumstances.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are at least one significant flaws in the design of the 538 analysis. 

 

 It does not seem to take into account situations.  Pass-Pass-Pass is likely very successful for teams that are trailing big in the second half facing a prevent defense.  I am not sure you can compare the results of rush-rush-pass on the opening series against that. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Straight Hucklebuck said:

Looked at all data from 2009 - 2018. 

 

People make fun of sites like 538 and PFF. But they take the time to crunch math on every play of every game.

 

A majority of fans watch the game once with a beer in their hand and a sandwich in the other. 

 

I’ll take the engineering mindset all day over emotional fans. 

 

Thats today’s science. “But I feel the numbers are wrong” 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes sense from a statistical standpoint, but the sample size in football is so small (16 games) that I understand why coaches are loathe to go with the numbers. As opposed to baseball (162 games) where you most definitely see the statistical trends play themselves out over the course of a season. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, The Senator said:

 

Those are some very granular analytics, which I’m in no position to dispute.

 

To me, rush-rush-pass sounds like the old Chuck Knox philosophy, obviously very outdated in today’s NFL.

 

Mike Leach would never rush on 1st down.  

 

Nor 2nd, 3rd, or 4th. 😎

.

 

 

To dispute?

 

you have to put the situation of the game at exactly that time and score and momentum and injuries into each variable category to make an honest effort to determine effectiveness

 

a team that is a huge underdog will probably lose if they run the ball on first down a lot 

 

 

 

 

Edited by row_33

Share this post


Link to post
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

×