Herbert vs His Peers

[DerwinBosa]

Actually, Chad Pennington before his shoulder injuries is the single closest player comparison to Joe Burrow that I have seen. Pennington was known for his accuracy, but not known for having a strong arm, just like Burrow. Both are/were very similar in mobility (very small edge to Pennington). It was only after Pennington's shoulder injuries that he was known for having a very weak arm. And Pennington was first round pick in his own right that had early success in his NFL career.

Further, you keep missing what I am saying. I have never suggested that being superior physically is everything. What I have said is that it is desirable and clearly means something. I keep saying that and you keep missing that I have said nothing else the entire time. As between having superior physical traits and not having those traits, having superior physical traits is more desirable.

Finally, your player examples are awful. Steve Young ran a 4.55 in the 40. That is elite running ability for a QB. Roethlisberger ran a 4.75 40 and had a fairly strong arm. Roethlisberger was faster than Mahomes and within a few hundredths of a second in 40 time of Herbert and Allen. So, your effort to steal two great players that fit into the physically gifted category fails.

I clearly stated Young didn't have a cannon. Roethlisberger's arm strength was overrated. It wasn't near the cannon that Herbert's or Mahomes' is. I was talking about the complete package, which includes everything. Clearly that went over your head.

Pennington was a decent quarterback who had a very weak arm before his injuries. But I'm sorry I brought him up, because I opened the door for you to make an even more ridiculous comparison to Joe Burrow than Kirk Cousins. Burrow is a much better scrambler than Pennington was. You just get more ridiculous by the post.

[Guest]

Running the ball 33 times against us and 28 against New England did them a lot better than throwing it 49 times and running it 14 in the Super Bowl disaster against Seattle. Also, Peyton won his first Super Bowl, over the Bears, when the Colts ran 42 times and he threw 38, when he was in the prime of his career. But I'm sure you thought that was a mistake and kept the Bears in the game.

How many times do I have to say this? You are establishing absolutely nothing with this approach of picking this game or that game in which one team, not even our team, may have have run the ball more or less times.

Just because I showed your earlier examples were idiotic does not mean that I wanted you to try to find other meaningless examples.

I am sure that more runs for the 1.9 yards per carry the Broncos averaged was not the answer for the Broncos in their Super Bowl loss to the Seahawks.

The Colts did a fine job of running the ball against CHI in the Super Bowl, but only scored 2 offensive TDs in the entire game despite the Bears turning the ball over 5 times. So even with lots of help from the opponent, running the ball a lot did not produce great offensive results.

[DerwinBosa]

LAR SB is not a good example of why a team should run. Their offense was shitty in the SB, managing to score a humble 23 points, even though their defense was busy completely stifling the opponent. Their defense won the game, period.

2 yards a carry sucks. They didn’t get that. Most of their run plays were wasted plays, a lot of them lost yards. btw - i don’t get why this is an argument here anyway so I’ll back out. I want LAC to be able to run and pass both.

add: I’ll argue their best drive of the game was the last drive, where they abandoned the run.

Clearly you don't get it, either. The Bengals' run had a lot to do with them taking advantage of turnovers. It's better to run the ball and keep a balance than have Stafford throw it 50 or 60 times and put him at risk of throwing three or four interceptions.

[DerwinBosa]

How many times do I have to say this? You are establishing absolutely nothing with this approach of picking this game or that game in which one team, not even our team, may have have run the ball more or less times.

Just because I showed your earlier examples were idiotic does not mean that I wanted you to try to find other meaningless examples.

I am sure that more runs for the 1.9 yards per carry the Broncos averaged was not the answer for the Broncos in their Super Bowl loss to the Seahawks.

The Colts did a fine job of running the ball against CHI in the Super Bowl, but only scored 2 offensive TDs in the entire game despite the Bears turning the ball over 5 times. So even with lots of help from the opponent, running the ball a lot did not produce great offensive results.

And you don't seem to get that moving away from the running game puts your quarterback and offense more at risk to make mistakes, especially when the offensive line cannot protect him. Peyton Manning threw three touchdown passes and seven interceptions during the 2006 postseason. Do you really think the Colts should have run the ball less in the Super Bowl when Peyton completed only 25 of 38 for 247 yards, one touchdown, and one interception?

And I bring up other quarterbacks because you keep pounding the ridiculous point that elite passers need to air it out and not have the offense run as much. Unfortunately I can't provide more examples of our elite quarterbacks needing a running game because one played in only seven postseason games (Fouts), the other 11 (Rivers), and the other hasn't made the playoffs in his first two years.

[Guest]

How was it not working against the Raiders? Ekeler and Jackson ran the ball a total of 19 times for 84 yards in the game. We went three-and-out on our first drive, with three Herbert passes. We had a second-and-three in the third quarter. Herbert threw incomplete and got sacked. Early in the fourth quarter Herbert threw an interception. How did the running game, which averaged about 4.5 yards a carry, not work and cause us to fall behind? You're ridiculous.The reality is Herbert didn't perform well until the fourth quarter. I know it's hard to believe, but even the greatest quarterbacks of all time have had stretches in games where they've struggled.

The Dallas game should have been won convincingly without excuses. And you want to run and burn more clock because your defense isn't good and is getting worn out by Dallas's offense. What good is Herbert dropping back to pass over 40 times if the line isn't protecting him well and he throws two interceptions while the offense scores only 17 points?

The Rams ran the ball 23 times because you need balance to keep the opposing defense honest, something you clearly don't understand. Especially given how unpredictable Matthew Stafford was throughout the season, as evidenced with him almost throwing the game away against the 49ers in the NFC Championship. McVay, unlike you, realized how putting the ball in the air too often leads to back-breaking mistakes. That's why he's a Super Bowl-winning coach and you're on a message board placing more importance on Justin Herbert being considered the best quarterback than the Chargers winning a Super Bowl.

Against LV, we produced 14 offensive points in 51+ minutes running the ball at a higher percentage than we had run it during our other games. As soon as we switched to all passing, the offense took off. We produced more points in the final 8+ minutes than we had produced in the 51+ minutes before that and did so by passing the ball. As soon as we ran the ball one more time after that, our offense was stopped immediately on that very series of downs. It is precisely because we finally put the ball in only Herbert's hands that we even made it to OT against LV.

What part do you not get about that DAL game? We executed plays against DAL that should have resulted in 31 points. DAL had 20. Absent either questionable officiating and/or our being called for ticky tack rule infractions (which can also happen on running plays), our passing plays worked. Herbert should have finished the game with 3 TDs and 1 INT and even the one INT that happened could have and can be prevented by not having Allen be the one running deeper routes across the field that can be undercut faster defenders (which is just about everyone playing defense at that depth). Your effort to blame the loss on not running enough is a bunch of pathetic nonsense.

I have already proven that it is an absolute myth that good offenses need to be balanced. Multiple teams that passed the greatest percentage of the time also scored the most points, which is the job of the offense. Your suggestion to the contrary has been proven false. That is why coaches for TB, KC and the Chargers have jobs and are not making pathetic and false assertions like "offenses must be balanced" and "running the ball a whole lot of times for only 1.9 yards per carry is a really good thing" on the internet.

It should be fairly obvious that it is precisely because Herbert is arguably the best QB in the NFL that we want the ball in his hands a lot and that that approach is the best way for our team maximize its chances of winning. Our coaches get that and that is why they are coaches for the Los Angeles Chargers and thankfully, Anthony Lynn (and his stupid balanced attack philosophy that you share) is not.

[DerwinBosa]

Against LV, we produced 14 offensive points in 51+ minutes running the ball at a higher percentage than we had run it during our other games. As soon as we switched to all passing, the offense took off. We produced more points in the final 8+ minutes than we had produced in the 51+ minutes before that and did so by passing the ball. As soon as we ran the ball one more time after that, our offense was stopped immediately on that very series of downs. It is precisely because we finally put the ball in only Herbert's hands that we even made it to OT against LV.

What part do you not get about that DAL game? We executed plays against DAL that should have resulted in 31 points. DAL had 20. Absent either questionable officiating and/or our being called for ticky tack rule infractions (which can also happen on running plays), our passing plays worked. Herbert should have finished the game with 3 TDs and 1 INT and even the one INT that happened could have and can be prevented by not having Allen be the one running deeper routes across the field that can be undercut faster defenders (which is just about everyone playing defense at that depth). Your effort to blame the loss on not running enough is a bunch of pathetic nonsense.

I have already proven that it is an absolute myth that good offenses need to be balanced. Multiple teams that passed the greatest percentage of the time also scored the most points, which is the job of the offense. Your suggestion to the contrary has been proven false. That is why coaches for TB, KC and the Chargers have jobs and are not making pathetic and false assertions like "offenses must be balanced" and "running the ball a whole lot of times for only 1.9 yards per carry is a really good thing" on the internet.

It should be fairly obvious that it is precisely because Herbert is arguably the best QB in the NFL that we want the ball in his hands a lot and that that approach is the best way for our team maximize its chances of winning. Our coaches get that and that is why they are coaches for the Los Angeles Chargers and thankfully, Anthony Lynn (and his stupid balanced attack philosophy that you share) is not.

AGAIN: We produced only 14 points in the first 51+ minutes against the Raiders in part because Herbert went three-and-out on the first drive on three passes, threw incomplete on second-and-three and was sacked on third-and-three after a seven-yard run by Austin Ekeler in the middle of the third quarter, and threw an interception in the fourth quarter. The running game had NOTHING TO DO with the offense being ineffective the first 51+ minutes.

I guess you didn't watch Herbert running for his life because Storm Norton couldn't block Micah Parsons. I guess you also don't understand that 75 yards on 13 carries by your two running backs is very good, and means they should have gotten the ball more.

You have not proven anything. I have provided several examples of Super Bowl-winning teams, such as the 2018 Patriots and 2006 Colts, taking the title by being balanced offensively. You dismiss it for idiotic reasons. If being balanced is the proper way of winning a Super Bowl for Tom Brady and Peyton Manning, it is for Justin Herbert. But you must have enjoyed watching Dan Fouts throwing five interceptions on two separate occasions in the playoffs, or the 2009 Chargers blowing it against the Jets, who outrushed us 169-61, while they had 39 carries to our 18 in a 17-14 San Diego loss in the Divisional. For me enough is enough. As great as I think Herbert is, and as better I want him to become, I want a more formidable running game to complement him. I would much rather him throw it 30 or 35 times a game than have it be 40 or 45.

And no...I never want to see Herbert throw it 64 times in one game again.

[DerwinBosa]

Against LV, we produced 14 offensive points in 51+ minutes running the ball at a higher percentage than we had run it during our other games. As soon as we switched to all passing, the offense took off. We produced more points in the final 8+ minutes than we had produced in the 51+ minutes before that and did so by passing the ball. As soon as we ran the ball one more time after that, our offense was stopped immediately on that very series of downs. It is precisely because we finally put the ball in only Herbert's hands that we even made it to OT against LV.

What part do you not get about that DAL game? We executed plays against DAL that should have resulted in 31 points. DAL had 20. Absent either questionable officiating and/or our being called for ticky tack rule infractions (which can also happen on running plays), our passing plays worked. Herbert should have finished the game with 3 TDs and 1 INT and even the one INT that happened could have and can be prevented by not having Allen be the one running deeper routes across the field that can be undercut faster defenders (which is just about everyone playing defense at that depth). Your effort to blame the loss on not running enough is a bunch of pathetic nonsense.

I have already proven that it is an absolute myth that good offenses need to be balanced. Multiple teams that passed the greatest percentage of the time also scored the most points, which is the job of the offense. Your suggestion to the contrary has been proven false. That is why coaches for TB, KC and the Chargers have jobs and are not making pathetic and false assertions like "offenses must be balanced" and "running the ball a whole lot of times for only 1.9 yards per carry is a really good thing" on the internet.

It should be fairly obvious that it is precisely because Herbert is arguably the best QB in the NFL that we want the ball in his hands a lot and that that approach is the best way for our team maximize its chances of winning. Our coaches get that and that is why they are coaches for the Los Angeles Chargers and thankfully, Anthony Lynn (and his stupid balanced attack philosophy that you share) is not.

Also want to point out that Herbert had to convert four fourth downs, after failing to convert on the first three downs, during that run to overtime against the Raiders. Under normal circumstances that doesn't happen. We punt. Maybe you wanted Herbert to throw it every down during the first three quarters of that game, but chances are that would have turned our first two scoring drives into punts.

[dmac_bolt]

LOL. Ugh. It's stupid if you run or pass it 50 times. That is why, as stated numerous times here, it is best to have a a balanced offense. And it's easier to run-block than to protect the passer. That's what commentators, often former offensive linemen, say when offenses are running the ball, "This is what the guys up front love to do."

I’m fine with balance if its working. If its not, do whats working better and stop obsessing on balance. Lynn’s great fail was his obsession with balance imo. I do want LAX to be a team that can run when needed.

I can totally believe OL like rush plays more. Basic psych: they get to go hit someone instead of retreating into a position to be hit. So what, we aren’t playing for the amusement of OL players. They get paid millions, do what you’re told!

[AK47]

I’m fine with balance if its working. If its not, do whats working better and stop obsessing on balance. Lynn’s great fail was his obsession with balance imo.

Kinda like what Belicheat did during one game where the Pats ran the ball for literally 98% of the game.

[dmac_bolt]

Kinda like what Belicheat did during one game where the Pats ran the ball for literally 98% of the game.

Yup. He’d be just as fine throwing it 25 times in a row if it works

[Steve]

Nobody is saying that we should never run the ball. 672 passes for Herbert were made for an offense that only passed the ball 62.5% of the time, which was about 4% less than the NFL leader. Although we were ranked 5th in terms of passing percentage, we were closer to the percentage of the 20th ranked team than we were to the first ranked team. So, not only am I not troubled by our pass percentage, I would prefer it to be about 4% or so higher (about a 2 to 1 split between pass and run). Just as Tony Romo stated, we want Herbert to have about two chances to pick up a first down for us for every running play called. That would put Herbert at about 717 passes for a 17 game game season based upon the total number of plays we ran this past season.

Also, I prefer RB screens as a means of discouraging pass rushers. After rushing, they can then go and try to chase the play form behind.

In terms of running plays to frustrate edge rushers, I like draws run under an edge rusher that has been invited/forced too far up the field.

The pass is used to set up the run (not the other way around), which is used to frustrate defenders.

Screen passes are a flawed way to try and take the steam out of the pass rush. It is nice as one option, but if the other team reads it, the play is over, and that can be hard on the QB if the DL continues to come in hard while a LB or S takes covers the screen guy, the QB gets hit hard. We are also a terrible screen team and have been for a while. Ekeler makes some of the plays look really good, but most of the time the blocking is really not that effecitve

They also are much better vs man coverage, than zone. Teams that play matchup zones can still bring plenty of players and you can't block them all.

The draw thing is another decent option, but you can only go to it so often, and if the pass rusher counters his upfield move back into the lane, the RB is screwed.

Running still gives teams a chance to impose their will on the defense. At some point all this bullshit about taking what the defense gives you is playing the game they want you to play. No defense can stop everything, so they give you things that will hurt less and try to make some plays on their own.

And teams that don't try and run the ball and work at it never get better. It takes practice time, it takes game time and it takes patience.

You seem obsessed that analytics idiots have with efficiency. Efficiency is the cornerstone of most analytics analysis outside of sports (bussiness). However, in all of those, efficiency is the key because the game never ends.

In football, there is a hard end to the game. So, efficiency isn't the end all be all. Who cares if you are necessarily being efficient in the offensive or defensive or (ST) sense, it is the efficiency in the point differential, and even that is not that important. The ideal way to end a football game once you have a lead would be to average 3.4 yards per play and drive the ball down and score and eat up the clock while doing so. But none of your poorly thought-through assumptions factor in how to help the D. Keeping them off the field and the offense on is still the best way to protect a bad D and help a good or great D.

You are also dead wrong in your shared assumption with Tony Romo, which is pretty easily done, since Tony is not one of the world's great thinkers. You are ASSUMING that every time we throw that Herbert is a shot to make a 1st down. A lot of our 2nd (and some 3rd down) attempts are not throwing the ball for a 1st down. They are trying to set up a better down and distance for 3rd or 4th down. That is particularly true when we are behind schedule. Those passes aren't giving Herbert a chance. Running to keep on or ahead of schedule is a really, really good way to maintain the attack part of the passing offense. When you are ahead of schedule the WR are going downfield rather than asking our WR, who are NOT quick game specialists, to run route combinations that attack downfield.

[Steve]

Yup. He’d be just as fine throwing it 25 times in a row if it works

A lot of people would be in favor of throwing it 25 times in a row if it works. It doesn't work all that well, which is the problem.