The Melvin Gordon Saga - Holdout Over

[Steve]

Well Steve, you've almost got me convinced to keep Watt. If they're going to keep him, I'd just like to see them use him more, and not just for blocking. Part of the effectiveness of a FB is that you have to at least give him the rock sometimes, and pass it to him sometimes. That way, when Rivers play fakes to Watt, the LB's better be filling the gaps to stop him; then if PR passes into the flats to the TE or a quick slant to a wideout, he should be open. But when opposing teams see Watt and MG3 in there in the I-formation again, they all know that 99% of the time, it's going to be Watt blocking for MG3...too predictable, IMHO...

We used the following personnel groups for the following number of plays.

Season long success rate was
49% for passes with a 102.6 passer rtg, 8.0 ypa,
46% for runs, 4.5 ypc

131 plays in 12 personnel (1 RB, 2 TE, 2 WR) -> 47% pass / 53% run
- 34 for 57, 116.0 pass rtg, 4 TD, 0 int, 9.8 ypa, 5 sacks, success rate 48%
- 69 attempts, 4 td, 4.3 ypc, success rate 43%

106 plays in 21 personnel (2 RB, 1 TE, 2 WR) -> 34% pass / 66% run
- 22 for 36, 83.6 pass rtg, 1 TD, 1 int, 6.4 ypa, 4 sacks, success rate 44%
- 70 attempts, 4 td, 4.9 ypc, success rate 43%

91 plays in 13 personnel (1 RB, 3 TE, 1 WR) → 50% pass / 50% run
- 6 for 7, 158.3 pass rtg, 17.7 ypa, 2 TD, 0 int 0 sacks, success rate 71%
- 7 attempts, 0 td, 0.3 ypc, success rate 0%

14 plays in 22 personnel (2 RB, 2 TE, 1 WR) → 14% pass / 86% run
- 10 for 12, 120.8 pass rtg, 11.8 ypa, 2 TD, 1 int 1 sacks, success rate 62%
- 78 attempts, 2 td, 4.4 ypc, success rate 44%

3 play in 23 personnel (2 RB, 3 TE) -> 33% pass / 67% run
- 1 for 1, 79.2 pass rtg, 1.0 ypa, 0 TD, 0 int 0 sacks, success rate 0%
- 2 attempts, 1 td, 0.5 ypc, success rate 50%

The numbers don't seem to bear out your assertions. In 21, and 22 personnel, we ran the ball about the same as we did the rest of the season. The fewer number of carries makes it tough for a direct comparison, but the success rate and the averages are similar, even though the # of carries is pretty low.

I think the fundamental problem is that you need to change how you are thinking about plays. You think tipping your hand to the other team is ALWAYS bad. It's not. It's a good thing that they know what is coming. No matter what they think of our running game, they have to spend practice time preparing for our 12 and 22 personnel groups, because we will run it down their throats if they give us the chance. It also gives the team an identity. At some point, you need to impose your will on the other team to be able to win games.

The number show that we run the ball about as well as we do the rest of the season, even though they know it is coming. The passing game out of those sets, while it is a minority of the time, is very effective.

The other thing to note is that we give up way fewer sacks when the RB are in the backfield. When we go play action, the point is to have the FB protect the QB, and give him time. Some of our 21 personnel was with Ekeler as the 2^nd RB, so that put him in the slot, and not in a position to pick up the blitz.

FWIW, I would like to see him used as more of a receiver too. He doesn't have much exposure, but when they do try to throw to him, he is successful. He had a 53 yard reception his rookie year, and a 23 yard reception in 2017. He is never going to be a great playmaker at receiver, but since so many defenses tackle so poorly, lets make them come up and tackle the FB more. Again, make them study time on plays where they have little or no chance to make a big play, and gives us a chance to move the sticks some. I think the FB could be a much bigger part of the 4 minute offense, between pass protection and getting a catch and just rumbling to set up a 2nd and short.

https://www.sharpfootballstats.com/personnel-grouping-frequency.html

[Topcat]

We used the following personnel groups for the following number of plays.

Season long success rate was
49% for passes with a 102.6 passer rtg, 8.0 ypa,
46% for runs, 4.5 ypc

131 plays in 12 personnel (1 RB, 2 TE, 2 WR) -> 47% pass / 53% run
- 34 for 57, 116.0 pass rtg, 4 TD, 0 int, 9.8 ypa, 5 sacks, success rate 48%
- 69 attempts, 4 td, 4.3 ypc, success rate 43%

106 plays in 21 personnel (2 RB, 1 TE, 2 WR) -> 34% pass / 66% run
- 22 for 36, 83.6 pass rtg, 1 TD, 1 int, 6.4 ypa, 4 sacks, success rate 44%
- 70 attempts, 4 td, 4.9 ypc, success rate 43%

91 plays in 13 personnel (1 RB, 3 TE, 1 WR) → 50% pass / 50% run
- 6 for 7, 158.3 pass rtg, 17.7 ypa, 2 TD, 0 int 0 sacks, success rate 71%
- 7 attempts, 0 td, 0.3 ypc, success rate 0%

14 plays in 22 personnel (2 RB, 2 TE, 1 WR) → 14% pass / 86% run
- 10 for 12, 120.8 pass rtg, 11.8 ypa, 2 TD, 1 int 1 sacks, success rate 62%
- 78 attempts, 2 td, 4.4 ypc, success rate 44%

3 play in 23 personnel (2 RB, 3 TE) -> 33% pass / 67% run
- 1 for 1, 79.2 pass rtg, 1.0 ypa, 0 TD, 0 int 0 sacks, success rate 0%
- 2 attempts, 1 td, 0.5 ypc, success rate 50%

The numbers don't seem to bear out your assertions. In 21, and 22 personnel, we ran the ball about the same as we did the rest of the season. The fewer number of carries makes it tough for a direct comparison, but the success rate and the averages are similar, even though the # of carries is pretty low.

I think the fundamental problem is that you need to change how you are thinking about plays. You think tipping your hand to the other team is ALWAYS bad. It's not. It's a good thing that they know what is coming. No matter what they think of our running game, they have to spend practice time preparing for our 12 and 22 personnel groups, because we will run it down their throats if they give us the chance. It also gives the team an identity. At some point, you need to impose your will on the other team to be able to win games.

The number show that we run the ball about as well as we do the rest of the season, even though they know it is coming. The passing game out of those sets, while it is a minority of the time, is very effective.

The other thing to note is that we give up way fewer sacks when the RB are in the backfield. When we go play action, the point is to have the FB protect the QB, and give him time. Some of our 21 personnel was with Ekeler as the 2^nd RB, so that put him in the slot, and not in a position to pick up the blitz.

FWIW, I would like to see him used as more of a receiver too. He doesn't have much exposure, but when they do try to throw to him, he is successful. He had a 53 yard reception his rookie year, and a 23 yard reception in 2017. He is never going to be a great playmaker at receiver, but since so many defenses tackle so poorly, lets make them come up and tackle the FB more. Again, make them study time on plays where they have little or no chance to make a big play, and gives us a chance to move the sticks some. I think the FB could be a much bigger part of the 4 minute offense, between pass protection and getting a catch and just rumbling to set up a 2nd and short.

https://www.sharpfootballstats.com/p...frequency.html

Great analysis there, Steve. Regarding keeping Watt for pass pro on play action--I would just like to mix it up: On some plays, fake to Watt, he stays for pass pro; other plays, fake to Watt, then Watt goes 5 yds into the flats, Rivers hits him for an easy 5-10 yd. reception; OR use Watt as an outlet in case of the blitz; OR Watt lead blocks for MG3, either between the tackles or on a sweep or screen. Any number of ways we can use Watt more than we do. In regards to imposing your will against teams--this can work vs. weak or average teams usually, if we have the playmakers, which we for the most part, do. However, to beat a good team like the Cheatriots, a very well prepared team, we need an element of surprise more, because they are so well coached. When I think of MG3's 9 carries for only 15 yards in that playoff loss, it tells me the Cheats knew what was coming, swarmed to stack Gordon up, time after time, and our only success was passing the ball. Had we been effectively doing more of a variety of plays, from more different formations, with more motion, shifts, etc., I think we could have had better success with our ground game.

[wu-dai clan]

Sharp is sharp. He likes us to pass to set up the run.

[blueman]

We need to do better against NE, but that's a big duh.

[Bolt-O]

[jamrock]

MG III finally reported and said he wants a new contract. And he wants it before the season

[Fleet]

COSTA MESA, Calif. -- In the final year of his rookie deal, Los Angeles Chargers running back Melvin Gordon said his representation has had preliminary talks with the team and he's hopeful something can get done in the near future.

"I'd be lying if I said I didn't want a deal done," Gordon said while talking to reporters at the start of mandatory minicamp Tuesday. "But that's not going to stop me from coming out here and doing what I need to do. We're going to see. I would like to go out there and have it done. We're talking right now, and that's kind of where I'm going to leave it."

While he is hopeful that a contract extension will be completed, Gordon did not dismiss the possibility of not playing in 2019 if no deal is consummated by the start of the regular season.

"I don't know, man," Gordon said. "I'm just trying not to talk about it. If it's going to happen, it'll happen. When it does, I'm pretty sure you guys will know."Gordon, 26, is scheduled to make $5.6 million in 2019. The 2015 first-round selection has 38 total touchdowns since the start of the 2016 season, trailing only fellow draft class running back Todd Gurley (46).

Gordon also tops the NFL with three consecutive seasons of at least 1,200 scrimmage yards and 10 total touchdowns.

Those impressive numbers helped Gordon earn two straight trips to the Pro Bowl. However, Gordon also acknowledged the running back position has been devalued of late, with workhorse backs such as Gurley, David Johnson and Le'Veon Bell being the exceptions with lucrative deals.

However, both Gurley and Johnson struggled to stay healthy, and Bell sat out the entire 2018 season to preserve his health so he could earn a high-dollar deal in free agency.

"It's an issue with everybody else," Gordon said. "But I know my value. I know what I bring to this team, and I'm sticking with that. Todd's paid, so Todd don't care what anybody says right now -- him or David Johnson -- they can say what they want to say. They signed the dotted line.

"But unfortunately I haven't yet, so I've got to take the heat for some of the stuff that they're going through. But I'm not them, and like I said, I know my value."

Chargers coach Anthony Lynn echoed Gordon's sentiments.

"Melvin Gordon is extremely important to us," Lynn said. "When he's out here on the field, he works his tail off. He's gotten better every year that I've been here. I think he's headed in the right direction. If he just goes out and keeps doing what he's been doing, that contract stuff will take care of itself."

[Topcat]

Another possibility is franchising Gordon after his deal runs out.

[Formula 21]

I see Gordon testing the FA market after this year to determine his value. Why should he leave millions on the table to sign early?

[Boltjolt]

Another possibility is franchising Gordon after his deal runs out.

Last years Franchise tag for RBs was 11.8 million. Doubt that is an option they want to use. But it is there. I bet they let him test the FA waters.....and he will get interest....which means he will be gone.

[Xenos]

Another possibility is franchising Gordon after his deal runs out.

We're going to franchise Rivers, not waste it on a RB.

[Steve]

Last years Franchise tag for RBs was 11.8 million. Doubt that is an option they want to use. But it is there. I bet they let him test the FA waters.....and he will get interest....which means he will be gone.

If he feels like he needs the big contract, then let him go.

I'm not saying it wouldn't hurt a little, but we have some other important players coming up in the next couple of seasons, so overpaying for guys is going to hurt in the future.

As far as the elite RB in terms of salary, you have to ask yourself if Gordon has had a season like that yet? Is he going to (NFL contracts are all about what your future production will be)?

We are going to lose some players we would like to keep. I would have loved to have kept Tyrell Willaims, but the price was just too steep. There will be more. How many more depends on how well we can do signing other players. The draft the next few years is going to be extremely important.