Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pass Blocking Is More Important Than Run Blocking

Collapse
X
Collapse
First Prev Next Last
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Pass Blocking Is More Important Than Run Blocking

    The stars might all be defensive linemen, but the numbers say good pass blocking correlates to wins more than good pass rushing.

  • #2
    The big thing that the Article seems to miss is that it is harder to win by being a running team. Running the ball means that an offense will generate fewer yards, so unless they get GREAT field position, or their D is smothering, then the offense is simply not going to be able to drive the field enough to score a lot of points.

    DL are less important because of the depth issue. No matter how effective the pass rushers on the DL are, they will start to run out of steam late in the game. Playing Dl and beating the OL off the ball is the goal of every pass rush snap, so it is like a sprinter getting a great start out of the blocks. But do it too many times, just like a conditioning drill, your legs turn to jello. Tams with good depth among their pass rushers actually do better, because they can allow their starters some breaks and still provide quality pass rush snaps.

    OL have their legs feels like jello too, but they don't have to get past the DL, they just have to stay in front of the DL. It's like prizefighters in the late rounds, neither of them will move their feet and just stand there punching each other, which is a win for the OL on the football field.

    Comment


    • #3
      If this is true, then I guess Barks is better than Tevi...

      Comment


      • #4
        The title is wrong. Shouldn't it be pass blocking is more important than pass rushing?

        Comment


        • #5
          Also interesting to note that we ranked 13th in pass blocking win rate, while ranked 22nd in pass rushing win rate. Still confused on how the Bills and Seahawks are ahead of us.Their OL was awful last year.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Xenos View Post
            Also interesting to note that we ranked 13th in pass blocking win rate, while ranked 22nd in pass rushing win rate. Still confused on how the Bills and Seahawks are ahead of us.Their OL was awful last year.
            Mobile QB's mask deficiencies,

            Comment


            • #7
              This is a correlation does not equal causation kinda thing.

              By itself, pass protection is not going to win games. Pass protection helps the skill players make plays. Bad pass protection really handicaps good skill players. Buffalo had a rookie QB, and few decent receivers. Allen was really bad at holding the ball too long. So they still get a win at 2.5 seconds, even though Allen hasn't thrown the ball yet. Wilson holds the ball and buys a lot of time with his feet, so it's not like the OL is necessarily putting him into a position to succeed.

              For this study to really work, it would have to get into the offensive design. 2.5 seconds for a team like NO, who like to get the ball out quickly, is a good metric. 2.5 seconds for a play action, downfield passing team, that is run oriented is kinda quick. The QB would just be getting turned around on their 7th step, and wouldn't be ready to deliver the ball yet.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Xenos View Post
                The title is wrong. Shouldn't it be pass blocking is more important than pass rushing?
                IT kinda does both in the same article. Tries to cover too much ground and doesn't do a great job of explaining either.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Steve View Post
                  This is a correlation does not equal causation kinda thing.

                  By itself, pass protection is not going to win games. Pass protection helps the skill players make plays. Bad pass protection really handicaps good skill players. Buffalo had a rookie QB, and few decent receivers. Allen was really bad at holding the ball too long. So they still get a win at 2.5 seconds, even though Allen hasn't thrown the ball yet. Wilson holds the ball and buys a lot of time with his feet, so it's not like the OL is necessarily putting him into a position to succeed.

                  For this study to really work, it would have to get into the offensive design. 2.5 seconds for a team like NO, who like to get the ball out quickly, is a good metric. 2.5 seconds for a play action, downfield passing team, that is run oriented is kinda quick. The QB would just be getting turned around on their 7th step, and wouldn't be ready to deliver the ball yet.
                  I suspect this is why TT doesn't go for better OL. Get the ball out quick and mediocre OL work just fine.
                  Moving to LA is not a good business decision, it’s a death sentence.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I did a similar study a couple years back (before TPB membership) on the CMB. I calculated the win/loss net gain/loss for teams' records for teams that chose OT's in the 1st round. My hypothesis was that the very best OT's (both strong at run and pass blocking) would be chosen in the 1st/early 2nd rounds and would improve their teams' offenses/records. It showed that teams that chose OT's early had a net +15 game improvement in their records the next season. IIRC, the draft year I studied was the 2016 class and it's effect on the 2016 win/loss records. I think the OT's I studied were: Ronnie Stanley, Jack Conklin, Laremy Tunsil, Taylor Decker, and Germaine Ifedi. For the record, I didn't believe that Ifedi was worth a 1st rounder. Even so... the Seahawks record in 2016 was nearly identical to their 2015 record.
                    Last edited by Boltnut; 06-08-2019, 02:38 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Formula 21 View Post

                      I suspect this is why TT doesn't go for better OL. Get the ball out quick and mediocre OL work just fine.
                      If your whole offensive philosophy is to "get the ball out quick" then your opponents are not going to respect your deep patterns. Hence you're going to be easier to defend. Your WR's will be checked at the LOS by CB's and their safeties will cheat up. This will effect timing patterns, close throwing windows, and bring more defenders into the box to help against the run game.

                      I'd rather like to be more balanced on offense and spread defenses out by getting WR's deeper. That takes OT's that can provide QB's more time AND be good run blockers.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Boltnut View Post
                        I did a similar study a couple years back (before TPB membership) on the CMB. I calculated the win/loss net gain/loss for teams' records for teams that chose OT's in the 1st round. My hypothesis was that the very best OT's (both strong at run and pass blocking) would be chosen in the 1st/early 2nd rounds and would improve their teams' offenses/records. It showed that teams that chose OT's early had a net +15 game improvement in their records the next season. IIRC, the draft year I studied was the 2016 class and it's effect on the 2016 win/loss records. I think the OT's I studied were: Ronnie Stanley, Jack Conklin, Laremy Tunsil, Taylor Decker, and Germaine Ifedi. For the record, I didn't believe that Ifedi was worth a 1st rounder. Even so... the Seahawks record in 2016 was nearly identical to their 2015 record.
                        Sorry...but it means nada. The sample size is tiny and you also are holding constant many other factors.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X