The Football Analytics Thread

[Xenos]

Final thoughts

After looking at all the research and talking with experts in the field, it seems clear the hard-line philosophy of the importance of establishing the run is outdated and disproven. But there is still value in being able to run the ball. It's a tricky balance, but in building a team, general managers and coaches have to put more emphasis on investing in a strong passing game, but at the same time, they can't lose sight of creating an efficient run game.

In 2018, of the top 10 teams in offensive DVOA (Football Outsiders' measurement for a team's efficiency by comparing success on every single play with a league average based on situation and opponent), seven were in the top 10 in rushing success rate. Eight of 10 had winning records and made the playoffs. So while there isn't a correlation with traditional rushing success stats, there are correlations with running, winning and efficient offensive production.

This research is valuable for starting important conversations, but some analytics experts have reached hard conclusions that are too black and white for an extremely complex game. There is still value in the run game that hasn't been properly explained by numbers. The subject should be researched further, but it seems experts on both sides of the argument are in a constant shouting match with each other in which nobody ever wins. Analytics experts, coaches, players, analysts and even fans could all benefit from listening to each other and learning from each other in this conversation to advance the game.

[Steve]

Fundamentally, unless the field gets shorter, passing leads to more scoring because it moves the ball down the field faster and more efficiently.

There are some things that didn't get mentioned.

Running the ball and controlling the clock can really help a D. If you can keep getting 1st downs, and slowly wearing a D down, either through running or a combination of running and passing, then your defense has a much easier job. You aren't going to give up as many yards if you aren't on the field for as many plays. That being said, that strategy only works if the D is any good. If you have a great running game and shitty D, then the other team will still be able to move the ball, and will likely beat you at your own game.

The corollary to the 1st point is that almost all analytics use the concept of efficiency. The idea is only the most efficient offenses are good offenses. There is some truth to it, but since football teams can win through a variety of different strategies, it is wrong to think it is the ONLY way to win. Teams that get a lead and can then just control the clock. Controlling the clock is not being efficient, it is being inefficient. I think this is one of the parts that the analytics guy points to, that some of the stats don't tell the whole story.

The best goalline and short-yardage offenses are generally the ones that can either run or pass. Most NFL defenses can stop the run or the pass, but if you can threaten them with both, then it makes the defense job a lot harder.

If you can mix in a fair # of explosive runs, then it helps loosen the D. Ryan Mathews used to be a pretty effective runner because he was able to not only threaten the inside run, but the outside run. TEams didn't stack a lot of guys in the box against him because they were afraid he would break long runs with his speed and quickness. MG3 has some of that. But in the end, the points made above are more important. You can threaten the D, but if the OL doesn't consistently block the D, then the running game isn't going anywhere, no matter who gets the ball.

[FarmBoy]

"but in building a team, general managers and coaches have to put more emphasis on investing in a strong passing game,"

In running or passing, you best invest more capital in OL or neither running or strong arm passing is likely to happen on a regular basis. If you first invest in a strong OL with depth, then both running and passing games are possible and you are not a one dimensional team on offense.

[Xenos]

"but in building a team, general managers and coaches have to put more emphasis on investing in a strong passing game,"

In running or passing, you best invest more capital in OL or neither running or strong arm passing is likely to happen on a regular basis. If you first invest in a strong OL with depth, then both running and passing games are possible and you are not a one dimensional team on offense.

Sounds great on paper, but easier said than done. Otherwise there would be more than two teams with a good OL with depth. Part of the problem is that OL drafted are having a harder time transitioning to the NFL because of the spread and other college schemes that puts them at a disadvantage. Look at how many recent high draft picks have flamed out. 2013 alone is crazy.

https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/09/12/trouble-nfl-offensive-linemen-new-york-giants-seattle-seahawks-week-1-no-touchdowns

The epidemic of poor offensive line play is something we are hearing more and more about across the NFL. Some blame the practice rules imposed by the 2011 CBA, which limit both offseason practice time and the number of padded practices in which linemen can get in full-contact reps. Others point to the rise of spread offenses in college, where linemen often aren't asked to finish blocks or even put their hand in the dirt in a three-point stance.

The two theories mentioned above--the new practice rules and the rise of collegiate spread offenses--have no doubt played a role in some of the ugly NFL line play. It takes more time for players to adjust from college to pro-style offenses, and they have less practice time to do so. And that's magnified by the fact that the NFL becomes more and more of a passing league each year. Geoff Schwartz, a seventh-round draft pick out of Oregon in 2008, played eight seasons in the NFL (including two with the Giants) and recalls needing a few months as a rookie to master his three-point stance, and then having to re-work it in the offseason with the help of veteran teammate Jordan Gross. But he was on the practice squad his first season, so he had time to adjust.

"In college, there is so much misdirection, and the tempo is so fast at times, you don't even have to really block anybody because the defense is so tired," Schwartz said. "What we've really lost in college is the idea of finishing. In the NFL, you have to finish to be an elite offensive lineman. In college, your goal is to get back to the line of scrimmage and snap the ball again. The mentality of not finishing in college hurts you when you get to the NFL."

Nick Hardwick, who played 11 seasons as the Chargers' center before retiring in 2014, suggests another theory for the decline in play. "I've talked to some nose tackles and defensive tackles around the league who say the craftiness from offensive linemen is dissipating," he said. "Guys understand the basics of the game--hat placement, eye placement, footwork, hands--but they don't understand the nuances that take their game to the next level. The subtleties of having a personal game plan for how to set up your opponent, so you are not countering his moves, he's countering yours."