POLL: Classic Charger Choke: Who Is Most Responsible?

[wu-dai clan]

Not so much a commentary on first down, but a lot more on the idea of our own OC on the phone daily with the OC from another team. Doesn't anyone else find it bizarre and a bit traitorous for Stitch to be talking DAILY to Norv, as has been reported? If Norv was out of football, that's one thing, but to be getting advice from an active coach from a potential opposing team (Panthers)?

Hopefully Steichen is not getting tips about RZ offense from Norvell.

[Topcat]

Hopefully Steichen is not getting tips about RZ offense from Norvell.

Hopefully Stitch is not getting ANY tips or help from Norv...but that begs the question...why is he even calling Norv in the first place? Imagine how it would look for Bradley to be calling Pete Carroll for daily advice? Weird, and wrong...

[Critty]

Are those light fronts they run against on 1st down.

[pacstud]

Not so much a commentary on first down, but a lot more on the idea of our own OC on the phone daily with the OC from another team. Doesn't anyone else find it bizarre and a bit traitorous for Stitch to be talking DAILY to Norv, as has been reported? If Norv was out of football, that's one thing, but to be getting advice from an active coach from a potential opposing team (Panthers)?

So now we're moving the goalposts?

I thought we were running it up the gut for no gain on first down?

And no, coaches are a fraternity and talk often, more so when there is zero percent chance they'll play that year. It's also understood what can and can't be talked about (scheme theory vs roster specifics).

[pacstud]

Are those light fronts they run against on 1st down.

I don't have the time, but I've pimped this for a while. What are defenses doing when Ekeler is in instead of Gordon? When we go 12 personnel with Henry, are they treating it like 11?

That's so pertinent.

Also determines coverage and fits.

[Topcat]

So now we're moving the goalposts?

I thought we were running it up the gut for no gain on first down?

And no, coaches are a fraternity and talk often, more so when there is zero percent chance they'll play that year. It's also understood what can and can't be talked about (scheme theory vs roster specifics).

Okay, thanks for that info, Pac. I didn't realize it was a common practice for coaches from opposing teams to be in such frequent communication, and that this is considered an okay thing. In that case, I'll take it down...

[pacstud]

Okay, thanks for that info, Pac. I didn't realize it was a common practice for coaches from opposing teams to be in such frequent communication, and that this is considered an okay thing. In that case, I'll take it down...

You don't have to like it, but it happens. I coached at School A and we played them last year and this year. I talk to those guys in the off-season and see them at clinics etc. We talk scheme. In season we talked briefly week of, wished each other luck, made generalities.

[Critty]

This was interesting read. It is not complex. It did not consider any personnel groups, scheme, fronts, coverage, etc.

Just sequences of plays and patterns.

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

.....These results hold generally across the league as well.
Pass-rush-rush is the most successful three-play sequence, followed by pass-pass-rush and rush-pass-rush.

On first down, passing will net you at least 5 yards (enough to make the play a success) 47 percent of the time, while running the ball will get you the same result just 32.8 percent of the time, 14.2 percentage points less often. On second down, the gap closes to about a 7 percentage-point advantage for passing.

Play-calling patterns that end in a pass on third down have a negative expected value across the board. If we look at each sequence in terms of EPA per play, we see that the only positive EPA values on third down are on running plays. This makes sense: If you are passing on third down, it strongly implies that the first two plays in the sequence did not end well, and you likely have a third-and-long situation.

Meanwhile, the opposite outcome is true on first and second down. There are no positive EPA rushing nodes, and all passing plays return positive expected value.

This result is the exact opposite of what we would expect to find if establishing the run via play sequences like rush-rush-pass were winning strategies. Instead of making a team less predictable, establishing the run on first and second down creates a game state that is often quite predictable for the defense. The opposing team is expecting a pass on third down because the first two plays were unsuccessful.

Surprisingly, two of the top three teams in net yards per passing attempt in 2018, the Rams and the Chiefs, actually do have success with the rush-rush-pass play sequence.

Kansas City, the most dominant passing team in the league, was successful 53.3 percent of the time with rush-rush-pass. But the Chiefs ran the sequence just 15 times all season for a total share of 9 percent of all plays — 7 percentage points below league average — and they were mostly unsuccessful with the first two plays in the chain. When the Chiefs called back-to-back runs on first and second down, the second run was successful just 47.7 percent of the time. This suggests that the success of their third-down passes owes itself more to the strength of the Chiefs passing game and quarterback Patrick Mahomes than to the running plays that led up to them.

The story is similar in Los Angeles. Sixty percent of rush-rush-pass play sequences ended in success, and the Rams used the pattern at exactly the league-average frequency. Again, however, when the Rams called back-to-back runs to begin a sequence, the second run was successful just 46.1 percent of the time, leaving them 5.8 yards left to gain for a first-down conversion on average. The success the Rams enjoyed on third-down passing attempts appears to be independent of the rushing plays that preceded them.

While the precise order in which passes and runs are called may not matter so much — several combinations are roughly equivalent to one another according to success rate — some trends are clear. Passes are more effective when called on early downs, and runs are more effective on third down. Running on first down, while often a mistake, can be salvaged with a pass on second down. And if you’re going to rush on back-to-back plays to open a series, you should do so sparingly because it will leave your team in an obvious passing situation more often than not. Your passing attack — and QB especially — will need to be well above average to consistently convert in those high-leverage spots where all deception is gone and defenders can be confident that they know what’s coming.

[pacstud]

This was interesting read. It is not complex. It did not consider any personnel groups, scheme, fronts, coverage, etc.

Just sequences of plays and patterns.

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

.....These results hold generally across the league as well.
Pass-rush-rush is the most successful three-play sequence, followed by pass-pass-rush and rush-pass-rush.

On first down, passing will net you at least 5 yards (enough to make the play a success) 47 percent of the time, while running the ball will get you the same result just 32.8 percent of the time, 14.2 percentage points less often. On second down, the gap closes to about a 7 percentage-point advantage for passing.

Play-calling patterns that end in a pass on third down have a negative expected value across the board. If we look at each sequence in terms of EPA per play, we see that the only positive EPA values on third down are on running plays. This makes sense: If you are passing on third down, it strongly implies that the first two plays in the sequence did not end well, and you likely have a third-and-long situation.

Meanwhile, the opposite outcome is true on first and second down. There are no positive EPA rushing nodes, and all passing plays return positive expected value.

This result is the exact opposite of what we would expect to find if establishing the run via play sequences like rush-rush-pass were winning strategies. Instead of making a team less predictable, establishing the run on first and second down creates a game state that is often quite predictable for the defense. The opposing team is expecting a pass on third down because the first two plays were unsuccessful.

Surprisingly, two of the top three teams in net yards per passing attempt in 2018, the Rams and the Chiefs, actually do have success with the rush-rush-pass play sequence.

Kansas City, the most dominant passing team in the league, was successful 53.3 percent of the time with rush-rush-pass. But the Chiefs ran the sequence just 15 times all season for a total share of 9 percent of all plays — 7 percentage points below league average — and they were mostly unsuccessful with the first two plays in the chain. When the Chiefs called back-to-back runs on first and second down, the second run was successful just 47.7 percent of the time. This suggests that the success of their third-down passes owes itself more to the strength of the Chiefs passing game and quarterback Patrick Mahomes than to the running plays that led up to them.

The story is similar in Los Angeles. Sixty percent of rush-rush-pass play sequences ended in success, and the Rams used the pattern at exactly the league-average frequency. Again, however, when the Rams called back-to-back runs to begin a sequence, the second run was successful just 46.1 percent of the time, leaving them 5.8 yards left to gain for a first-down conversion on average. The success the Rams enjoyed on third-down passing attempts appears to be independent of the rushing plays that preceded them.

While the precise order in which passes and runs are called may not matter so much — several combinations are roughly equivalent to one another according to success rate — some trends are clear. Passes are more effective when called on early downs, and runs are more effective on third down. Running on first down, while often a mistake, can be salvaged with a pass on second down. And if you’re going to rush on back-to-back plays to open a series, you should do so sparingly because it will leave your team in an obvious passing situation more often than not. Your passing attack — and QB especially — will need to be well above average to consistently convert in those high-leverage spots where all deception is gone and defenders can be confident that they know what’s coming.

But this is actually why analytics fail. These stats are based on CURRENT trends, so they do NOT extrapolate to effective result prediction.

That is, if everyone went pass-pass-run, then the stats would CHANGE.

The pass per play on 1st works because of the "run up the gut".

And as critty noted, personnel groupings, score, time, field position....all these things DRAMATICALLY shift the data.

[jamrock]

And no, coaches are a fraternity and talk often, more so when there is zero percent chance they'll play that year. It's also understood what can and can't be talked about (scheme theory vs roster specifics).

I wonder how often Belichick talks to other coaches?

[Gwynning_Spirit]

Yep...I wish the Bolts would run more pass plays out of the I formation, or with Rivers under center and Gordon or Ekkie as single back...that way, he could really sell the play action...but no, empty backfield shotgun is so lame, or even shotgun with single back is fooling very few rushers...

or use two backs since Ekler is 2nd in receptions anyway; I'd rather have him and Gordon on the field at the same time. Other than HH, KA,MW, the others aren't going to contribute anything regularly other than blocking or not catching.

[Critty]

I would think if the trend in the league shifted to pass pass run. Then the adjustment would happen to slow that down. And then it would shift back to running more on early downs

So, could it be useful to always buck the trend.
If current trend is rush on 1st even against 8 or 9 man fronts. Can a staff adopt we are going to be a counter culture team. We are passing much much more on early downs, especially if the opponent is in base and 8 man front.

And then if trend in league is pass happy and team adjust to defend the pass on early downs because of the trend. Then counter culture, smash with the run on early downs, especially vs 7 man fronts.

To do this I am thinking multiple TEs that can block and receive at high level. RB committee that can pass block and run routes.

Am I way off here with this thinking?

I suppose none of it really matters if the execution is poor or inconsistent.