Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Consider the 49ers running game
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="HardRightEdge" data-source="post: 879111"><p>These are precisely the kind of superficial stats that result in distorted perspectives. Universally, without exception, the actual split is higher pass percentages and lower run percentages than what you show by significant margins.</p><p></p><p>Let's look at the Ravens, the most extreme case. Taking pass attempts and runs and calculating percentages as you have done leaves out some important stuff.</p><p></p><p>First, Baltimore QBs were sacked 28 times. Those are pass plays not accounted for in your percentages. That's a pretty low sack number; most if not all of the other teams you listed will have higher sack counts, more plays added to the pass column. Next, how many of the 197 Baltimore QB runs were actually pass plays that ended in scrambles?</p><p></p><p>We run into a problem with a QB such as Jackson in parsing scramble runs from called runs or option runs by the QB. In some cases, particularly RPOs, it's hard to tell whether you count the play as a called run or called pass given the option aspect. Football Outsiders illustrates the problem here where the professional play counters sometimes disagree, but at the margins:</p><p></p><p><a href="https://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-ratings/2020/effect-scrambles-dvoa" target="_blank">https://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-ratings/2020/effect-scrambles-dvoa</a></p><p></p><p>In any case, for illustration purposes, lets go with PFF's take. As of December 10 last season, they came up with this:</p><p></p><p>"Jackson already has 116 designed rushes to his name, and 64.4% of his rushing yards have been on these intentional rushing plays. Scrambles make up just 35 of his rushing attempts...."</p><p></p><p><a href="https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-by-the-numbers-lamar-jackson-vs-michael-vick#:~:text=Altogether%2C%20759%20of%20his%201%2C039,(Vince%20Young%20had%2046)" target="_blank">https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-by-the-numbers-lamar-jackson-vs-michael-vick#:~:text=Altogether, 759 of his 1,039,(Vince Young had 46)</a>.</p><p></p><p>If we apply that 23.2% scramble percentage to his season total of 176 runs you get to something like 41 scrambles. Griffin also had 20 runs on 139 snaps, more than 2 games worth of snaps. There are surely some scrambles in there and they wouldn't be running him on purpose with Jackson's frequency. Lets throw a half dozen Griffin scrambles in there for him for good measure.</p><p></p><p>Nobody seems to talk about kneel downs. If you're going about measuring run effectiveness those plays should be thrown out altogether. Winning teams tend have more of those. By all rights defenses should be allowed to concede inside two minutes just as baseball now waves intentional walks to first base. Since I have no data on kneel downs we'll have to leave that out.</p><p> </p><p>So, let's sum up Baltimore's play split:</p><p></p><p>440 throws + 28 sacks + 47 estimated scrambles = 515 pass plays</p><p>596 runs - 47 estimated scrambles = 549 run plays - ? kneel downs</p><p></p><p>So, Baltimore calls pass nearly as much as run. Throw out kneel downs and you get closer to par. I think we can say Baltimore is unique in the extent to which they call QB runs or run options, well over 100. When you start looking at other teams with higher sacks and perhaps more scrambles, the actual skew toward pass vs. conventional play counts may be even higher.</p><p></p><p>You're left with relative rankings to which I say, "so what"? What we're exploring is to what extent this is a passing league and how important RBs are to the offense. It is, indisputably, a passing league which does not mean you don't look for some balance.</p><p></p><p>We can go a step further.</p><p></p><p>Baltimore handed the ball to RBs 393 times while targetting them only 51 times, a 444 snap count where RBs are the weapon of choice. With 1,111 offensive snaps, that gets you 40% of plays with the RB as the featured weapon. Conversely, the Packer RBs ran the ball 355 times while being targetted 114 times for a total of 469 plays with the RB as the weapon of choice, many of those throws being run substitutions. On 1,078 offensive snaps, the RBs were featured on 43.5% of them.</p><p></p><p>Believe it or not, the Packers offense was more RB-centric than Baltimore's, unless you want to count Jackson as a RB <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/wink.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" data-shortname=";)" />. Even if you throw out snaps where a RB is in the slot or out wide, where he's best categorized as a WR on that play, I'm fairly certain you'd still find the Packers to be more RB-centric if only by a smaller margin.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HardRightEdge, post: 879111"] These are precisely the kind of superficial stats that result in distorted perspectives. Universally, without exception, the actual split is higher pass percentages and lower run percentages than what you show by significant margins. Let's look at the Ravens, the most extreme case. Taking pass attempts and runs and calculating percentages as you have done leaves out some important stuff. First, Baltimore QBs were sacked 28 times. Those are pass plays not accounted for in your percentages. That's a pretty low sack number; most if not all of the other teams you listed will have higher sack counts, more plays added to the pass column. Next, how many of the 197 Baltimore QB runs were actually pass plays that ended in scrambles? We run into a problem with a QB such as Jackson in parsing scramble runs from called runs or option runs by the QB. In some cases, particularly RPOs, it's hard to tell whether you count the play as a called run or called pass given the option aspect. Football Outsiders illustrates the problem here where the professional play counters sometimes disagree, but at the margins: [URL]https://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-ratings/2020/effect-scrambles-dvoa[/URL] In any case, for illustration purposes, lets go with PFF's take. As of December 10 last season, they came up with this: "Jackson already has 116 designed rushes to his name, and 64.4% of his rushing yards have been on these intentional rushing plays. Scrambles make up just 35 of his rushing attempts...." [URL='https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-by-the-numbers-lamar-jackson-vs-michael-vick#:~:text=Altogether%2C%20759%20of%20his%201%2C039,(Vince%20Young%20had%2046)']https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-by-the-numbers-lamar-jackson-vs-michael-vick#:~:text=Altogether, 759 of his 1,039,(Vince Young had 46)[/URL]. If we apply that 23.2% scramble percentage to his season total of 176 runs you get to something like 41 scrambles. Griffin also had 20 runs on 139 snaps, more than 2 games worth of snaps. There are surely some scrambles in there and they wouldn't be running him on purpose with Jackson's frequency. Lets throw a half dozen Griffin scrambles in there for him for good measure. Nobody seems to talk about kneel downs. If you're going about measuring run effectiveness those plays should be thrown out altogether. Winning teams tend have more of those. By all rights defenses should be allowed to concede inside two minutes just as baseball now waves intentional walks to first base. Since I have no data on kneel downs we'll have to leave that out. So, let's sum up Baltimore's play split: 440 throws + 28 sacks + 47 estimated scrambles = 515 pass plays 596 runs - 47 estimated scrambles = 549 run plays - ? kneel downs So, Baltimore calls pass nearly as much as run. Throw out kneel downs and you get closer to par. I think we can say Baltimore is unique in the extent to which they call QB runs or run options, well over 100. When you start looking at other teams with higher sacks and perhaps more scrambles, the actual skew toward pass vs. conventional play counts may be even higher. You're left with relative rankings to which I say, "so what"? What we're exploring is to what extent this is a passing league and how important RBs are to the offense. It is, indisputably, a passing league which does not mean you don't look for some balance. We can go a step further. Baltimore handed the ball to RBs 393 times while targetting them only 51 times, a 444 snap count where RBs are the weapon of choice. With 1,111 offensive snaps, that gets you 40% of plays with the RB as the featured weapon. Conversely, the Packer RBs ran the ball 355 times while being targetted 114 times for a total of 469 plays with the RB as the weapon of choice, many of those throws being run substitutions. On 1,078 offensive snaps, the RBs were featured on 43.5% of them. Believe it or not, the Packers offense was more RB-centric than Baltimore's, unless you want to count Jackson as a RB ;). Even if you throw out snaps where a RB is in the slot or out wide, where he's best categorized as a WR on that play, I'm fairly certain you'd still find the Packers to be more RB-centric if only by a smaller margin. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
rmontro
Latest posts
R
Cam Achord new ST coach - Fire him
Latest: rmontro
A moment ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Why I Love The 2026-2027 Green Bay Packers
Latest: OldSchool101
36 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2026 Roster Thread - Semi-Live
Latest: OldSchool101
Today at 2:53 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Wisky newbie
Latest: milani
Today at 2:09 PM
Introduce Yourself
Valuation of NFL Teams
Latest: milani
Today at 1:46 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Consider the 49ers running game
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
