Interresting stats, follow up on offense balance. | Page 7 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Interresting stats, follow up on offense balance.

shouright said:
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000...tial-an-essential-indicator-of-success-in-nfl

Also, however, I think you have to plan your strategy on the basis of the absence of such rare events, and then adjust accordingly if they do happen.

Notice also that despite the fact that Green Bay went up 14-0 on the basis of a rare play, Pittsburgh kept running the ball.
Click to expand...

I agree that Pittsburgh's rushing attempt differential advantage combined with the pick-six occurring early in the game helped keep the game close.
 
shouright said:
I think we're getting a little lost in the weeds. We still have a team that's near-last in the league in its percentage of offensive plays that are runs, which is also using a developmental QB who isn't by any means lighting the world on fire, and has a zero turnover differential on the season. I think we're going to struggle mightily to find anything that adequately and justifiably explains that degree of abandonment of the running game. Certainly the performance of the running game alone doesn't do it, and I'm not sure we should be going beyond that much if at all, in terms of examining other variables.

I mean we can certainly put me on a statistical wild goose chase, and it would be fun to collect the data and click the buttons and see what the results are, but I'm not sure there's any sensible theoretical rationale for that. :)
Click to expand...

I should've been clear. My curiosity about time of possession and turnover differential was about football in general and not meant as an alternative explanation to the Dolphins' rushing imbalance.
 
nyashfan said:
I'm looking to see if there is a monotonic relationship between turnover differential and the correlation between win percentage and rushing attempt differential. If the relationship is monotonic, it suggests that turnover differential is the driving force. I can't tell that from one single number.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't you think the interaction between score differential and time remaining in the game would determine a team's percentage of running plays on offense, by and large? I'm thinking that turnovers wouldn't mean much if they didn't translate to the kind of score differential later in games that would prohibit a team's running the ball. Obviously they probably would result in that sort of thing far more often than not, but I think you'd capture far more of the variance by focusing on score differential and time remaining.
 
NBP81 said:
This is a follow up on shouright`s thread regarding the teams lack of rushing attempts. Got curious so I took a look at playoffs teams from the last 4 seasons(since 2009) and I wasn't really surprised of the results... The Fins are on pace to end the season with 336 rushing attempts. The team with the least rushing attempts to make the playoffs in the last four years are the 2011 Detroit Lions with 356. Out of all those playoff teams(48), only 9 made it with less than 400 attempts. Only 2 of those are from the AFC, the 2009 and 2010 Peyton Manning Colts.... NFC teams who made it with less than 400 carries: GB(395), DET(356), ATL(378), NO(380), PHI(384), SEA(385), ARI(365). Now for those who think what we're running is that famous GB offense, consider this, the lower amount of carries that team has put out since 2009 is 395 in 2011 and averages to 422 carries a season. So let me ask you this, WHY do these coaches, who have QBs such as Aaron Rodgers, Peyton Manning, Drew Brees and Tom Brady feel like they have to run the ball to have success as a football team. And more importantly, why do some fans think that Ryan Tannehill, in his second pro football season, should be able to do so when absolutely nobody has done it in the last four years?(Im pretty sure it goes much further than that, just too lazy to go further) Its not an excuse guys...
Click to expand...

Those teams are able to put points on the board both running and passing...then shorten the game with the running game to close it out.
A lot of those carries and yards are in the 4th quarter.
We cannot score points, and we cannot run the ball.
 
LANGER72 said:
Those teams are able to put points on the board both running and passing...then shorten the game with the running game to close it out.
A lot of those carries and yards are in the 4th quarter.
We cannot score points, and we cannot run the ball.
Click to expand...
Some of that makes sense but you CANT tell me we have the last five years WORST rushing offense... What I meant with this post was that Tannehill was asked to do what no QB has been asked in the last 5 years, which is bring a team to the playoffs with no running game at all... And to some extent, I believe we are not patient enough with the running game, we give up to easily...

edit: We have been in 2nd hlfs with the lead where at least trying to run could have benefit us...
 
Yes, I agree with you 100%. I was focused on turnover differential based on the Cleveland box score. The variables you suggested are most likely more relevant.



shouright said:
Wouldn't you think the interaction between score differential and time remaining in the game would determine a team's percentage of running plays on offense, by and large? I'm thinking that turnovers wouldn't mean much if they didn't translate to the kind of score differential later in games that would prohibit a team's running the ball. Obviously they probably would result in that sort of thing far more often than not, but I think you'd capture far more of the variance by focusing on score differential and time remaining.
Click to expand...
 
shouright said:
Do you suspect we'd measure that with something like first downs?
Click to expand...
No, I'd measure ball control with time of possession. First downs would be a byproduct, though necessary to continue with ball control. The idea is to run as much time off the clock as possible, while still maintaining possession. That doesn't have to be done with a running game, although I'd agree it's preferable. However, that DEPENDS ON having one you can trust against a tough defense.
 
ATL_PHIN_FAN said:
No, I'd measure ball control with time of possession. First downs would be a byproduct, though necessary to continue with ball control. The idea is to run as much time off the clock as possible, while still maintaining possession. That doesn't have to be done with a running game, although I'd agree it's preferable. However, that DEPENDS ON having one you can trust against a tough defense.
Click to expand...
I would say it depends more on whether you have a quarterback who can carry an offense, because if you don't, you'd better retain all the unpredictability on offense you can muster, especially against tough defenses.
 
shouright said:
I would say it depends more on whether you have a quarterback who can carry an offense, because if you don't, you'd better retain all the unpredictability on offense you can muster, especially against tough defenses.
Click to expand...
I think that sums it up. Next year maybe . . . *sighs*
 
ATL_PHIN_FAN said:
No, I'd measure ball control with time of possession. First downs would be a byproduct, though necessary to continue with ball control. The idea is to run as much time off the clock as possible, while still maintaining possession. That doesn't have to be done with a running game, although I'd agree it's preferable. However, that DEPENDS ON having one you can trust against a tough defense.
Click to expand...
Time of the average offensive drive correlates with win percentage at 0.18, and with rushing attempts differential at 0.06. It appears to be independent of both of them. The Dolphins' average time per offensive drive of 2.33 minutes is 0.82 standard deviations below the league average of 2.53 minutes, which puts it in the 21st percentile in the league.
 
NBP81 said:
This is a follow up on shouright`s thread regarding the teams lack of rushing attempts. Got curious so I took a look at playoffs teams from the last 4 seasons(since 2009) and I wasn't really surprised of the results... The Fins are on pace to end the season with 336 rushing attempts. The team with the least rushing attempts to make the playoffs in the last four years are the 2011 Detroit Lions with 356. Out of all those playoff teams(48), only 9 made it with less than 400 attempts. Only 2 of those are from the AFC, the 2009 and 2010 Peyton Manning Colts.... NFC teams who made it with less than 400 carries: GB(395), DET(356), ATL(378), NO(380), PHI(384), SEA(385), ARI(365). Now for those who think what we're running is that famous GB offense, consider this, the lower amount of carries that team has put out since 2009 is 395 in 2011 and averages to 422 carries a season. So let me ask you this, WHY do these coaches, who have QBs such as Aaron Rodgers, Peyton Manning, Drew Brees and Tom Brady feel like they have to run the ball to have success as a football team. And more importantly, why do some fans think that Ryan Tannehill, in his second pro football season, should be able to do so when absolutely nobody has done it in the last four years?(Im pretty sure it goes much further than that, just too lazy to go further) Its not an excuse guys...
Click to expand...

You are correct sir! The game has changed--college and pro--and the fact is a short passing game has replaced running 30-40 times a game. Even cold weather, outdoor teams like New England and Denver have proven that a short passing game works in those conditions and there is no need to run it as much as in the past. The fact remains that OUR team, with its makeshift o-line, is a much more effective and dangerous team throwing on almost every down. I've said it all year that our two minute offense is very effective, and why not run it all the time? We cannot run the ball effectively, and that's proven now, so why get ourselves in 2nd and 3rd and long situations and take sacks? Tannehill is very accurate and we have receivers who can get separation in short areas so that's what we should go with. Every once in a while chuck one deep to keep them honest, but a four yard pass on 1st down is fine with me. Keep in mind that our young QB just threw for over 300 yds vs one of the best teams in the league and we had a legit shot to win with NO running game. Hopefully Ireland is gone so we can finally address the o-line and offensive skill positions.
 
dolphinheel said:
You are correct sir! The game has changed--college and pro--and the fact is a short passing game has replaced running 30-40 times a game. Even cold weather, outdoor teams like New England and Denver have proven that a short passing game works in those conditions and there is no need to run it as much as in the past. The fact remains that OUR team, with its makeshift o-line, is a much more effective and dangerous team throwing on almost every down. I've said it all year that our two minute offense is very effective, and why not run it all the time? We cannot run the ball effectively, and that's proven now, so why get ourselves in 2nd and 3rd and long situations and take sacks? Tannehill is very accurate and we have receivers who can get separation in short areas so that's what we should go with. Every once in a while chuck one deep to keep them honest, but a four yard pass on 1st down is fine with me. Keep in mind that our young QB just threw for over 300 yds vs one of the best teams in the league and we had a legit shot to win with NO running game. Hopefully Ireland is gone so we can finally address the o-line and offensive skill positions.
Click to expand...
None of the things I bolded above is supported by any objective evidence that I'm aware of, and I've made myself aware of a good bit of what's available.
 
dolphinheel said:
You are correct sir! The game has changed--college and pro--and the fact is a short passing game has replaced running 30-40 times a game. Even cold weather, outdoor teams like New England and Denver have proven that a short passing game works in those conditions and there is no need to run it as much as in the past. The fact remains that OUR team, with its makeshift o-line, is a much more effective and dangerous team throwing on almost every down. I've said it all year that our two minute offense is very effective, and why not run it all the time? We cannot run the ball effectively, and that's proven now, so why get ourselves in 2nd and 3rd and long situations and take sacks? Tannehill is very accurate and we have receivers who can get separation in short areas so that's what we should go with. Every once in a while chuck one deep to keep them honest, but a four yard pass on 1st down is fine with me. Keep in mind that our young QB just threw for over 300 yds vs one of the best teams in the league and we had a legit shot to win with NO running game. Hopefully Ireland is gone so we can finally address the o-line and offensive skill positions.
Click to expand...
That's interesting since both New England and Denver runs the ball on average of 30 times per game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom