A Three Back Attack | Page 7 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

A Three Back Attack

JamesWsenior said:
What? Deep on every down lol.
The moment Williams went down our offense changed for the worse. In came Eich and the rest is history.

Prior to that we were running and passing at will. Ok I generalize a little but it was awesome to watch. Then Achane got hurt, armstead in and out, Mostert banged and God knows who else we had on the Oline, it's no wonder we grinded down offensively as the year went on. Our Oline was decimated.

Ps. The last drive against Dallas was textbook balance. Awesome drive when it counted.
Click to expand...

I think you missed his point. - LOL
 
Martel13 said:
He was replying to my previous positive post and I made a follow up joke that several people liked - maybe you’re just too sensitive to be on the internet
Click to expand...

Some jokes, like mine, are funnier than other posters jokes.
No Joke. - LOL
 
Mach2 said:
So what's your ideal run/pass ratio?

Talent in the backfield is fine, but we have some pretty damn good receivers, too.

I'm sorry, but it seems you are generalizing because of your basic philosophy, more than anything else.

When's the last time a run heavy/oriented team won a championship?

I think you have to go back to the Lynch era Seahawks, and it only worked then due to a very, very good defense.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid that depends on the opposing defense and, to a lesser extent, on the offences running game.
 
Ray R said:
Someone is VERY confused about statistics and conclusions.

Fact Given: "...we were #6 in yards per (carry)" blah blah blah shows "on its face, that claim (we didn't run the ball(enough)), to be incorrect".
That would only be true if we ran the ball a lot. Yards per carry would be the wrong statistic to prove otherwise.

Just to say we were in the top half of the league in attempts is too vague to be meaningful. That could just as easily mean in the middle third, which would mean there is room for improvement.

Posters need to use a meaningfully associated statistic to make their points, otherwise the only point mad is the posters lack of knowledge about how to use statistics to support or disprove an analysis.
Click to expand...
Geeze Ray, if I didn't know better you are having a go a little old me. 😂
 
Ray R said:
Someone is VERY confused about statistics and conclusions.

Fact Given: "...we were #6 in yards per (carry)" blah blah blah shows "on its face, that claim (we didn't run the ball(enough)), to be incorrect".
That would only be true if we ran the ball a lot. Yards per carry would be the wrong statistic to prove otherwise.

Just to say we were in the top half of the league in attempts is too vague to be meaningful. That could just as easily mean in the middle third, which would mean there is room for improvement.

Posters need to use a meaningfully associated statistic to make their points, otherwise the only point mad is the posters lack of knowledge about how to use statistics to support or disprove an analysis.
Click to expand...
We were #6 in total yards. We were #1 in YPC, showing that we were very efficient and effective. The number of attempts being around the middle ground shows balance in terms of run/pass ratio, relative to the league as a whole. Also consider that several of the other top running teams had QBs that tended to run at a relatively high rate.

I disagree with your conclusions.

Now, if your personal philosophy is to run more or equal to passing, that's fine, but that's a different conversation, and would be a philosophy not embraced by the large majority of teams.

Now, one might suggest that just because other teams lean a certain way doesn't, necessarily, make it the best way, but then you would be saying stats, relative to the whole are meaningless, rendering the whole discussion moot.

You got your 1 and 6 reversed, for one thing. Not huge, but it makes a difference in conclusions.

Let me ask you this, rather than just argue, tell us the run/pass ratio you would like to see, because when it comes right down to it, that's what we are talking about when someone says we need to run "more". The total number of plays are what they are. You can't run 800 times if you only have 950 total plays (exaggerating to make a point).
 
Ray R said:
I'm afraid that depends on the opposing defense and, to a lesser extent, on the offences running game.
Click to expand...
True, but that's why you can't pick and choose certain games or situations. All you can do is take the season as a whole, relative to the other teams.
 
Ray R said:
Someone is VERY confused about statistics and conclusions.

Fact Given: "...we were #6 in yards per (carry)" blah blah blah shows "on its face, that claim (we didn't run the ball(enough)), to be incorrect".
That would only be true if we ran the ball a lot. Yards per carry would be the wrong statistic to prove otherwise.

Just to say we were in the top half of the league in attempts is too vague to be meaningful. That could just as easily mean in the middle third, which would mean there is room for improvement.

Posters need to use a meaningfully associated statistic to make their points, otherwise the only point mad is the posters lack of knowledge about how to use statistics to support or disprove an analysis.
Click to expand...
You're mixing conclusions young man!

The original statement that Mach was talking about was "We have a coach who doesn’t believe in running the ball," he even quoted it in his post. "We didn't run enough" (which is definitely debatable, 1st in YPC and 6th in total yards lends credence to that argument) came later.

Either of those stats Mach posted disprove it. If a team was say, last or even bottom 5 in attempts, you could say the coach doesn't believe in running the ball. 1st in yards per carry would indicate there is a certain level of importance given to scheming the run, there again disproving it. And 6th in total yards just simply destroys the notion.
 
We generated those statistics by getting lots of chunk plays on early downs... which can give a misleading conclusion.

We struggled when teams keyed on the run... and then we ran, a d that's WHY McD didn't run more in short yardage situations.

Zone-blocking teams with small backs don't run well there. ZB works best when defenses have to worry about the pass. This creates huge running lanes and it's why you hear coaches talking about 'linemen hitting their marks'.

In a straight power situation like 3rd and 2, your quick footed ZB linemen just don't perform very well, and neither do 190# backs.

To have our success on first and second down, we sacrifice power on third downs. There's just no way around this. Guys like Solomon Kindley SUCK at ZB, but succeed on 3rd and 2.

You can have one or the other... unless you can find a 210# back who still has enough speed to play on first down...

Which we just did.
 
TheMageGandalf said:
Running 32 would be interesting... but unless it's within the 5-10 yard line, it'll take some creativity to use it more than a few times a game in space because I'm more concerned about our blocking in those situations than anything else...now if you assured me that there would be no missed blocking assignments....now we are talking!

Also, would the 2nd TE actually be a TE? I'd rather drop in Ingold with Smythe than have Smith since I view Smith as less of a blocker...
Click to expand...

Its definitely a section specific formation.

The TE's would IMO be..... J Smith & J Hill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom