The Dolphins Have Id’d The Strength Of Their Offense. They Just Don’t Use It Enough

[lbmclean_nocal]

Considering we have the fewest plays per game of any team, being 8th lowest in rushing attempts doesn't really show anything. The offense is just dreadful, and that starts with the QB and coach.

if we had quality at C, LG, a bonafide #1 Receiver, Albert Wilson/Grant/Tannehill for the whole season, our offense wouldn't have been nearly so woesome. I don't know if Gase is a genius and I doubt Tannehill is the guy but this offensive personnel outside of a few guys is pure shite.

 

[Mach2]

Drake had 17 negative yardage runs on 105 carries, Gore had 10 negative runs on 156 carries. 26.7% of Drake's runs went for either no gain, or negative yards. 14.7% of Gore's went for either no gain or negative yards. By contrast, Drake had 41 carries of 5 or more ypc (39%), and 4 carries of 20 or more (3.8% of his carries) and Gore had 64 runs (41%) of 5 or more and 5 of 20 or more (3.2% of his carries). If you extrapolate out and give all carries to Gore or Drake (acknowledging that different usage might produce different results), Gore would have 38 carries of 0 or negative carries, vs. Drake with 70 of 0 or negative, and Gore 8 runs of 20+ and Drake would have 10 runs of 20+ runs. So, in theory, if you give Drake all of Gore's carries, you accept 32 more 0 or negative runs, 6 or so fewer runs of 5+ ypc, and in exchange you get 2 more 20+ runs. That's a lot of carries (30+) that leave the offense in poor position (negative or no gain runs) and you still get fewer quality runs (defined by me at 5+ yds) all for 2 more big gain runs of 20+ runs. And, then you have the issue of blocking. I'm not sure about the rest of you, but I just dont see the case for Drake if you believe these numbers accurately represent what you'll get on a full year basis. The numbers would have to get far more skewed in favor of big runs by Drake to justify the high percentage of poor runs, IMO. Will be interesting if Ballage can skew the equation.


Interestingly...Ajayi had 259 carries in 2016, with 10 carries of 20+ (3.86%) , 37 carries for negative yards (14.3%), and 62 carries of 0 or negative (24%), and only 94 carries of 5 or more yards (36.8%). In some ways, worse than Drake by not getting enough good runs

Excellent breakdown. Thanks for putting in the time, and effort to statistically confirm what many of us thought was obvious based on the eyeball test.

Drake is serviceable, and very fast. I don't understand why he didn't get more touches in the passing attack, but Gore, even at his advanced age (by NFL standards), is a better "between the tackles"_ 3 down back.
It isn't even a close call.

If you get Drake the ball in space, he can take it to the house on any given play. Gore was never that guy, but that is one of the few things I give Gase credit for. He knew the team was better off with FG getting the lions share of the carries.

 

[NorFlaFin]

The I formation is superb football. It steals a vital few percent from the norm in one supporting category after another, and allows teams with less than dominant quarterbacks to perform above rightful level.

The shotgun and 4-5 wide approach is just the opposite. It forfeits several percent in each category and really magnifies that gap between elite quarterbacks and lower tier quarterbacks.

Most coaches don't differentiate. They see something work for an elite team and can't comprehend the situational variance, based on caliber of that one player.

Wisconsin last night against the Canes demonstrated how effective the I formation and power football can be, and how many amazing permutations are available out of that offense. The color commentator Dan Orlovsky is a tape guy and began the game with prepared script ready to praise the Canes and specifically the defensive scheme. It was laughable how long it took him to adjust to what was actually happening in the game, when it didn't fit that predetermined script. It sounded identical to Mike Mayock before he got thrown out of the booth on Notre Dame telecasts. Mayock often would whiff the big picture for 60 minutes, while focusing on some obscure technique that had nothing to do with the outcome.

At least Orlovsky finally came around, and began raving about all the shifting and varied looks that the Badgers were displaying. It allowed a power based offense to dictate the game from start to finish, and protect a shaky backup quarterback who would have been in big trouble if asked to sit back and throw out of the shotgun all day, like the Canes approach and so often what the Dolphins do.

BTW, nobody runs for 4.5 or 4.7 yards per carry over the course of a season behind a "poor" line. Impossible. We would be in hysterics if some other NFL team owned numbers like that yet the fan base was bemoaning an offensive line below NFL standards.

I need to go back a watch that game.

I would love to get some stats of yards per play, sortable by formation (I formation only) then play/run.
My gut says run plays to the left from the I are actually better than the traditional right side.

I have zero ideas where to get such stats at a granular level.

 

[Jimi]

if we had quality at C, LG, a bonafide #1 Receiver, Albert Wilson/Grant/Tannehill for the whole season, our offense wouldn't have been nearly so woesome. I don't know if Gase is a genius and I doubt Tannehill is the guy but this offensive personnel outside of a few guys is pure ****e.

Oh no doubt. The offense runs through the coach and QB, but ultimately you're correct that this team is severely lacking grade A talent.

 

[Jimi]

Excellent breakdown. Thanks for putting in the time, and effort to statistically confirm what many of us thought was obvious based on the eyeball test.

Drake is serviceable, and very fast. I don't understand why he didn't get more touches in the passing attack, but Gore, even at his advanced age (by NFL standards), is a better "between the tackles"_ 3 down back.
It isn't even a close call.

If you get Drake the ball in space, he can take it to the house on any given play. Gore was never that guy, but that is one of the few things I give Gase credit for. He knew the team was better off with FG getting the lions share of the carries.

It's a bit of a contradiction, but Gore can be objectively better at it but still not be the best man for the job. The NFL is dependent on big plays and improvation above all else nowadays. Especially on a stagnant offense without a true #1 WR, we needed to get guys who have a chance to break the big one at any time on the field as much as possible.

 

[Mach2]

It's a bit of a contradiction, but Gore can be objectively better at it but still not be the best man for the job. The NFL is dependent on big plays and improvation above all else nowadays. Especially on a stagnant offense without a true #1 WR, we needed to get guys who have a chance to break the big one at any time on the field as much as possible.

I guess we see things differently.

When you are constantly in 3rd and long, and not very good at converting, you have to do anything you can to get to stay out of those situations.

I know big plays are exciting, but those are set up by forcing the defense to stay at home, and defending the entire field. Teams that hit on a lot of "big plays", are usually good at moving the chains consistently as well.

 

[artdnj]

if we had quality at C, LG, a bonafide #1 Receiver, Albert Wilson/Grant/Tannehill for the whole season, our offense wouldn't have been nearly so woesome. I don't know if Gase is a genius and I doubt Tannehill is the guy but this offensive personnel outside of a few guys is pure ****e.

I believe Gase would stifle the 99 rams O, he is bush league

 

[Jimi]

I guess we see things differently.

When you are constantly in 3rd and long, and not very good at converting, you have to do anything you can to get to stay out of those situations.

I know big plays are exciting, but those are set up by forcing the defense to stay at home, and defending the entire field. Teams that hit on a lot of "big plays", are usually good at moving the chains consistently as well.

Yah, it's two competing philosophies and there's not a right answer. But I think with how the rules have gone and how the teams with elite QBs can play, there's no more room for that plodding style offense. You simply can't keep up that way anymore unless you have a truly elite defense.

At the end of the day though it's about talent more than anything. Different styles of football can win with the right rosters. If you can't ever convert 3rd and longs you're probably just a bad offense.

 

[A8bil]

It's a bit of a contradiction, but Gore can be objectively better at it but still not be the best man for the job. The NFL is dependent on big plays and improvation above all else nowadays. Especially on a stagnant offense without a true #1 WR, we needed to get guys who have a chance to break the big one at any time on the field as much as possible.

The big play I think is more highly valued in FF than on the field. But, if you think they are important, I think the question really becomes how do you get them? Yes, you get them by game changing players, but even their effectiveness is dependent on what's happening with the offense. If your 1st and 10 play nets you 0 yards, the defense now knows the offense is unlikely to take a shot downfield. Odds are that the offense is going to go for a chunk pass that gets 6-8 yards to set up 3rd and short. Knowing that, the DBs can press the WRs, the DL's can go more into pass rush mode and the LBs can play within that 10 yard box from the LOS. Each play sets up the next in the NFL. A play that goes nowhere hurts the entire series and puts the offense at a disadvantage.

 

[A8bil]

The ideal running back has the ability to run hard between the tackles, avoiding negative runs and has the ability to break a big one occasionally. That was Gore earlier in his career. Marshawn Lynch. AP. Gurley now.