Will The Dolphins Recommit To The Ground Game?

BSQ

Scout Team
Finheaven VIP
Joined
Jan 17, 2008
Messages
3,332
Reaction score
1,707
Location
Dania Beach, FL.
What? You don't like zero yard passes on 3rd and half a yard?
Not a huge fan of most of the things Gase did and he got worse as time went on. By the end of his time in Miami the wheels had come off and he lost most of the locker room. The jet's are crazy to bring in Gase the fraud. Gase's agent has to be unreal because he's gotten freaking paid big time. He's still a fraud imo, but, at least he has mucho bank. If you ask me there's just something a little sleazy about Jimmy Sexton and Nick Saban and that whole crowd but that's a whole other kettle of fish.
 

dougb123

Bench Warmer
Finheaven VIP
Joined
Sep 5, 2011
Messages
1,370
Reaction score
2,776
Every thing they have done so far suggests that they are well aware of the fact that they need to take better advantage of the sun and humidity S. Fla has to offer from who they picked up in draft and FA to moving the start times of there practice's to later in the day when it's hotter to how hard they look like they will practice (OTA's) to make they players/team more heat resilient and better conditioned, I'm hoping there game plans will take this into account it's easier to beat on someone in this heat than it is to get beat on. That means run the football.

S.Fla. is unique with it's blend of heat and humidity something we use to know before Dan Marino got here, what do you do when you got the best passing QB in the league.

It's time we got back to showing the league why the best football players in the nation come from S Fla.
 

hoops

exited stage left
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
61,665
Reaction score
11,271
Location
richmond va
Gase just works a lot of sticks concepts on 3rd down which means the timing and execution and qb and receiver have to be on the same page. There’s not a lot of room for error. Sticks concept primary’s especially. And clear outs for the sticks concepts and uses the backs as primary’s a lot too by design. Not as dump offs.

Worked with a timing and execution level qb of a Peyton Manning. Of course that guy processed information faster and got the ball out of hand as a result better than any other qb in tbe history of the league.

You can say what you want about gase especially with some of the terrible protection ask (gesicki at the poa in run or pass and in max protect comes to mind) but he was pretty solid at regaining or maintaining the sticks on 2nd down. Keeping things manageable and not selling out his protection on 3rd down. Which is why a guy like gore got so much run. And took the starting job.

He was let down a lot by gesickis inability to execute in critical situations. At some point you just have to bench a repeat offender like that.
 

NBP81

Yippi ka yay mother******!
Finheaven VIP
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
8,849
Reaction score
6,672
Location
montreal
Very good line of thought - to help crystallize the point, base sets (2 WR with 2 TE and a RB or 2 WR with 2 RB and a TE) are much more efficient for passenger than 3 WR sets. Interesting enough, 4 WR sets are about as efficient as base sets - again, much more efficient than 3 WR sets. When I think about the why, it's pretty clear to me that 3 WR sets are easier to defend (talking passing game exclusively), because most teams now have 3 CB's who can cover at a starting level. For the average offense, you're not going to create mismatches, because your 3rd WR is not going to be significantly better than the opposing team's 3rd CB. Base sets remove the 3rd CB and replace them with a LB, who will not be as good in coverage - especially since teams invest less in LB3 than CB3. Most teams, though, don't have 4 CB's who can cover at a starter level, so if you have 4 WR's who can play, you can create mismatches that way, too.

4 WR sets are kind of the gold standard, because they're also the most efficient personnel package to run out of. Base sets, though, are great for play action, and this is one area where 3 WR sets do well (Rams are the best example), too. Play action passes are much more efficient than straight dropbacks, and play action from Under Center is more efficient than play action from Shotgun. This is where 12 and 21 (base sets) really shines in its ability to put the D in a bind. Eventually, I think teams will shift their defensive approach and counter base sets with more DB's anyway, and then running out of base sets will become more efficient, but we're not there yet. Small sample size, but play action out of Pistol is even more efficient than play action Under Center, and I think teams should implement more Pistol concepts (always thought it was underutilized, but it's nice to have some evidence to back up those suspicions).

These are all broad, big-picture points, and the effectiveness of each package will vary depending upon the opposing D, so I think it's best to adopt an approach of adaptability, where you can take advantage of the weaknesses of a given opponent. NE does this better than anyone. In building a team, though, I'd want plan to run the majority of my plays from base or 4 WR sets, with some 3 WR or extra heavy (1 WR) sets peppered in.
For people wondering where they could possibly get more of those quality posts, this dude has an entire section in the VIP... just saying...
 

Russ57

Scout Team
Joined
Apr 16, 2017
Messages
216
Reaction score
190
The big question is will we try to emulate the Pats offense?

My latest data is from 2018. They had 779 offensive plays. 453 from 11 personal (51% success rate). 220 with 2 RB, 1 TE, 2 WR sets (55% success rate). 64 with 2 RB, 2 TE, 1 WR sets (45% success rate). They only ran 13 plays with 4 WR's and from those they threw 4 passes.

The breakdown gets more interesting when you look at pass/run ratio from each set along with YPA and YPC. For example they only ran 3 plays with 2 TE, 3 WR sets but ran the ball every time for a whopping 6.3 YPC with 100% success rate. I don't think the average defense expects run with that grouping.
 

FINMAN1

Active Roster
Joined
Oct 26, 2018
Messages
867
Reaction score
826
Location
Virginia
Personally, I hate running based offenses, they are slow, boring and cant put up points fast enough against elite teams. We need a gun slinger. Forget this commit to the running game nonsense, it only works if you have the leagues best defense to accompany it.
If you can run at will, you should be able to pass at will, as long as you have a capable QB
 

Mach2

Starter
Joined
Jun 10, 2018
Messages
2,684
Reaction score
2,743
Age
55
Location
Boynton Bch, Fl
If you can run at will, you should be able to pass at will, as long as you have a capable QB
If you can run "at will", there is no reason to pass an inordinate amount.

To be able to run at will, however, there has to be a credible passing threat, otherwise a competent defense will stop the run by selling out
 

where's th'fish

Scout Team
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
2,266
Reaction score
406
Very good line of thought - to help crystallize the point, base sets (2 WR with 2 TE and a RB or 2 WR with 2 RB and a TE) are much more efficient for passenger than 3 WR sets. Interesting enough, 4 WR sets are about as efficient as base sets - again, much more efficient than 3 WR sets. When I think about the why, it's pretty clear to me that 3 WR sets are easier to defend (talking passing game exclusively), because most teams now have 3 CB's who can cover at a starting level. For the average offense, you're not going to create mismatches, because your 3rd WR is not going to be significantly better than the opposing team's 3rd CB. Base sets remove the 3rd CB and replace them with a LB, who will not be as good in coverage - especially since teams invest less in LB3 than CB3. Most teams, though, don't have 4 CB's who can cover at a starter level, so if you have 4 WR's who can play, you can create mismatches that way, too.

4 WR sets are kind of the gold standard, because they're also the most efficient personnel package to run out of. Base sets, though, are great for play action, and this is one area where 3 WR sets do well (Rams are the best example), too. Play action passes are much more efficient than straight dropbacks, and play action from Under Center is more efficient than play action from Shotgun. This is where 12 and 21 (base sets) really shines in its ability to put the D in a bind. Eventually, I think teams will shift their defensive approach and counter base sets with more DB's anyway, and then running out of base sets will become more efficient, but we're not there yet. Small sample size, but play action out of Pistol is even more efficient than play action Under Center, and I think teams should implement more Pistol concepts (always thought it was underutilized, but it's nice to have some evidence to back up those suspicions).

These are all broad, big-picture points, and the effectiveness of each package will vary depending upon the opposing D, so I think it's best to adopt an approach of adaptability, where you can take advantage of the weaknesses of a given opponent. NE does this better than anyone. In building a team, though, I'd want plan to run the majority of my plays from base or 4 WR sets, with some 3 WR or extra heavy (1 WR) sets peppered in.
That doesn't match the data I've seen. In the analytics I saw only 9 teams were better in non-11 personnel than in 11 personnel -and they were an unimpressive bunch of teams, the best of which were Seattle, Houston and Philly. 10 was only used in 1% of the plays, so it's a super small sample.

This is why 11 personnel has been increasing for years, including 5% more from 2017 to 2018.
 

j-off-her-doll

Finheaven VIP
Joined
Apr 29, 2009
Messages
17,709
Reaction score
5,552
Location
Dream Songs
That doesn't match the data I've seen. In the analytics I saw only 9 teams were better in non-11 personnel than in 11 personnel -and they were an unimpressive bunch of teams, the best of which were Seattle, Houston and Philly. 10 was only used in 1% of the plays, so it's a super small sample.

This is why 11 personnel has been increasing for years, including 5% more from 2017 to 2018.

I'd be curious to see which analytics you're citing. Everything I've seen shows that passing out of 11, with the exception of PA from UC, is much less efficient than passing out of 12 (UC or Shotgun - PA or NPA) and also less efficient than passing out of 21. The breakdown is at the bottom of the article.


I somehow missed this article, which argues for exactly what I'm arguing for.
 
Last edited:

hoops

exited stage left
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
61,665
Reaction score
11,271
Location
richmond va
Doesn’t seem like Miami has the QBs in house style wise to “commit to the ground game”

At least not with Rosen
 
Last edited:

hoops

exited stage left
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
61,665
Reaction score
11,271
Location
richmond va
What makes you think that (Rosen part)?

More about looking pre snap and progression read ideal fit as a college prospect.

Which seems to lend itself by and large to a lot of 11 personnel based o with a traditional 2 way go slot type.

I think the bills qb Allen would be a good candidate for the “commit to the run game” offense. Heavy pa and vertical shots in the pass game etc. hide some of his pocket accuracy current weakness. And take big shots to take advantage of his cannon arm

Bills have just used him to date on a lot of zone read to take advantage of the athlete in space and create lanes with the qb leg threat and limit the passer exposure in terms of reads. Don’t you guys remember when he ran thru our lb level (Kiko I think it was) like a hot knife thru butter? Defeated our pursuit angles
 
Last edited:

Sirspud

Pro Bowler
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
11,263
Reaction score
1,304
Age
34
Location
Haines City, Fl
Hard to run the ball without good running backs. And yes, I know that Drake is a playmaker, just like the second or third string running back on every NFL team these days.
 

Awsi Dooger

Super Duper Club
Joined
Feb 8, 2005
Messages
9,398
Reaction score
2,815
Location
Las Vegas
Personally, I hate running based offenses, they are slow, boring and cant put up points fast enough against elite teams. We need a gun slinger. Forget this commit to the running game nonsense, it only works if you have the leagues best defense to accompany it.
You don't have much to worry about. Contrast is gone and fear is at record highs, mirroring society as a whole. One NFL team after another brainstorms that it has to trot out 11 personnel and wing the ball all over the field. Disregard that we have a lousy quarterback and lousy wide receivers and lousy offensive scheme.

The aspect of situational understanding is long gone. When I was a kid you'd see the glorious physical games when you knew darn well that the underdog could not match throw for throw with the favorite, and they knew it themselves. Hence they wouldn't be stupid enough to attempt it. They would prioritize defense and field position and running the ball and shortening the game. There were frequent shocking upsets. Now that same underdog far more often than not will simply trot out its pathetic quarterback, throw 40+ times, and wonder what possibly went wrong?

It's one of the primary reasons you can now wager the cream teams over the 10.5 or 11 season win totals and not be particularly concerned. With contrast all but gone and rules favoring the passing game, there simply aren't as many losable games as previously.

I'm never impressed with stats that spotlight the handful of teams with elite quarterbacks. They don't mean a darn thing unless you evaluate them under that scope, i.e...this is ideal strategy if you have a genius quarterback. That type of quarterback can break every rule. Those teams can create their own numerical ideals. Does anyone doubt that if New England had used a fullback on 90% of plays for the past 15 years that we'd have completely different conventional wisdom regarding the value of the fullback position?

Football Outsiders had an article a few weeks ago that detailed the steady rise of 11 personnel throughout the league, to the point that only the 49ers had not adopted it as mainstay. Gullible league became more gullible. Boring league became more boring. That would be my summary. Track races and swimming races and horse races are exponentially more fascinating when entrants are utilizing varied strategies...not the same one across the board. Football Outsiders pointed out that many of those lower rung teams would have been much better off if they remained true to the old formula. No kidding. That's what I have argued for years. The chief example they used was the Arizona Cardinals last year, that Arizona would have remained much closer to offensive normalcy if anything above two wide receivers was illegal.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom