[d4cohn]

Someone send this memo to David Shaw.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/you...y-screwed/

I'll be curious how often we tried the run-run-pass combo (my guess is a fair bit).

This result is the exact opposite of what we would expect to find if establishing the run via play sequences like rush-rush-pass were winning strategies. Instead of making a team less predictable, establishing the run on first and second down creates a game state that is often quite predictable for the defense. The opposing team is expecting a pass on third down because the first two plays were unsuccessful.

There are two major problems with this analysis, before we get too far into the triumpalism about how dumb Shaw's play-calling is.  The first, of course, is acknowledged in the piece, which is that in large part, any play sequence that ends in a run is likely to have been more successful than one that ends in a pass, because passes are called most frequently on third and long and runs most frequently on third and short.  Because the second and third down play-calling is in part conditional on the outcome of the first down, you really can't compare the sequences as a whole, unless the play-calling was scripted in advance.  Still, looking at first down plays, the expected points added from a first down pass (+.07) is better than the EPA from a run (-.08).

The second critique is more broad.  Play-calling is not completely independent, even between sets of downs.  That is, the idea of "establishing the run" is in part that running early benefits the offense later in the game.  That may not be true, but the analysis in fivethirtyeight ignores that possibility.  Teams may be willing to sacrifice a little bit of offensive productivity early in the game in order to "tire out the defense" or to make play action passing (and other attacks keyed off the run) more effective later in the game.

For the record, we passed more often than we ran in the first quarter and certainly in the first half of games last year.  However, even though I can rightfully be called a "Shawpologist", even I wished we would pass more on first and second run.


BC

Nice analysis by 538, but would love to see the analysis applied to college football before definitively accepting the translation of this principle to the college game.

Quite simply, the top rushing teams in college football (I am certainly not saying we were that this season, but we have been in the past) average more yards per carry than the top NFL teams (top in the NFL this year was the Carolina Panthers, headed by CMac and company, at 5.1 YPC; I was even surprised the top NFL team was this high. In contrast, Oklahoma averaged nearly 6.6 YPC). 

This very well may not change the overall conclusion, but perhaps the difference is less stark. I certainly know you are not a critic of Shaw's, but for the fans who are more critical of Shawvita, this is a red apple to say a green apple comparison between college football and the NFL.

[d4cohn]

Someone send this memo to David Shaw.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/you...y-screwed/

I'll be curious how often we tried the run-run-pass combo (my guess is a fair bit).

This result is the exact opposite of what we would expect to find if establishing the run via play sequences like rush-rush-pass were winning strategies. Instead of making a team less predictable, establishing the run on first and second down creates a game state that is often quite predictable for the defense. The opposing team is expecting a pass on third down because the first two plays were unsuccessful.

There are two major problems with this analysis, before we get too far into the triumpalism about how dumb Shaw's play-calling is.  The first, of course, is acknowledged in the piece, which is that in large part, any play sequence that ends in a run is likely to have been more successful than one that ends in a pass, because passes are called most frequently on third and long and runs most frequently on third and short.  Because the second and third down play-calling is in part conditional on the outcome of the first down, you really can't compare the sequences as a whole, unless the play-calling was scripted in advance.  Still, looking at first down plays, the expected points added from a first down pass (+.07) is better than the EPA from a run (-.08).

The second critique is more broad.  Play-calling is not completely independent, even between sets of downs.  That is, the idea of "establishing the run" is in part that running early benefits the offense later in the game.  That may not be true, but the analysis in fivethirtyeight ignores that possibility.  Teams may be willing to sacrifice a little bit of offensive productivity early in the game in order to "tire out the defense" or to make play action passing (and other attacks keyed off the run) more effective later in the game.

For the record, we passed more often than we ran in the first quarter and certainly in the first half of games last year.  However, even though I can rightfully be called a "Shawpologist", even I wished we would pass more on first and second run.


BC

Nice analysis by 538, but would love to see the analysis applied to college football before definitively accepting the translation of this principle to the college game.

Quite simply, the top rushing teams in college football (I am certainly not saying we were that this season, but we have been in the past) average more yards per carry than the top NFL teams (top in the NFL this year was the Carolina Panthers, headed by CMac and company, at 5.1 YPC; I was even surprised the top NFL team was this high. In contrast, Oklahoma averaged nearly 6.6 YPC). 

This very well may not change the overall conclusion, but perhaps the difference is less stark. I certainly know you are not a critic of Shaw's, but for the fans who are more critical of Shawvita, this is a red apple to say a green apple comparison between college football and the NFL.