The CardBoard
ATTN: David Shaw; RE: Run-Run-Pass - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: The CARDboard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Thread: ATTN: David Shaw; RE: Run-Run-Pass (/showthread.php?tid=17151)

Pages: 1 2


RE: ATTN: David Shaw; RE: Run-Run-Pass - martyup - 01-13-2019

In the Shaw era, I doubt that there have been many, if any, Stanford offensive snaps when the QB wasn't allowed to read the D and call an audible at the LOS.  So, even if a D anticipated a run and stacked the box . . .


RE: ATTN: David Shaw; RE: Run-Run-Pass - Goose - 01-13-2019

(01-13-2019, 10:35 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  I think the greater reality is if you are in position to RRP too frequently, you aren't gaining enough yards on 1st and 2nd down, and you've got more problems than just whether you run or pass too frequently. Because this demonstrates you can't run the ball, which is a much larger issue than running too frequently.
Yes! It may be "obvious", but you need to be able to both throw the ball and run the ball to be successful in today's football. If you can't do one of these well enough, you are in trouble. Some teams attempt to "specialize" in one or the other. The Air-raid and the style Navy (and formerly GA Tech) play are such attempts. History has shown that these "specialized" offenses don't work unless they have at least some ability to keep the defense honest, and even then these offenses don't reach "elite" status.
Stanford has a long history of being able to throw the ball. However, if one looks back at history, we only go to the Rose Bowl when we can do both pretty well. Arguing about pass to set up the run or run to set up the pass doesn't much matter if you can't run effectively anyway.


RE: ATTN: David Shaw; RE: Run-Run-Pass - Hulk01 - 01-13-2019

The study reveals that teams that don't pass well feel forced to run more often. 

Teams that don't pass well are easier to defend; you can cheat your corners in and your safeties up, which makes it easier to defend against the run.

Eureka!  Teams that feel pressured to run more often tend to have less success on offense.


RE: ATTN: David Shaw; RE: Run-Run-Pass - PVTree - 01-14-2019

How many times did we run-run-run-punt?


RE: ATTN: David Shaw; RE: Run-Run-Pass - Farm93 - 01-14-2019

(01-14-2019, 12:02 AM)PVTree Wrote:  How many times did we run-run-run-punt?
That question would need to factor in game situation because of the likelihood that run-run-run-punt is used in a clock killing strategy. Take a game with 3 minutes to go in the game with a 17 point lead.   If the leading team went run-run-run-punt AND took 2 of the 3 minutes off the clock, then that drive would be deemed successful.

In many ways, run-run-run-punt in the fourth quarter is far more likely for teams with the lead.   Given that Coach Shaw is the winningest coach in Stanford history (something many seem to forget) it is logical that Coach Shaw would have more run-run-run-punt drives than any other coach in Stanford history.   

If the question were to reveal much it would need to be how many times has Stanford, with Coach Shaw, gone run-run-run-punt in a losing effort?

If a team starts the fourth quarter up 24-3 and opts for 4 drives each run-run-run-punt drives to win 24-6 then that SHOULD be OK.   Logical right?  And yet in the Stanford Stadium stands I can recall dozens of fourth quarter run-run-run-punt complaints even while the team was up by more than 2 scores.


RE: ATTN: David Shaw; RE: Run-Run-Pass - martyup - 01-14-2019

Winning is fun, but the process is sometimes hard to watch when the team is turtling.  But, I would rather watch my team win by turtling than lose by couging it, ala the Pirate.


RE: ATTN: David Shaw; RE: Run-Run-Pass - CTcard - 01-14-2019

(01-11-2019, 03:41 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  There are two major problems with this analysis, …

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 ...

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.  ….

I suppose you could group most of the fundamental issues into those groups. The problem is that those two sets of problems are not in the category of "this is all basically correct but you might end up with a little more variance than predicted", but rather more in the category of "and this is where my theory falls to the ground". 
Or at least they might be. None of these kind of articles that I have seen really addresses the robustness of their conclusions. 

The first issue is raised in the piece, but only to say that one can ignore findings that don't fit the premise of the article. That isn't very helpful. 

The second critique is even broader than you state. Play calling and play success are far from random events but are highly correlated. An example on the play success side of the coin: I don't think much of anyone would claim that Russell Wilson is the best or most talented thrower among the QBs in the NFL, yet Seattle had the third best pass efficiency rating in the league. That's at least partly because they didn't throw as often as most (fewest attempts in the league). If Seattle passed as often as Pittsburgh or Indy their efficiency would certainly have declined. 

This strong correlation means the standard statistical machinery doesn't apply; not that the machinery almost applies. 

If it did apply, that would mean every team should pass on first down every time. And as noted, it would mean every team should run on third down every time. The author acknowledges the second not so much because it is patently absurd, but because it doesn't match his narrative. I'd say the first is also patently absurd. 

That's not to say that most teams wouldn't benefit from a careful analysis, including proper statistical analysis, of what they are doing. It does say that most teams would not benefit from this sort of shoddy statistical analysis. 

---------------
BostonCard Wrote:... However, even though I can rightfully be called a "Shawpologist", even I wished we would pass more on first and second run.

Even this past year? 
How much did we already pass on first down and run on second? 


I do think that Stanford more than most teams tends to have particular plays tied to particular personnel groupings and formations, i.e. telegraphing the play. This is inherent in the approach, which is to have the best possible personnel for particular plays, i.e. to win the play by superior personnel. 
Stanford thinks that 8 linemen will do the best blocking for some run plays, or 4/5 receivers give the best options on many pass plays. Stanford also feels that opposing defenses will either mess up trying to constantly swap personnel or simply not be able to match up with some groupings. 
Those are the positives of what Stanford tries to do with all of the different formations and personnel groupings. There are also some obvious negatives to this approach, discussed over and over on this board. 

I am not sure what is a better option for Stanford overall, but I do think Stanford needs to have a two minute (or one minute) package without personnel changes for end of game situations without adequate timeouts.


RE: ATTN: David Shaw; RE: Run-Run-Pass - Goose - 01-14-2019

(01-14-2019, 11:54 AM)CTcard Wrote:  I am not sure what is a better option for Stanford overall, but I do think Stanford needs to have a two minute (or one minute) package without personnel changes for end of game situations without adequate timeouts.
You are absolutely correct. Even if we substitute rapidly (which we have often NOT done), the other team will for sure take as much time as the officials will  allow them. It isn't a good idea to trust the Zebra's to be even halfway strict about that. Due to this rule situation, substitution in the 2 minute drill should be off the table. Too much risk of a big clock rundown. If you can call a timeout, OK. Otherwise, forget it.


RE: ATTN: David Shaw; RE: Run-Run-Pass - BostonCard - 01-14-2019

(01-14-2019, 11:54 AM)CTcard Wrote:  
BostonCard Wrote:... However, even though I can rightfully be called a "Shawpologist", even I wished we would pass more on first and second run.

Even this past year? 
How much did we already pass on first down and run on second? 

Even this year, we ran more frequently than we passed on first down (166 pass attempts, 200 runs; 45% passes, 55% runs).  That's down from past year (42% passes, 58% runs), but not as much as you would expect given our better passing game and worse running game.

On the 166 passing first downs, we had a 68% completion percentage, averaged 9.1 yards per play, and got 48 first downs.
On the 200 running first down, we averaged 4.0 ypc, and got 24 first downs.

Sadly, I don't have data on the rest of each set of downs, but I do think we were generally more successful when we passed on first down than when we ran on first down.

BC


RE: ATTN: David Shaw; RE: Run-Run-Pass - CrazedZooChimp - 01-14-2019

(01-14-2019, 11:54 AM)CTcard Wrote:  I am not sure what is a better option for Stanford overall, but I do think Stanford needs to have a two minute (or one minute) package without personnel changes for end of game situations without adequate timeouts.

I think we can all agree with that. Although I would be content with a 2 minute offense that acknowledges the existence of spiking the ball and the value in doing that if you really don't want to avoid subbing.