Fat Rob’ says Jay Gruden told him to lose weight because Redskins will run more

[gkekoa]

yes i did the run and shoot was a heavy pass offense with minimum running because of the lack of a TE . it faded out of existence when teams learned about the concept and found ways to defeat it . being a one dementional team will get you beat

so you cant tell me what the pass to run ratio is for the offense you advocate ? you cant say 70 -30 or 80-20 or 90-10 ? i think 60-40 is about right in todays game but you cant put a number on it ?

It didn't fade because it lacked a running attack. It faded because the routes were too long with the absence of a running attack.

The run and shoot had the same ratio as the 2015 Patriots and they have the best TE I have seen.

The Patriots threw 72% of the time in the 2016 SB...apparently being pass heavy doesn't get you beat. It gets you a victory.

 

[Sharkinva]

It didn't fade because it lacked a running attack. It faded because the routes were too long with the absence of a running attack.

The run and shoot had the same ratio as the 2015 Patriots and they have the best TE I have seen.

The Patriots threw 72% of the time in the 2016 SB...apparently being pass heavy doesn't get you beat. It gets you a victory.

Being pass heavy only works if you have a defense worth a crap. Or did we all seem to forget the Patriots had a top ten defense last year??

 

[ehb5]

yes i did the run and shoot was a heavy pass offense with minimum running because of the lack of a TE . it faded out of existence when teams learned about the concept and found ways to defeat it . being a one dementional team will get you beat

so you cant tell me what the pass to run ratio is for the offense you advocate ? you cant say 70 -30 or 80-20 or 90-10 ? i think 60-40 is about right in todays game but you cant put a number on it ?

Again - so? Yes the run and shoot threw the ball a lot. So do a lot of other offenses. Plenty of offenses have been successful throwing the ball a lot. And as gk pointed out there were other reasons for it fading out then that it didnt run enough.

Ok Ill say 80-20. But if we're being honest thats just pulling a number out of my ass. You cant know that. I dont know what the ideal balance is and neither do you. What we DO know is that passing is more effective and efficient than throwing the ball and that the best offenses are built on passing the ball.

 

[ehb5]

Being pass heavy only works if you have a defense worth a crap. Or did we all seem to forget the Patriots had a top ten defense last year??

Eh thats kinda flawed logic though. If you have a turd defense your in trouble either way. Not to mention there are counter examples. Green Bays defense was pretty bad last year but they were still good.

Moral of the story: having a crap defense is bad. If you want a good offense build a good passing attack.

 

[gkekoa]

Being pass heavy only works if you have a defense worth a crap. Or did we all seem to forget the Patriots had a top ten defense last year??

Being pass heavy only works if you score. It has nothing to do with defense. As a matter of fact, being pass heavy and getting up early because the other team is determined to run takes them out of their game and makes them totally predictable.

 

[Breed]

What we DO know is that passing is more effective and efficient than throwing the ball and that the best offenses are built on passing the ball.

I'm sure the word throwing should be the word running and what we also DO know is that the Redskins ran the ball at least 20+ times in a game 9 times last year. They finished 8-1 in those games. In games that were played or play-called like we were the Pats. We didn't do so well. The only real disconnect here is why did Redskin coaches not stick with that formula all season long.

 

[ehb5]

I'm sure the word throwing should be the word running and what we also DO know is that the Redskins ran the ball at least 20+ times in a game 9 times last year. They finished 8-1 in those games. In games that were played or play-called like we were the Pats. We didn't do so well. The only real disconnect here is why did Redskin coaches not stick with that formula all season long.

Yes lol you are correct.

That stat is all kinds of backwards. When you're up and in control of a game you run the ball more. When you're losing you throw more. It's not that throwing leads to losing and running leads to winning.

Thank god they didn't stick to that formula. Forcing the run to get to a certain number of rushes that correlates with wins is about the most infuriating thing a coach can do.

 

[Breed]

It's not that throwing leads to losing and running leads to winning.

I agree. The same could be said in reverse as well. Running the ball doesn't lead to losing and passing leads to winning.

Far as when you're up and in control of the game you run more, but pass more when you're behind.

Week 3, 2016 season - Redskins 29/Giants 27 Final - Total Redskin passing plays 35/Total Redskin running plays 30

In a game where the scoring went as Giants 7-0, Giants 7-3, Giants 14-3, Giants 14-6, Giants 14-9, Giants 21-9, Giants 21-16 halftime. Skins 23-21, Giants 24-23, Skins 26-24, Giants 27-26, Skins 29-27 final score.

So in a game where the Skins were down the entire 1st half including by double digits twice. By your rationale the Skins should've stopped running and just passed because as you say, its more efficient. I say that would've been a panic move and thank goodness the Skins didn't panic. As its more likely they would've passed themselves right into 0-3.

As I alluded to earlier. Your equations can't or don't take into account intangibles. One such intangible could be. A team/HC who panics when they get behind by double digits in the 1st half and throws out the original game-plan to pass on almost every down. Or a team/HC that doesn't panic when down by double digits in the 1st half. Because they know there's still a lotta football to be played and even being presently behind. This game is still within their reach if they stay the course.

 

[gkekoa]

I'm sure the word throwing should be the word running and what we also DO know is that the Redskins ran the ball at least 20+ times in a game 9 times last year. They finished 8-1 in those games. In games that were played or play-called like we were the Pats. We didn't do so well. The only real disconnect here is why did Redskin coaches not stick with that formula all season long.

Three of our losses we had 19, 18, and 17 rushes. Several of the wins we averaged 3 YPC.

 

[ehb5]

I agree. The same could be said in reverse as well. Running the ball doesn't lead to losing and passing leads to winning.

Far as when you're up and in control of the game you run more, but pass more when you're behind.

Week 3, 2016 season - Redskins 29/Giants 27 Final - Total Redskin passing plays 35/Total Redskin running plays 30

In a game where the scoring went as Giants 7-0, Giants 7-3, Giants 14-3, Giants 14-6, Giants 14-9, Giants 21-9, Giants 21-16 halftime. Skins 23-21, Giants 24-23, Skins 26-24, Giants 27-26, Skins 29-27 final score.

So in a game where the Skins were down the entire 1st half including by double digits twice. By your rationale the Skins should've stopped running and just passed because as you say, its more efficient. I say that would've been a panic move and thank goodness the Skins didn't panic. As its more likely they would've passed themselves right into 0-3.

As I alluded to earlier. Your equations can't or don't take into account intangibles. One such intangible could be. A team/HC who panics when they get behind by double digits in the 1st half and throws out the original game-plan to pass on almost every down. Or a team/HC that doesn't panic when down by double digits in the 1st half. Because they know there's still a lotta football to be played and even being presently behind. This game is still within their reach if they stay the course.

I don't think running the ball necessarily leads to losing at all. I think it's more like - the more you run the less efficient your offense is like to be and the less efficient your offense is the more likely you are to lose.

As for that week 3 giants game that's all well and good but it doesn't really prove anything. It shows we ran a fair amount that week and we won. But that doesn't mean it was ideal. You say we're lucky that the coaches didn't panic and start throwing but really if they had "panicked" we may have ended up even more effective on offense.

As for the intangibles you mentioned...it doesn't really matter. You say they're panicking. I don't think they are. But even if they are they'd be panicking into a more optimal game plan. So this example at least is not a negative at all.

 

[skinsdad62]

what is effective ? some stats ? running the ball is efficient if you do it well and use it in the right spots

 

[ehb5]

what is effective ? some stats ? running the ball is efficient if you do it well and use it in the right spots

Sure. Nobody's saying that running the ball doesn't have its value or its moments. But largely and in most cases it is the sub optimal choice to passing.

 

[skinsdad62]

Sure. Nobody's saying that running the ball doesn't have its value or its moments. But largely and in most cases it is the sub optimal choice to passing.

ok fair enough done with this

 

[ehb5]

ok fair enough done with this

 

[Breed]

I don't think running the ball necessarily leads to losing at all. I think it's more like - the more you run the less efficient your offense is like to be and the less efficient your offense is the more likely you are to lose.

So the Tim Tebows, Scott Mitchells, Derek Andersons, Mark Sanchezes, Jason Campbells. Health Shulers, Gus Ferottes and all the other QBs of this ilk. Need to be putting the ball in the air as much and as many times as possible......................................Alrighty than!

As for that week 3 giants game that's all well and good but it doesn't really prove anything. It shows we ran a fair amount that week and we won. But that doesn't mean it was ideal. You say we're lucky that the coaches didn't panic and start throwing but really if they had "panicked" we may have ended up even more effective on offense.

The Redskins won. How much more ideal does it need to be for you?

Or we may've lost by double-digits.

As for the intangibles you mentioned...it doesn't really matter. You say they're panicking. I don't think they are. But even if they are they'd be panicking into a more optimal game plan. So this example at least is not a negative at all.

That's just it. Of course the intangibles matter. Other things, weather, field conditions, being a couple, can play into the equation of what game-plan a team will go with on a Sunday as well. W/O the intangibles, we could break the game down to who lifted the most weight or ran the fastest 40. Then throw in your no heart and no soul clinical passing is more effective analysis crap and decide games that way. I'm glad we don't do it that way though.

 

[Breed]

Three of our losses we had 19, 18, and 17 rushes. Several of the wins we averaged 3 YPC.

OK. I'm washing my I can see what other people are thinking baseball cap right now. Can I get a few more dots to connect.

 

[Sportster 72]

I think there is some misinformation here about the new NFL. Passing yards have always exceeded running yards unless you had a terrible QB and a great RB. So I don't really understand the original premise. You can't not run the ball. It is part of the game that makes football a strategic game. I would say the percentage of yards pass versus run today are higher than 40 years ago. Clearly the rules have improved your chances in the passing game. You still need to run the ball some. I have already illustrated reasons why.

 

[gkekoa]

The WCO changed the game. It used the short passing game as a supplement to the running game. Almost all offenses today have some sort of WCO influence.

Watch the movie money ball. That is why teams throw so much. Percentages say it is better, granted you need the personnel to do so. Half the league throws more than 60% of the time, both good and bad teams. 2015 Patriots threw the ball 65% of the time and this season it was down to 55%. I am sure part of that was because of the first four without Tom and protecting him as well.

If you have a competent QB, you need to throw at least 60% of the time in a competitive game...with a few exceptions.

 

[Sportster 72]

LOL, you want me to watch a movie to prove what I already know about football? I am really not sure why anyone is still arguing this point. Passing is more prolific. You still have to run the ball though. I understand that ehb's original point. He is right, the NFL throws the ball around more because the rules make it easier to do that. It still does not change the fact that running the ball helps play action and play action helps the run game. It certainly helps if you can have the lead in the 4th quarter and run the ball effectively to kill the clock and to tire your opponents.

 

[ehb5]

So the Tim Tebows, Scott Mitchells, Derek Andersons, Mark Sanchezes, Jason Campbells. Health Shulers, Gus Ferottes and all the other QBs of this ilk. Need to be putting the ball in the air as much and as many times as possible......................................Alrighty than!



The Redskins won. How much more ideal does it need to be for you?

Or we may've lost by double-digits.



That's just it. Of course the intangibles matter. Other things, weather, field conditions, being a couple, can play into the equation of what game-plan a team will go with on a Sunday as well. W/O the intangibles, we could break the game down to who lifted the most weight or ran the fastest 40. Then throw in your no heart and no soul clinical passing is more effective analysis crap and decide games that way. I'm glad we don't do it that way though.

No not at all. I have not once said that and in fact have said several times that throwing this heavily is pretty reliant on having a solid passing offense. But that having been said its kind of irrelevant what you should do with those guys anyways. You arent winning a SB with Tim Tebow or Mark Sanchez at QB. It doesnt matter what your offense looks like with them because it will be bad.

It doesnt need to be more ideal than them winning. Obviously Im not complaining. I was simply pointing out that its logically flawed to say "see they won when they were running even though they were down. If they had panicked and passed we wouldve been 0-3". That doesnt make sense - we could easily have been more effective by throwing more.

Ehhh not really. For one intangibles are very wishy washy. Its near impossible to prove any of their existence or their effect. Secondly, if they do exist - their impact is already factored into the statistics we talk about. So games with bad weather are part of the data set that shows passing being more effective. Its like if you said that Peyton Manning is lazy and has no heart but Tim Tebow works his ass off and has all the heart in the world. Maybe youd be right. But it wouldnt matter. Because Peyton Manning is still better. And we know this from the data and the film NOT from who has more heart or works harder.

BTW "no heart no soul clinical passing is more effective" is a great line. Why would you not want that. It sums things up perfectly - Get rid of the BS, and go with what we know works.