pederson is still an idiot

[Iggloo]

You can spin it any way you want, but the bottom line is that the Eagles nearly had a 75% to 25% pass-run ratio.

They had 17 rushing attempts and 46 passing attempts.

So, you can argue about why this was the case, the lack of success running inside and whether that is the blocking or the backs or both, etc. But it doesn't change the fact that you are not going to win very much throwing that often unless you have an elite passing game, which we frankly don't.

 

[_phiLLies_]

The most disturbing thing isn't that Doug Pederson stopped running the football.

The most disturbing thing is why.

Pederson said he abandoned the run simply because the Eagles weren't running the ball well.

"Obviously, I was not pleased with how we ran the ball," he said after the Eagles lost Sunday, 27-20, to the Chiefs in a game in which he called 56 pass plays and 13 running plays — the ratio was 38 to five in the second half.

"It's an area that we have to fix."

With 20 hours to reflect, Pederson didn't change his stance:

"We've got to get the run game fixed," Pederson said at his Monday presser.

But in reality, the Eagles didn't run the football that badly.

At all.

And I for the life of me can't figure out why Pederson believes they did.

How on Earth can you conclude that the running game needs fixing when your backs averaged a respectable 4.0 yards per carry, got just 13 carries in the game and just seven in the last 41½ minutes and your presumed starting running back never touched the ball and the only guy who got more than three carries averaged 4.8 yards a pop?

Math. Facts.

Let's take a look at the Eagles' 11 drives with a list of how many running plays and pass plays (passes, sacks and Carson Wentz scrambles) they ran and exactly how many yards the backs got on those running plays:

1) 3 run, 7 pass → 12, 6, 3
2) 3 run, 4 pass → -2, 2, -3
3) 1 run, 6 pass → 6
4) 1 run, 1 pass → 11
5) 1 run, 5 pass → 3
6) 2 run, 5 pass → 8, 3
7) 1 run, 9 pass → 5
8) 1 run, 3 pass →-2
9) 0 run, 3 pass
10) 0 run, 13 pass
11) 0 run, 1 pass

A few things stand out in this breakdown.

• First of all, after the second drive, Pederson called only seven running plays on the Eagles' last nine drives. Throw out the last two drives because the Eagles trailed by 14 points and then had a Hail Mary, and you still have a ratio of 13 runs and 43 passes while this was still a one-possession game.

• But other than the second drive of the game, when three runs produced minus-three yards, the running game was effective. On the first drive, three runs netted 21 yards. The next five drives contained just six running plays, but they netted 36 yards — that's 6.0 yards per carry. So with the game tied at 13-all with 11 minutes left in the fourth quarter, the Eagles' running backs were averaging 4.5 yards per carry.

The Eagles' final running play of the game was a two-yard loss by Wendell Smallwood with 10 minutes left in the game, and that dropped their average to 4.0, but it was only Smallwood's third carry of the game. Certainly not enough to evaluate him on.

• Sproles finished with a 4.8 average, which is anything but "struggling," which was Pederson's word. So was Pederson's conclusion that the Eagles were "obviously" having trouble running the ball based on Smallwood's four yards on three carries? One of those three was an eight-yard gain, so is he basing that obvious conclusion on two carries 34 minutes apart by a backup back who had just three carries in the game?

• Pederson said Monday one of the main reasons he abandoned the run against the Chiefs was because the Eagles kept finding themselves in 3rd-and-long situations.

Here's his quote:

"You put yourself in a 2nd-and-12 or a 2nd-and-13, and it's hard. Now you're going uphill, and yesterday we had seven 3rd-and-10-pluses and another five 3rd-and-7s and that's unacceptable. We can't be in that many long-yardage situations in these football games, so we've got to focus on the run game."

Wrong.

Those 2nd-and-longs weren't because of the run game! The Eagles actually averaged more yards per play on first down when they ran than when they threw!

Their 26 passing first downs averaged 4.8 yards per play, and their eight first-down runs averaged 5.0 yards per play.

More pointedly, 12 of those 26 first-down passes resulted in a gain of zero yards or a loss of yardage. That's 46 percent. Only two of the eight first-down runs netted zero or fewer yards — that's 25 percent. And both were runs by the third-string back.

Where were the struggles? The backs averaged 5.0 yards per carry on first down (40 yards on eight runs), so that wasn't the problem. So what was it?

It was imaginary. It did not exist. It was a figment of Pederson's mind.

The only issue was Pederson once again struggling to stick with a running game that was operating at a functional level.

And I don't even know how you evaluate a running game when your last nine series include only seven running plays. How do you make any kind of determination about what's working and what's not working when over the last 40½ minutes of the game, Sproles had just five carries and Smallwood had two?

And if your issue is that Sproles can't handle much more than 10 carries, well then … there are other backs on the roster. But we never saw Blount and we never saw Corey Clement.

It doesn't make sense. It doesn't add up.

Maybe the Eagles' running game really is in need of an overhaul. I certainly agree that this isn't the most dynamic group of backs ever assembled. But you can't determine that from Sunday's paltry sample size.

Why do I keep harping on this?

Because when you don't run the ball, defenses tee off on the quarterback. We saw it Sunday at Arrowhead.

Wentz was sacked a career-high six times, four times in the second half, when the running game wasn't a factor, and he absorbed a number of vicious hits as well.

And here's the really alarming thing.

Players know. They openly questioned Pederson in the locker room after the game.

Lane Johnson: "In order to win games in this league, you have to able to run the ball."

Zach Ertz: "You can't be throwing the ball 40 times in a game."

Brandon Brooks: "I wish we would have ran the ball more. But we didn’t."

There's a lot to like about this Eagles team.

Their front four is thunderous. The secondary has played as well as you could hope with a bunch of kids and a bunch of injuries. Wentz looks more and more each week like a budding star. Ertz is off to a great start. Alshon Jeffery is starting to look like a stud. Special teams are as good as anybody's and always will be under Dave Fipp. And this team always plays hard for Pederson.

This could be a playoff team. This should be a playoff team. But it won't be unless Pederson gets all of this figured out.

 

[eaglesnut]

i did watch the game, you sarcastic clown. just because you don't like the view i offered doesn't make what i said false.

sproles had 48 yards on just 10 carries. he nearly broke free for significant yards numerous times. i also provided a mini log of when the eagles ran the ball on long yardage situations and what they accomplished. the running game clearly wasn't a negative, nor did it force the offense into bad situations. if anything, it was the other way around.

the eagles ran the ball just fine last year. now we're supposed to believe it's some impossible feat this year? after adding more weapons, getting lane back and wentz gaining experience? fuck out of here with that nonsense.

they are currently 12th in average at 4.0. yet they are ranked 24th in attempts and are still without a rushing TD. pederson is playing fuckin' madden with his new receivers and exposing wentz's health.

MANY people are aware of this. pederson has been criticized and even questioned why he has a head coaching position. players have been complaining. fans, writers, reporters. i suppose all these people aren't watching the game though. silly them.

seriously. you have to be a special kind of stupid to say it "doesn't matter."

You already complained about Pederson passing too much last year. Now you want to act like he switched from a running team to a passing team over the off-season? You are a complainer, it suits your delicate sensibilities.

Sproles needs to still be getting chunk yards in December and beyond, we can't over work him early. He's old and small.

Yes, silly them and silly you. Your idol Mike Lombardi is a fraud and he got universally ripped by intelligent people for his ignorant opinion.

 

[DutchBird]

Marty Mornhinweg used to say all the time, ‘People miss that it doesn't matter how often you run the ball as much as it does how well you run it when you run it.' His theory was that as long as you ran the ball well when you ran it, it forced the other team to play the run whether it was what you were likely to call or not. And it helped slow down the pass-rush, etc.

And I think that's right. So the key isn't that the Eagles start to run the ball a lot. I think it's that when they run it, they run it more effectively. And that isn't sweeping [Darren] Sproles around the end six or eight or nine times a game. They've got to develop a consistent game inside and outside in which they can move people off the line of scrimmage and consistently get enough yardage that the defense has to worry about it.

Source:Q&A with Joe Banner: Wentz's future, drafting Trent Cole and...

And this is Joe Banner (and implicitly) Marty Mornhinweg saying that context of yardage gained DOES matter.

And that that is where the problem lies. I know you do not care, but most people inside the NFL do. Currently the Eagles running game is a mess. It is as simple as that. And doing the same thing over and over - like you advocate - is NOT going to help.

 

[DutchBird]

You can spin it any way you want, but the bottom line is that the Eagles nearly had a 75% to 25% pass-run ratio.

They had 17 rushing attempts and 46 passing attempts.

So, you can argue about why this was the case, the lack of success running inside and whether that is the blocking or the backs or both, etc. But it doesn't change the fact that you are not going to win very much throwing that often unless you have an elite passing game, which we frankly don't.

And from what I have seen, everybody on this board agrees with that general assessment. But this game was the wrong game for running the ball for various reasons - a combination from the disaster that was the O-line run-blocking, none of the RB's but Sproles being half-decent, the play-calling and what the defense gives them. And many of the most vocal critics of Pederson agree that in this game Pederson called a good game - and that includes going pass heavy.

 

[Northern Eagle]

Something not mentioned enough here is how shitty the middle of our O-Line was in this game. Kelce and Seumalo got their lunches handed to them. But I do blame Pederson for not trying a few more looks with Blount - not saying it might have made a huge difference but only ONE carry the entire game is inexcusable. You have to attempt a few more runs, when KC went ahead in the 4th they just pinned their ears back on defense because they knew at that point we weren't running the ball.

And Smallwood is shit. He should be #4 on the depth chart, he's done nothing to impress me and I'd rather see Clement get a few touches over him.

 

[knowyourenemy]

Something not mentioned enough here is how shitty the middle of our O-Line was in this game. Kelce and Seumalo got their lunches handed to them. But I do blame Pederson for not trying a few more looks with Blount - not saying it might have made a huge difference but only ONE carry the entire game is inexcusable. You have to attempt a few more runs, when KC went ahead in the 4th they just pinned their ears back on defense because they knew at that point we weren't running the ball.

And Smallwood is shit. He should be #4 on the depth chart, he's done nothing to impress me and I'd rather see Clement get a few touches over him.

Agreed 100% on Clement over Smallwood.

 

[PhillyGreen]

The bashing of Pederson is just stupid. Yes I think part of what he is doing is wrong. I think he is part of the problem but I also understand that he may improve and am willing to give him a shot to do it. In other words. Doug Pederson needs to get better and it appears he recognized that as well becuase he is making changes on the O-Line. He actually sees the problems many of us see as well.

Some of you are bitching as if we were a Superbowl contending team that screwed up against an inferior opponent. The reality is the Chiefs are a SuperBowl contender and we were the inferior opponent and we gave them all they can handle. IMO the Eagles are 2 seasons from being a top 5 NFL team and legit Superbowl contenders. We need a legit #1 RB and we still need some secondary help. We also need to tweak the O-Line as as well.

 

[Orlando Eagles]

Why are we bashing a guy when we already know who he is?

He is Fatty, Jr. If his team runs it it is in the second half. Pass in first half, run in second. Unless the pass doesnt do really well in the first half; or the run struggles the few times it is attempted.

Then it is pass, pass, pass the rest of the game.

We have been seeing this pretty solidly since the early 2000's.

 

[I miss Dawkins]

And from what I have seen, everybody on this board agrees with that general assessment. But this game was the wrong game for running the ball for various reasons - a combination from the disaster that was the O-line run-blocking, none of the RB's but Sproles being half-decent, the play-calling and what the defense gives them. And many of the most vocal critics of Pederson agree that in this game Pederson called a good game - and that includes going pass heavy.

how do we know if Blount would be half decent, if we don't use him at all??? How did he do last year???

 

[I miss Dawkins]

I read somewhere that Wentz just went to #2 overall in the NFL of most passes completed over 18 games.. 2nd only to Andrew Luck. He already set a rookie record last year of most pass completions in a rookie season.

I'm just curious, if Pederson thinks the running game needs to be fixed, WHO does he think is calling the plays and broke it??? Why does he talk about himself as if it's another person??

 

[DutchBird]

Blount has been slow, and has been slow for a while. Not hitting the holes quickly against Washington. And for outside runs, if the run-blocking is as bad as it currently is, he is too slow as well.

Last yeas is NOT comparable to this year - for starters because of the line he ran behind. And even then, in some ways this has Murray written all over it; overused last season, falling back this season.

 

[I miss Dawkins]

Blount has been slow, and has been slow for a while. Not hitting the holes quickly against Washington. And for outside runs, if the run-blocking is as bad as it currently is, he is too slow as well.

Last yeas is NOT comparable to this year - for starters because of the line he ran behind. And even then, in some ways this has Murray written all over it; overused last season, falling back this season.

Yea... except.. the following year AFTER we went him to TEN, he runs for over 1200 yards. Did he become non-overused somehow??? When they look good before us, AND after us... but stink with us... you have to stop looking at the RB and look at us, and how we are using them (or not using them). If you have a hammer, hit a damn nail.

 

[DutchBird]

I read somewhere that Wentz just went to #2 overall in the NFL of most passes completed over 18 games.. 2nd only to Andrew Luck. He already set a rookie record last year of most pass completions in a rookie season.

I'm just curious, if Pederson thinks the running game needs to be fixed, WHO does he think is calling the plays and broke it??? Why does he talk about himself as if it's another person??

First of all, this offense - over a season - will always be pass-heavy; as are pretty much all NFL offenses. Note, BTW, that last season the Eagles were middle of the pack in run-pass ratio, just behind the Broncos and ahead the Seahawks.

The irony of blaming Pederson for not calling run-plays is massive, as these run plays are wholly ineffective (other than Sproles runs), or succeed more by dumb luck than good execution by RB's and O-line. You guys are yelling about Pederson calling certain pass plays (as being overused/predictable/unsuccessful) yet at the same time want him to call running plays that have even less chance of succeeding!

The running game needs to be fixed, and the problem is execution by RB's and O-line, not the plays being called themselves.

 

[I miss Dawkins]

First of all, this offense - over a season - will always be pass-heavy; as are pretty much all NFL offenses. Note, BTW, that last season the Eagles were middle of the pack in run-pass ratio, just behind the Broncos and ahead the Seahawks.

The irony of blaming Pederson for not calling run-plays is massive, as these run plays are wholly ineffective (other than Sproles runs), or succeed more by dumb luck than good execution by RB's and O-line. You guys are yelling about Pederson calling certain pass plays (as being overused/predictable/unsuccessful) yet at the same time want him to call running plays that have even less chance of succeeding!

The running game needs to be fixed, and the problem is execution by RB's and O-line, not the plays being called themselves.

How do you propose to fix a running game... if your not going to call running plays??? And how do you know the running plays won't work, if they are not called (nevermind the ones that were called, did work). You make no sense.

 

[DutchBird]

Yea... except.. the following year AFTER we went him to TEN, he runs for over 1200 yards. Did he become non-overused somehow??? When they look good before us, AND after us... but stink with us... you have to stop looking at the RB and look at us, and how we are using them (or not using them). If you have a hammer, hit a damn nail.

It is - historically - an almost absolute given that after setting such career highs - RB's will face a drop-off in production. Especially when run into the ground like Murray was in Dallas.

You have to look at both, the RB (Blount being old - at an age where most RB's are rapidly declining - setting career highs, as well as the O-line, the scheme and such. And calling run plays that will not work is NOT the way to go.

 

[DutchBird]

How do you propose to fix a running game... if your not going to call running plays??? And how do you know the running plays won't work, if they are not called (nevermind the ones that were called, did work). You make no sense.

WHAT GAME DID YOU WATCH?

The run game by and large did not work; the only part of the run game that worked against KC fairly consistently were outside runs with Sproles. Plays that WILL NOT WORK with Blount or Smallwood. The few inside runs that worked, worked because of the passing game working (the draw plays), or sheer dumb luck (dodging defenders in the backfield first).

The inside run did NOT work at all, simply because the interior of the O-line, especially Seumalo, was horrendous against KC, and bad against Washington. Get the O-line fixed first, then try again.

And it is fantastic calling running plays that DO NOT WORK instead of passing plays THAT WERE WORKING! That is what will win you games.

 

[I miss Dawkins]

It is - historically - an almost absolute given that after setting such career highs - RB's will face a drop-off in production. Especially when run into the ground like Murray was in Dallas.

You have to look at both, the RB (Blount being old - at an age where most RB's are rapidly declining - setting career highs, as well as the O-line, the scheme and such. And calling run plays that will not work is NOT the way to go.

Plays not called... won't work.
plays that work... won't work, so we need to stop them.

got it.

This makes as much sense as Reid not using 2 TE sets, because the 1 time he did, it worked really well. He said people had film on it now, and it wouldn't be as effective. Well, nothing like beating yourself, instead of letting someone else do it.

 

[I miss Dawkins]

WHAT GAME DID YOU WATCH?

The run game by and large did not work; the only part of the run game that worked against KC fairly consistently were outside runs with Sproles. Plays that WILL NOT WORK with Blount or Smallwood. The few inside runs that worked, worked because of the passing game working (the draw plays), or sheer dumb luck (dodging defenders in the backfield first).

The inside run did NOT work at all, simply because the interior of the O-line, especially Seumalo, was horrendous against KC, and bad against Washington. Get the O-line fixed first, then try again.

And it is fantastic calling running plays that DO NOT WORK instead of passing plays THAT WERE WORKING! That is what will win you games.

And who should Pederson blame for having Kelce at center still??? And who put Seumalo at Guard??

 

[DutchBird]

Plays not called... won't work.
plays that work... won't work, so we need to stop them.

got it.

This makes as much sense as Reid not using 2 TE sets, because the 1 time he did, it worked really well. He said people had film on it now, and it wouldn't be as effective. Well, nothing like beating yourself, instead of letting someone else do it.

And in this game Pederson did the exact opposite. He called the plays that worked, and abandoned mostly the plays that did not work. Note BTW, that he called more runs than KC did well into the 4th quarter.