Skinscast/HomerMcFanBoy - Pappas and Murf go head-to-head on Vince Young

[The Tris]

So Mahons, you think that we can give Young our 2010 playbook, and that offense would give him the best chance to succeed?

[Mahons21]

So Mahons, you think that we can give Young our 2010 playbook, and that offense would give him the best chance to succeed?

No of course not. If he was our first round draft pick, I'd want an offense that could give the QB a great opportunity to succeed. But this is VY, he is costing the team literally nothing (who cares about Dan's money), and if he somehow did come out on top of the difficult situation we would have a starting QB for the next 5-8 years possibly. If he doesn't, we cut him and continue on with the plan.

[darrelgreenie]

Didn't say it was.

Making the claim that Kyle might change his playcalling style or he might do X, isn't supported by his previous tendencies.

When you start arguing 'mights' its a slippery slope from there.

We didn't have a strong running game last year that's all I suggested. 16th via ypa doesn't disprove that.

To be fair this post is different from your previous statement where you said and I quote:

this year he had a very poor rushing attack

Imo 16th in YPA isn't consistent with a "very poor rushing attack' on the other hand having the 2nd fewest rushing attempts is clearly indicative of a playcalling focused on the passing game.

---------- Post added May-18th-2011 at 08:12 PM ----------

No of course not. If he was our first round draft pick, I'd want an offense that could give the QB a great opportunity to succeed. But this is VY, he is costing the team literally nothing (who cares about Dan's money), and if he somehow did come out on top of the difficult situation we would have a starting QB for the next 5-8 years possibly. If he doesn't, we cut him and continue on with the plan.

After passing on every QB in the draft the QB the Shanahan's choose must not fail.

Their reputations are a stake, if not their jobs.

[Mahons21]

Making the claim that Kyle might change his playcalling style or he might do X, isn't supported by his previous tendencies.

When you start arguing 'mights' its a slippery slope from there.

You're making the assumption that he likes to pass over run. When you have Andre Johnson and Matt Schaub and little semblance of a running game of course you're going to choose to pass.. Arian Foster didn't start coming on until Kyle's last year so don't bring him up. Slaton was a fumbling machine and Ahman Green or whoever that guy was, never turned out to be anything for them.

I can make the assumption that Kyle is a logical OC and gets the ball to his playmakers. Either way it's an assumption.

To be fair this post is different from your previous statement where you said and I quote: Imo 16th in YPA isn't consistent with a "very poor rushing attack' on the other hand having the 2nd fewest rushing attempts is clearly indicative of a playcalling focused on the passing game.

You know what our highest RB ranking was according to DVOA? 30th, Torain was ranked 30th. Multiple teams have two running backs ranked higher than our 1st, as I said Kyle wasn't working with much of a rushing attack last year. How anyone didn't see that for their for own eyes I don't know. Bad o-line, RB past his prime, and journeymen RB what does that equation add up to ya think?

---------- Post added May-18th-2011 at 08:21 PM ----------

After passing on every QB in the draft the QB the Shanahan's choose must not fail.

Their reputations are a stake, if not their jobs.

That's your opinion, I think many would disagree. The team's not bringing VY in because "he's the man for the job" they're be bringing him in for competition at a position they don't currently have settled.

[darrelgreenie]

You're making the assumption that he likes to pass over run. When you have Andre Johnson and Matt Schaub and little semblance of a running game of course you're going to choose to pass.. Arian Foster didn't start coming on until Kyle's last year so don't bring him up. Slaton was a fumbling machine and Ahman Green or whoever that guy was, never turned out to be anything for them.

I'm having Deja Vu.

58/42 isn't an assumption its fact.

What you're doing is making assumption or speculations as to the reason why.

I'm sure early in their careers Andy Reid, Josh McDaniels, Mike Martz had similiar things said about their tendencies.

as I said Kyle wasn't working with much of a rushing attack last year.

No.

The post I responed to I quoted, don't switch up on me now.

I'm not gonna argue against a point I agree with.

Bad o-line, RB past his prime, and journeymen RB what does that equation add up to ya think?

They chose the OL and the RBs its not a valid excuse for not running more when they chose stable of RBs and the OL, it was by their own choice they didn't run more.

2nd to last rushing attempts in the NFL and nearly identical pass-run ratio here and in Houston.

What does that tell you?

---------- Post added May-18th-2011 at 08:41 PM ----------

That's your opinion, I think many would disagree. The team's not bringing VY in because "he's the man for the job" they're be bringing him in for competition at a position they don't currently have settled.

Do you think a coach known for success with QB can have to back to back failures at the QB postion?

I don't.

[texasthunder]

Man, the compelling arguments on both sides are great reading.

And those that posted the stats and numbers, well your efforts are appreciated.

However, IMHO all the stats and numbers are not compelling enough.

They are great to look at, and they give us a insight as to Kyles and Mikes tendencies regarding the run vs pass.

But I still say it has more to do with all the players involved. And I truely believe that Kyle is smart enough to taylor his

play calling to the strengths of the personel he has to work with.

Yes, the numbers are great, but lets not forget the variable known as the human element.

[KDawg]

You're making the assumption that he likes to pass over run.

That's not an assumption. It's fact.

When you have Andre Johnson and Matt Schaub and little semblance of a running game of course you're going to choose to pass..

Actually, his pass/run ratio was 56/44 with the Texans, in both years. In Washington it was 63/37. He threw more with the quarterback challenged Redskins than with the best receiver in the NFL and a very good quarterback.

I can make the assumption that Kyle is a logical OC and gets the ball to his playmakers. Either way it's an assumption.

I can agree here. Except last year in Washington when we kept throwing the ball and went completely away from the run time and time again...Torain averaged 4.5 yards a carry for us. Keiland averaged 4.0 yards a carry and Portis averaged 4.2 yards a carry. Why throw the ball 63% of the time when your quarterback was the definition of not good? That's not getting the ball to your playmakers. The more we relied on QB play...

We threw 37.8 times per game...

The less of a chance we had to win, in my opinion. Our running game, for the most part, was consistant. As a team we averaged 4.2 yards per carry. Why go to a pass happy offense?

Again... That's not putting the ball in the guys hands that need to have it.

You know what our highest RB ranking was according to DVOA? 30th, Torain was ranked 30th. Multiple teams have two running backs ranked higher than our 1st, as I said Kyle wasn't working with much of a rushing attack last year.

Or... Could that have been because of Kyle's playcalling? Again, Torain himself only played in 10 games. He averaged 4.5 yards per carry and had 742 yards with an offensive coordinator who ran the ball 37% of the time.

How anyone didn't see that for their for own eyes I don't know. Bad o-line, RB past his prime, and journeymen RB what does that equation add up to ya think?

I can't believe you don't see that we had Donovan McNabb, a non-fit for the offense and quarterback, a bad oline for pass pro (which, by the way, was a much better offensive line when we ran the ball) and a journeyman quarterback in Grossman. And we STILL threw 63% of the time. 63%. That number is freakin' gigantic.

That's your opinion, I think many would disagree. The team's not bringing VY in because "he's the man for the job"

Then we shouldn't bring a head case in. You're assuming he'd be okay being a backup. We don't know. Why give yourself the locker room strife? Willie Parker is still biting us in the ass, why wouldn't Young?

But I still say it has more to do with all the players involved. And I truely believe that Kyle is smart enough to taylor his

play calling to the strengths of the personel he has to work with.

I strongly disagree with this statement and was addressed above.

Yes, the numbers are great, but lets not forget the variable known as the human element.

As a football guy, I take the human element into account with every stat I post. And let me be honest with you, I don't see a guy in Vince Young who is any different than what his stats say.

If you throw a lot, he's not a fit for your offense.

And even when he's doing fairly well, like in 2010, he has a mental breakdown and throws a temper tantrum. I don't want him anywhere near the team. Effects of a negative persona linger. We've seen it happen time and time again. Yet people keep asking for it. It's amazing to me.

[Mahons21]

That's not an assumption. It's fact.

No what's fact is that the teams Kyle Shannahan has been the OC for have passed the ball more than run, it's also fact that he's had better players for the passing attack then the rushing attack.

Saying he chose to pass over the run because it's his preference is an assumption and saying he likes to get the ball to his playmakers is an assumption. The causation is what we're talking about here and either way it's assumption.

I don't know if I'm not elaborating this properly or what, but no one seems to be getting it.

Actually, his pass/run ratio was 56/44 with the Texans, in both years. In Washington it was 63/37. He threw more with the quarterback challenged Redskins than with the best receiver in the NFL and a very good quarterback.

And there could be plenty of reasons for that, we were consistently behind trying to catch up, these are situations you're trying to pass.

I can agree here. Except last year in Washington when we kept throwing the ball and went completely away from the run time and time again...Torain averaged 4.5 yards a carry for us. Keiland averaged 4.0 yards a carry and Portis averaged 4.2 yards a carry. Why throw the ball 63% of the time when your quarterback was the definition of not good? That's not getting the ball to your playmakers. The more we relied on QB play...

Why is YPA so indicative to you guys. Last year the Skins had a better Ypa than the; steelers/raiders/chiefs/49ers/saints /Jets/Texans... We weren't even close to any of those teams, this YPA stat isn't very indicative of how good a RB is.

Like I said I don't like stats closing thing to a good one is DVOA, and many teams had multiple players ranked high than out top guy torain who was ranked 30th. ** have to leave for work**

We threw 37.8 times per game...

The less of a chance we had to win, in my opinion. Our running game, for the most part, was consistant. As a team we averaged 4.2 yards per carry. Why go to a pass happy offense?

Because our best RB was ranked 30th according to DVOA, we didn't have a talented RB corps or a strong o-line.

Or... Could that have been because of Kyle's playcalling? Again, Torain himself only played in 10 games. He averaged 4.5 yards per carry and had 742 yards with an offensive coordinator who ran the ball 37% of the time.

Again YPA is not the end all be all. Texans/Chiefs/Jets/Steelers arguably some of the best rushing teams in the NFL all ranked below us, that tells me this stat isn't very indicative of a teams rushing attack.

This is really getting off track though, it's become a discussion about the Redskins rushing attack which was putrid/lacking/bad any number of words you'd like to use. None of us should need a stat to tell us that though, because we all watched this team last year. Don't you people remember our rushing game?

Or... Could that have been because of Kyle's playcalling? Again, Torain himself only played in 10 games. He averaged 4.5 yards per carry and had 742 yards with an offensive coordinator who ran the ball 37% of the time.

You should take the time to look up what goes into the equation for DVOA. I'm not sure at this point you have a good grasp on it.

I can't believe you don't see that we had Donovan McNabb, a non-fit for the offense and quarterback, a bad oline for pass pro (which, by the way, was a much better offensive line when we ran the ball) and a journeyman quarterback in Grossman. And we STILL threw 63% of the time. 63%. That number is freakin' gigantic.

DVOA the only ranking I know of for o-lines, has our pass pro at 22 and rush blocking at 30th. I remember having better pass pro too, I don't know what you're remembering.

[KDawg]

No what's fact is that the teams Kyle Shannahan has been the OC for have passed the ball more than run, it's also fact that he's had better players for the passing attack then the rushing attack.

Which, logical inference (this part isn't fact, the pass/run ratio is, though) says it means he likes to throw more than he likes to run. And the part that's not a fact is your second sentence. In Washington, I don't believe that was the case. At least in terms of scheme fit. It all starts with the line, and the line seemed to operate better when we ran than when we passed. It's not a game of 7 on 7. It's 11 on 11, and that includes the lines.

And there could be plenty of reasons for that, we were consistently behind trying to catch up, these are situations you're trying to pass.

This is a partial truth. Truth in the fact that we were behind more often than we were ahead, absolutely.

McNabb threw a total of 94 passes when we had the lead.

He threw a total of 262 when we didn't. It's tough to argue the point that we were behind more often than not. However, most of the passes thrown when we were behind we us being behind from 1-8 points. 124 of 262 passes were thrown from that point range.

I'd agree, 100% that when we're down by 9 or more points, throwing the ball from behind is a necessity late in the game. So 138 of those passes make sense to me. However, the 124 thrown when we were down by 1-8 points is baffling. We still had a running game we could have went to. The team averaged 4.2 yards per carry and McNabb threw more picks than touchdowns. Why would we rely on him, down by a touchdown and a coversion, to carry us back?

When we were down by 1-8 points, Torain only carried the ball 40 times, Williams 19 times and Portis 3 times. Yet we threw the ball 138 times in that situation. So we ran the ball down 1-8 points 62 times and threw it 138 times.

Don't look now, but that's a 56/44 pass/run ratio. The same that Kyle had while he was in Houston. It's starting to look a lot less like coincidence.

Down 1-8 points is not the time to start panicking. Some of those passes were probably justified being late in the 4th, but I'd bet that most were just his preference. Again, this is an assumption, but one with numbers and an educated guess attached.

Why is YPA so indicative to you guys. Last year the Skins had a better Ypa than the; steelers/raiders/chiefs/49ers/saints /Jets/Texans... We weren't even close to any of those teams, this YPA stat isn't very indicative of how good a RB is.

I'm not sure where you're going with this... If anything, it helps prove my point.

We didn't run the ball enough.

Steelers: 11th ranked run game in terms of yards (4.1 yards per carry... Redskins were better)

Raiders: 2nd ranked run game in terms of yards (4.9 yards per carry... Redskins were not better as you indicate)

Chiefs: Best run game in terms of yards (4.7 yards per carry... The Redskins were not better as you indicate)

Jets: 4th ranked run game in terms of yards (4.4 yards per carry... The Redskins were not better as you indicate)

49ers: 19th ranked run game in terms of yards (Probably due to Gore being out) (4.1 yards per carry... Redskins were better)

Saints: 28th ranked run game in terms of yards (4.0 yards per carry... Redskins were better)

Texans: 7th ranked run game in terms of yards (4.8 yards per carry... Redskins were not better as you indicate)

I'm not sure why you used the 49ers or Saints as an example here, either. But, each of those teams ranked better than us in terms of total rushing yards on the season.

Of the seven teams you listed as having a worse YPC than the 'Skins, only three of them were actually worse than the Redskins. And two of those were near the bottom of the pack of the NFL in rushing yards...

But every ONE of those teams was still higher than the Redskins in total rushing yards. Every single one. The Redskins should have ranked better than at least three of those teams. Pittsburgh, New Orleans and San Francisco, using our average per carry. Yet, they all outgained us.

Pittsburgh outgained us by nearly 500 yards.

New Orleans outgained us by about 60 yards.

San Francisco outgained us by about 200 yards.

Like I said I don't like stats closing thing to a good one is DVOA, and many teams had multiple players ranked high than out top guy torain who was ranked 30th. ** have to leave for work**

You'd like them if your arguments made sense with the use of them, I'd bet

Your DYAR ranking that has Torain 30th also has Chris Johnson 31st. Do you honestly want to go by that system? It also has BenJarvus Green-Ellis as the third best back in the NFL.

Your DVOA ranking that has Torain 30th has Chris Johnson 33rd. BenJarvus Green-Ellis is 2nd. Felix Jones is 10th, Shonn Greene is 11th. Do you really think this is the best way to look at running backs? Frank Gore is ranked 34th. Behind Torain! Steven Jackson? 37th!

Because our best RB was ranked 30th according to DVOA, we didn't have a talented RB corps or a strong o-line.

Oakland's best running back was ranked 14th according to DVOA, yet they were 4th in attempts.

Atlanta's best running back was ranked 23rd according to DVOA, yet they were 5th in attempts.

Baltimore's best running back was ranked 19th according to DVOA, yet they were 6th in attempts.

Pittsburgh's best running back was ranked 26th according to DVOA, yet they were 8th in attempts.

St. Louis' best running back was ranked 37th according to DVOA, yet they were 14th in attempts.

You really didn't prove much by going this route with the argument... In fact, I think you helped to devalue the DVOA stat when it comes to running backs and thus devalue your point.

[armada58]

I actually think both are right. The argument can easily be made for and against. VY has that type of history where he can polarize a debate quite easily. Here's the thing and, there's no way around this.............. the ONLY way to solve this debate is for us know the price tag here. VY's price tag will tip this debate (quite easily) to one side or the other. Value absolutely becomes the determining factor in whether VY is worth it or not.

Show me the contract terms, and I'll tell you in 10 seconds whether VY should or shouldn't be a Redskin.

[Oldfan]

..

Trying to use the pass/run ratio to detemine what a coach wants to do, or what he ought to do, is a complex business, made so by these factors: 1) Coaches will adapt to the strengths and weaknesses of their personnel, especially by a very talented QB; 2) Coaches will adapt to what defenses give them; 3) Coaches will run more with a lead and pass more when playing catch up.

[KDawg]

Trying to use the pass/run ratio to detemine what a coach wants to do, or what he ought to do, is a complex business

Which is why I didn't go into using it blindly.

1) Coaches will adapt to the strengths and weaknesses of their personnel especially by a very talented QB;

Which is why I found it odd we threw more than ran (at least by such a wide margin... 63/37 is ridiculous), considering the weakness of the QB position.

2) Coaches will adapt to what defenses give them

Yet I remember during quite a few games getting frustrated when we completely abandoned the run game when it was working.

3) Coaches will run more with a lead and pass more when playing catch up.

I talked about this above. It holds true for Kyle... but Kyle also seems to have a penchant for throwing much more even when the game is close (within 1-8 points)

[Oldfan]

...Which is why I found it odd we threw more than ran (at least by such a wide margin... 63/37 is ridiculous), considering the weakness of the QB position.

It's relative weakness that we should be considering. Is it your impression that the QB position was weaker than the running game?

Yet I remember during quite a few games getting frustrated when we completely abandoned the run game when it was working.

I didn't see that.

The running game looked great in the first half of the TB game, but after Tampa made a defensive adjustment, they stuffed the run.

BTW: My post wasn't aimed at you specifically. It was brought on by Oldschool's thread quoted by DG. He did an admirable job presenting his stats, but he jumped to a couple of unsupported conclusions, IMO.

[KDawg]

It's relative weakness that we should be considering. Is it your impression that the QB position was weaker than the running game?

Yes. We had more overall success, I'd argue, with the run game than the pass game. But Kyle's reluctance to use the run game crippled the offense. Obviously, that in and of itself is tough to prove. But, it's my thought process.

BTW: My post wasn't aimed at you specifically. It was brought on by Oldschool's thread quoted by DG. He did an admirable job presenting his stats, but he jumped to a couple of unsupported conclusions, IMO.

Even if it was, I'm cool with it. I never say no to an opportunity to talk a little football.

[Oldfan]

Yes. We had more overall success, I'd argue, with the run game than the pass game. But Kyle's reluctance to use the run game crippled the offense. Obviously, that in and of itself is tough to prove. But, it's my thought process.

It's tough to prove you're right and equally tough to prove you wrong. The only thing I can tell you is that I didn't get the feeling we should be running more. However, I am very reluctant to criticize anyone's playcalling without knowing their rationale.

[JaxJoe]

At 54 yards per game avg., it's hard to argue our run game was more successful than our pas game. Yes, we ranked near the bottom of rush attempts per game, but we also were atrocious at negative yards per attempt. Breaking several runs of 10 or 12 yards skewed the 4.2 yard/carry stat for the season (rank 18th). But the reality is our running game stinks.

[KDawg]

At 54 yards per game avg., it's hard to argue our run game was more successful than our pas game. Yes, we ranked near the bottom of rush attempts per game, but we also were atrocious at negative yards per attempt. Breaking several runs of 10 or 12 yards skewed the 4.2 yard/carry stat for the season (rank 18th). But the reality is our running game stinks.

I disagree completely. And it's not hard to argue, I've made some decent arguments already without even delving into it.

Your yards per carry are your yards per carry. You can't take away big runs and count big negatives. It is what it is. That's first and foremost.

Do you have a link to where it says our negative yard carries is horrendous? Not that I don't believe you, I'd just like to see it.

---

We ranked 30th in the league in terms of rushing yards, while maintaining a 4.2 YPC statistic.

4.2 yards per carry has us ranked at 15th in the NFL for rushing average. We ranked 31st in total attempts. So a mediocre rush attack (4.2 ranked at 15th is just that, mediocre) but we didn't run the ball at all, having a 63/37 pass/run ratio.

Our rushing game accounted for 9 touchdowns, which is 24th in the NFL, tied with four other teams. Our rushing game accounted for six fumbles (10th best in the NFL, but to be fair here, more carries may have amounted to more fumbles)... That's a positive correlation of +3 (and that's assuming we lost all 6 fumbles. That said, I think when you fumble the ball it's always a turnover opportunity and should be counted against you)

Now let's look at our passing game.

We had the 8th ranked passing attack as far as yardage goes. Ok, cool. But we also had the 4th most attempts. We had 21 TD and 19 INT. That's a positive correlation of +2. (Not accounting for fumbles)

We took 46 sacks in the passing game. That ranks 5th worst in the NFL.

Our passing average of 7.0 yards ranked 16th in the NFL, mediocre. And one place below our rushing average.

Our quarterback rating, as a team, was ranked 22nd at 78.0.

We also ranked 22nd in touchdowns scored through the air and had the 11th most picks thrown.

With a quarterback rating of 78.0, and being ranked slightly lower in average than rushing... I think an argument can be made that our rushing attack was just as formidable, if not more formidable than our passing attack.

Conversely, I think it can be also argued that both blew. In which case, if both stunk, why wouldn't you get closer to a 50/50 split and allow for a ball control offense? Especially with one of the worst defenses in the NFL? By passing all the time, we allowed opposing teams more opportunity to put points up on a shoddy defense. This is a flawed strategy.

I can see an argument for both sides being bad, both rush and pass... But I'm not sure about the argument that our pass game was actually better than the run game. If you're counting negative plays, you also have to count negative plays in the pass game, which were plentiful.

[texasthunder]

I still say the stats do not provide concrete evidence as to how a player is going to perform with a change of team or system.

There are plenty of instances of players doing bad/average on one team and going to a different team and doing well.

And visa versa, players doing really good and then the change to a different team/system, their performance drops.

And there are probally some examples of players with good stats that are doing well in their new system.

I would classify it as the human element I was referring to earlier.

[KDawg]

I still say the stats do not provide concrete evidence as to how a player is going to perform with a change of team or system.

There are plenty of instances of players doing bad/average on one team and going to a different team and doing well.

And visa versa, players doing really good and then the change to a different team/system, their performance drops.

And there are probally some examples of players with good stats that are doing well in their new system.

I would classify it as the human element I was referring to earlier.

I don't neccessarily disagree. I think you have a solid point. My point, through all the stats is that Young will not be any different and he is who he is. That's my personal thought process.

[Enter Apotheosis]

KDawg, you also need to consider that our ability to pick up consistent yardage alters the pass/run ratio regardless of the score or coach's tendencies. If we run or pass poorly on first and/or second down then we're stuck in a third down situation where it doesn't even make sense to run the ball. McNabb's inability complete easy, short yardage passes and preference for deep, low-percentage throws may have actually forced us to put the ball in his hands more. Torain's tendency as a boom or bust runner didn't help much, either.

[KDawg]

KDawg, you also need to consider that our ability to pick up consistent yardage alters the pass/run ratio regardless of the score or coach's tendencies. If we run or pass poorly on first and/or second down then we're stuck in a third down situation where it doesn't even make sense to run the ball. McNabb's inability complete easy, short yardage passes and preference for deep, low-percentage throws may have actually forced us to put the ball in his hands more. Torain's tendency as a boom or bust runner didn't help much, either.

I'm aware of that. But all the more reason why we should have run more often. I said as much without going into detail earlier in the thread.

Remember, I'm a football guy.

[Mahons21]

Quick notes. YPA is a ridiculous stat for an RB.

Rushing for; 2, 1, -1, 2, 3, 2, -2, 3, 2, 60.

That's a 7.2 ypa... But not a good rushing attack if you're playing ball-control (like most rushing offenses) or actually expecting to move the chains.

In addition I never said DVOA was THE stat, or even 100% accurate, I only use it because it is more accurate.

Still yet to see a descent argument why Young shouldn't come.

Why he should come is quite easily said, he gives this team the possibility to lock up the QB position for 5-8 years.

EDIT: I would also like to add nice to see a lot of you guys are debating again.

[Oldfan]

...Still yet to see a descent argument why Young shouldn't come....

Have you seen any evidence at the college or pro level to cause you to believe that Vince can run anybody's disciplined offense efficiently? Have you seen any evidence at the pro level that Vince is so gifted as a QB that you could just wind him up and let him go out there and do his thing?

My answer is "no" to both questions.

That's my argument.

[darrelgreenie]

KDawg, you also need to consider that our ability to pick up consistent yardage alters the pass/run ratio regardless of the score or coach's tendencies. If we run or pass poorly on first and/or second down then we're stuck in a third down situation where it doesn't even make sense to run the ball. McNabb's inability complete easy, short yardage passes and preference for deep, low-percentage throws may have actually forced us to put the ball in his hands more. Torain's tendency as a boom or bust runner didn't help much, either.

I agree, but even then a team chooses what they do on 1st down: pass/run.

Kyle has shown a penchant for 1st down passing, (even by his own admission) and there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

But when any team passing a lot on 1st down decreases the efficiency (gets them off schedule i.e 2nd 10); as opposed to 1st down runs, especially when the QB isn't executing the offense at a high level of efficieny.

You can blame it on McNabb, but continuing to be heavily imbalanced towards the passing game with a QB that was having 'issues' or struggling didn't/doesn't seem wise.

Was Torrain a boom and bust runner?

---------- Post added May-19th-2011 at 04:01 PM ----------

Quick notes. YPA is a ridiculous stat for an RB.

Rushing for; 2, 1, -1, 2, 3, 2, -2, 3, 2, 60.

C'mon sometimes I think you like to argue just to argue.

If you want dissprove the relevance of Torrains YPA why not chart his runs?

I'm fairly certain his YPA isn't skewed by a bunch of long runs.

Re: Run/Pass ratio.

There is such a large number of plays in the course of a season that I think its indicative of a coaches preference.

I don't think run/pass ratio is a fluke or circumstantial.

Its not a fluke to me that Mike Shanahan is near 50/50 for his career or that Andy Reid is near 60/40.

[Oldfan]

... Was Torrain a boom and bust runner?

He isn't that type of runner, but I think the ZBS is a boom-or-bust scheme. It seems like a lot of its yardage is produced by big plays.

Torran isn't elusive enough to maximize that scheme, IMO.