Chalk Talk: More on the Pistol Alignment, Why it's not just for Mobile QBs, Uzi Alignment

[Oldfan]

DG: You're right. I've always been a fan of Mike's Denver WCO and the Kubiac Texan's variant provided the OC maintains a run centric as opposed to pass centric approach.

 

 

I rarely criticize the playcalling and I don't concern myself much with the pass/run ratio. The playcalling has to adapt to the situation. Mike was right to call a 50/50 ratio when he had a good passing game going with Elway and a good running game going with Terrel Davis. He was also right in 2008 when he called for more passes than runs because he had Cutler, Marshall, et al in the passing game and didn't have a good, healthy RB on the roster.

 

I didn't criticize Kyle for being pass heavy in Houston. Their running game was dysfunctional when he was there.

 

-Spread: chief aim of using more spread formations is to benefit the running game- Spread to run not neccessarily spread to pass/the passing will come as a by product of the running.

 

 

That makes sense.

[darrelgreenie]

 

DG: You're right. I've always been a fan of Mike's Denver WCO and the Kubiac Texan's variant provided the OC maintains a run centric as opposed to pass centric approach.

 

 

I rarely criticize the playcalling and I don't concern myself much with the pass/run ratio. The playcalling has to adapt to the situation. Mike was right to call a 50/50 ratio when he had a good passing game going with Elway and a good running game going with Terrel Davis. He was also right in 2008 when he called for more passes than runs because he had Cutler, Marshall, et al in the passing game and didn't have a good, healthy RB on the roster.

 

I didn't criticize Kyle for being pass heavy in Houston. Their running game was dysfunctional when he was there.

2008 is the exception that proves the rule for me. Mike Shanahan's run/pass ratio for his career has been almost exactly 50/50. All things being equal a coaches pass/run ratio is of their own volition, e.g.example Andy Reid, Mike Martz, Josh McDaniels will generally be around 60+ pass/40- run. The pass/run ratio is part of their coaching identity that bears out over time. And barring exceptions, like above due to a devasting rash of injuries to the RB corps, pass/run ratio is evident year to year. Mike's Denver WCO maintain/fostered a run focus therefore when the gameplan results in pass/run ratio titled towards the pass its a deviation.

 

Kyle as the Redskins OC, with the thankful exception of this season, has been decidely pass centric despite clearly evident dysfunction in the passing game.

[Oldfan]

DG:...All things being equal a coaches pass/run ratio is of their own volition, e.g.example Andy Reid, Mike Martz, Josh McDaniels will generally be around 60+ pass/40- run. The pass/run ratio is part of their coaching identity that bears out over time...

 

 

IMO, the pass/run ratio is a useless stat. However, it could be made more interesting if broken down by the score. 

 

Most coaches in the modern game are like Bill Walsh who passed more to get a lead and then ran more to hold it. When the game ended, the 50/50 ratio says nothing about Walsh's strategy. Had he coached losing teams, his ratio would have been closer to 60/40.

 

Walsh didn't win games because his pass/run ratio was 50/50. His pass/run ratio was at 50/50 because he won games.

[darrelgreenie]

 

DG:...All things being equal a coaches pass/run ratio is of their own volition, e.g.example Andy Reid, Mike Martz, Josh McDaniels will generally be around 60+ pass/40- run. The pass/run ratio is part of their coaching identity that bears out over time...

 

 

IMO, the pass/run ratio is a useless stat. However, it could be made more interesting if broken down by the score. 

 

Most coaches in the modern game are like Bill Walsh who passed more to get a lead and then ran more to hold it. When the game ended, the 50/50 ratio says nothing about Walsh's strategy. Had he coached losing teams, his ratio would have been closer to 60/40.

I don't understand what you mean by useless stat. After all, you included that stat in the description of your offense.

 

I don't know whether or not Walsh was actually a 50/50 playcaller I've never looked it up. But, I disagree about run/pass ratio being effected very much season to season by factors other then the playcaller choice (barring major injuries). The coaches I've looked at in regards to pass/run ratio have been consistent over time (Mike Shanahan, Kyle Shanahan, Andy Reid, Josh McDaniels). Coaches do what they're going to do.

Sure some of the playcalls are dictated by situation but coaches always have a choice on how the approach a gameplan. Not all coaches abandon the run when they're down, some coaches will abandon the run before the game starts, some won't abandon the run regardless of score, some coaches will continue to pass even when they're winning; some coaches will choose to run the ball on 3rd and less then 3 yards, some coaches will pass the ball etc..etc.. The end result of their choices are reflected in their pass/run ratio.

 

 

Walsh didn't win games because his pass/run ratio was 50/50. His pass/run ratio was at 50/50 because he won games.

Was his pass/run ratio even 50/50? But, either way I don't think pass/run ratio is necessarily the reason why a coach wins or loses. But, a coordinators pass/run ratio can illustrate a coaches preference when it comes to the running game vs. the passing game. And the 70/30 pass run ratio you espouse in your offense would make you a decidedly pass focused playcaller/offense.

[Oldfan]

DG: ...But, a coordinators pass/run ratio can illustrate a coaches preference when it comes to the running game vs. the passing game. And the 70/30 pass run ratio you espouse in your offense would make you a decidedly pass focused playcaller/offense.

 

 

You are correct. I used the pass/run ratio to describe my preference. I didn't use it as a statistic. I didn't use it as a number to describe what happened on the field and then try to deduce a coach's preference from it.

 

We can't say that Kyle passed 60% of the time in Houston, therefore he prefers the pass over the run. That's not a logical deduction. So the stat is useless because it doesn't tell us whether he was forced to pass more than run by circumstance or if he did it just because he wanted to.

 

If you took all losing coaches over the last 20 years and compared them to all winning coaches, it's a safe bet that the losing coaches passed more than the winning coaches. That's because they were forced to pass more often by being behind on the scoreboard more often than the winning coaches. The stat doesn't tell us that running more is a better strategy or that winning coaches prefer the run more than losing coaches.

 

Like Walsh, Gibbs passed to gain the lead and then ran the infamous Riggo Drill to keep it. His career pass/run ratio would be worthless in discerning his preference when the score or personnel issues did not influence strategy -- and that's what you really want to know.

 

Coach X is a winner. He gets leads in the first half and keeps them in the second half. Over the course of a season, in the first half, his pass/run ratio is 60/40, in the second half it's 40/60. His 50/50 ratio for the season  would not tell us that he relies more on his passing game when the score is close and there's lots of time left on the clock.

[darrelgreenie]

 

DG: ...But, a coordinators pass/run ratio can illustrate a coaches preference when it comes to the running game vs. the passing game. And the 70/30 pass run ratio you espouse in your offense would make you a decidedly pass focused playcaller/offense.

 

 

You are correct. I used the pass/run ratio to describe my preference. I didn't use it as a statistic. I didn't use it as a number to describe what happened on the field and then try to deduce a coach's preference from it.

Scratches head......You said it describes your preference but then said that it doesn't show a coaches preference?

Then based on your logic why include it at all? Since by your logic your pass/run ratio is out of your control?

 

 

Suffice it say this is another area where we disagree.  I completely disagree that offensive coordinators have no control over the outcome of their pass/run ratio. Andy Reid, Mike McCarthy, Mike Martz, Scott Linehan, Kyle all have a pass/run ratio at or close to 60/40 even when they have winning records. Then you got teams like the Jags who are titled towards the run even when they have losing records.

 

Also, in your previous post you're arguing against claims that I didn't make. I didn't say that:

...that running more is a better strategy or that winning coaches prefer the run more than losing coaches

 

 

[Oldfan]

DG: Scratches head......You said it describes your preference but then said that it doesn't show a coaches preference?

 

 

That's correct. I can use the pass/run ratio to inform you of my preference. You cannot use the season's pass/run ratio as a statistic to determine a coach's preference. Those two statements are not in contradiction.

 

 

Then based on your logic why include it at all? Since by your logic your pass/run ratio is out of your control?

 

 

That's not my logic. Coaches have full control of their pass/run ratio given the circumstances, but you cannot determine their preference from a season's pass/run stat. You would need a breakdown by score to make the numbers useful. You would also need to consider other possible influences -- like the fact that their passing game and their running game are out of balance, one being much better than the other.

 

Also, in your previous post you're arguing against claims that I didn't make. I didn't say that:

 

 

If you put the line you clipped back into context, you will find that I didn't imply you said it either. I was making a point about the uselessness of the stat.

 

Bottom line: Coaches do have a preference whether to run or pass when the score is close and there is plenty of time left in the game, but that preference cannot be deduced from the season's pass/run stat since it is influenced by non-relevant factors.

[darrelgreenie]

 

Also, in your previous post you're arguing against claims that I didn't make. I didn't say that:

 

 

If you put the line you clipped back into context, you will find that I didn't imply you said it either. I was making a point about the uselessness of the stat.

But the point you're arguing against isn't my point.

 

Bottom line: Coaches do have a preference whether to run or pass when the score is close and there is plenty of time left in the game, but that preference cannot be deduced from the season's pass/run stat since it is influenced by non-relevant factors.

Coaches preference extends far beyond that narrow window you express above.

 

For example many teams script their 1st 10-20 plays. They are calling those plays regardless of what the defense is doing (barring audibles). The coaches have complete choice over the those plays which make can make up any where between 15-30% of a teams playcalls using an average play total of 65. Coaches also have choice on most 1st down play calls, and 2nd and ~-5. 2nd and short etc.....

 

Sure some of the playcalls are dictated by situation but coaches always have a choice on how the approach a gameplan. Not all coaches abandon the run when they're down, some coaches will abandon the run before the game starts, some won't abandon the run regardless of score, some coaches will continue to pass even when they're winning; some coaches will choose to run the ball even when they're losing, some coaches will run on 3rd and less then 3 yards, some coaches will pass the ball etc..etc.. The end result of their choices are reflected in their pass/run ratio. Different coaches have different play call sheets with the different amounts of runs/passes in a given down and distance and these differences are their preferences and the end result total for the season is a reflection of those preferences.

 

I guess were gonna have to agree to disagree once again.

[Oldfan]

 DG: Coaches preference extends far beyond that narrow window you express above.

 

 

But, the one example you gave, scripted plays, falls within it. The early play selection isn't influenced by the score or the time remaining.

 

Sure some of the playcalls are dictated by situation but coaches always have a choice on how the approach a gameplan. Not all coaches abandon the run when they're down, some coaches will abandon the run before the game starts, some won't abandon the run regardless of score, some coaches will continue to pass even when they're winning; some coaches will choose to run the ball even when they're losing, some coaches will run on 3rd and less then 3 yards, some coaches will pass the ball etc..etc.. The end result of their choices are reflected in their pass/run ratio. Different coaches have different play call sheets with the different amounts of runs/passes in a given down and distance and these differences are their preferences and the end result total for the season is a reflection of those preferences.

 

 

It sounds like you are now expanding the word "preference" to mean that every call reflects the coach's preference. If he's passing more because he's behind on the scoreboard, one might call that a preference but I assumed you were talking about a preference not forced on him by circumstance. If Kyle's ratio at Houston was 60/40 and if I'm right that it was probably that high on the pass because of a dysfunctional running game, I don't call that a preference. Do you?

 

In any case, we have pretty much covered this one. I agree to disagree.