Author
Topic: 100 RBs who had lots of carries and didn't stink
(Read 17126 times)

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #322 on:** April 06, 2020, 03:16:46 PM »

Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on April 06, 2020, 02:12:56 PM

Now along these lines, and this may be 25 years too late, but teams SHOULD pass more. They should pass more because the average pass attempt is much higher than the average rush attempt. You should pass enough so that those numbers get close (diminishing return). Same with the backup or more-talented RB....get him more carries until his ypc gets close to the starter's.

I think there's a lot to be said for that, but as I've argued before, sometimes you're balancing average with variance.

Passing has higher average ypp than rushing, but I'd argue that it also has higher variance in ypp than rushing.

My belief is that the stronger your team is, the more you rely on low-variance strategies because you trust your talent to beat the opposition. A high-variance strategy might hang 75 points on a mid-P5 team, but it offers a lot more opportunities for turnovers, stalled drives, etc that might allow a worse team to beat you.

The weaker your team, the more you need to rely on high-variance strategies because you're at a talent shortfall. Maybe it'll mean you get blown out too often, but it gives you more opportunity to beat a team you "shouldn't".

Obviously it's not binary. Alabama's strategy when facing LSU or Clemson is going to be different than their strategy when facing Towson. So it helps to have the ability to go either way. But I don't think it's one size fits all.

OrangeAfroMan · « **Reply #323 on:** April 06, 2020, 03:18:38 PM »

Is passing riskier? I guess that depends on your passing game. I've been producing hundreds of teams for my Whoa Nellie game, and year-by-year, the closer you get to 2020, the far more you have QBs averaging only 1-2% interceptions. It's astounding. It's safer to pass now than ever before in a time when passing is up like never before.
.
What's the difference between a WR screen gaining 4 yards and a run for 4 yards, when it comes to the clock?

OrangeAfroMan · « **Reply #324 on:** April 06, 2020, 03:20:31 PM »

Quote from: bwarbiany on April 06, 2020, 03:16:46 PM

I think there's a lot to be said for that, but as I've argued before, sometimes you're balancing average with variance.

Passing has higher average ypp than rushing, but I'd argue that it also has higher variance in ypp than rushing.

My belief is that the stronger your team is, the more you rely on low-variance strategies because you trust your talent to beat the opposition. A high-variance strategy might hang 75 points on a mid-P5 team, but it offers a lot more opportunities for turnovers, stalled drives, etc that might allow a worse team to beat you.

The weaker your team, the more you need to rely on high-variance strategies because you're at a talent shortfall. Maybe it'll mean you get blown out too often, but it gives you more opportunity to beat a team you "shouldn't".

Obviously it's not binary. Alabama's strategy when facing LSU or Clemson is going to be different than their strategy when facing Towson. So it helps to have the ability to go either way. But I don't think it's one size fits all.

Definitely, great points about individuality and variance.
The moment I read 'low-variance' I thought of Alabama, pre-Tua, under Saban.
.
The pass vs rush thing is more wide-scope, for sure. Just a generalization of philosophy and math.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #325 on:** April 07, 2020, 09:39:27 AM »

Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on April 06, 2020, 03:18:38 PM

.
What's the difference between a WR screen gaining 4 yards and a run for 4 yards, when it comes to the clock?

1. The WR might drop the ball, or have the pass thrown at his feet or over his head.
2. He is more apt to run out of bounds, if that means clock stoppage.

FearlessF · « **Reply #326 on:** April 07, 2020, 09:45:50 AM »

and if the pass is over his head it might be INT for 6 the other way

of course that would stop the clock

OrangeAfroMan · « **Reply #327 on:** April 07, 2020, 12:05:21 PM »

LOL, well, yeah, I guess. And the QB could fall over and fumble the handoff, I guess. I suppose you'd just want to avoid having players playing like those actors in infomercials who can't seem to do anything - spilling the spaghetti on the floor or storing normal pots and pans.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #328 on:** April 07, 2020, 12:06:43 PM »

ANY pass entails higher risk than a simple hand off, statistically.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #329 on:** April 07, 2020, 12:24:04 PM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on April 07, 2020, 12:06:43 PM

ANY pass entails higher risk than a simple hand off, statistically.

According to Football Outsiders, the best OL in the league in 2019, Dallas, has a 13% likelihood of a run being stuffed, i.e. tackled at or behind the LOS. The worst, Miami, was 26%, but only 9 of 32 were 21% or higher.

Contrast that to completion percentage. Brees was at the high end, besting 75% this year, but only 3 players were over 70%. The bulk were between 60-70%, with only three players finishing below 60%. (Qualified by minimum 200 attempts--there are several starters who didn't qualify with 200 attempts below 60% though, most of whom failed to qualify due to seasons limited by injury).

So not taking into account fumbles, interceptions, sacks, somewhere under 20% of runs will be zero (or negative) yards for most teams, while somewhere between 30-40% of passes will be zero yards.

That's my point when it comes to variance. The NFL average is 4.26 ypc, so two "average" runs should leave 3rd and short. Two mediocre runs in a row, let's say half of average, or one stuffed run and one average run, and you might be facing 3rd and 5 or 6, where you're still in intermediate territory and may have a run or a pass option. Two incomplete passes in a row and you're in 3rd and 10 and in an obvious passing situation.

The way to win football games is to move the chains in sustained drives. Variance where 30-40% of your plays go for zero yards can stall drives even if the average of those plays is higher.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #330 on:** April 07, 2020, 12:28:10 PM »

Well, which tactic runs clock best is pretty obvious.

847badgerfan · « **Reply #331 on:** April 07, 2020, 12:34:23 PM »

"3 things can happen when you throw a pass, and 2 of them are bad."

- WW Hayes

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #332 on:** April 07, 2020, 12:51:00 PM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on April 07, 2020, 12:28:10 PM

Well, which tactic runs clock best is pretty obvious.

FYI I was trying to expand on your post, not disagreeing ;-)

But the point extends beyond running clock. Running clock isn't a concern unless it's late in the game and you're trying to protect a lead. The difference between variance and average exists during the whole game.

A pass is riskier than a run because it has a higher likelihood to be zero or negative yards. I didn't include sacks because I don't know if those statistically factor into completion percentage, and I didn't include completed passes which are tackled for no gain or negative yards because I couldn't find stats on that.

847badgerfan · « **Reply #333 on:** April 07, 2020, 12:54:22 PM »

Quote from: bwarbiany on April 07, 2020, 12:51:00 PM

FYI I was trying to expand on your post, not disagreeing ;-)

But the point extends beyond running clock. Running clock isn't a concern unless it's late in the game and you're trying to protect a lead. The difference between variance and average exists during the whole game.

A pass is riskier than a run because it has a higher likelihood to be zero or negative yards. I didn't include sacks because I don't know if those statistically factor into completion percentage, and I didn't include completed passes which are tackled for no gain or negative yards because I couldn't find stats on that.

They don't. They count in rushing stats, officially.

Some "dorks" keep track though. I do, when, let's say UW goes for 500 rushing yards but is only credited with 465. Damn sacks!!

OrangeAfroMan · « **Reply #334 on:** April 07, 2020, 01:01:22 PM »

I get all of that. I didn't suggest teams should only pass, but pass more, up to the edge of the statistical success of run and pass being equal.
.
A balanced offense isn't 50/50 run/pass. That's balanced in a vaccum, but we all know teams run the ball when up big, run the ball when running out the clock (both at the half and end-of-game), etc. It's closer to 40/60 is actually balanced...42-58 or 43-57, to be more specific.
.
Balance is key for avoiding being predictable. You should also do what you do best more often. Anyway, all of this is all pooled together in an effort to be maximally effective, obviously.
All I'm saying is that teams should pass more and in the last 20 years, they have. I think I'd credit LaVell Edwards and Bill Walsh the most, if I had to pick someone. I find it newsworthy when a sport actually does the more efficient thing rather than lean on old traditions. It's a good thing.

OrangeAfroMan · « **Reply #335 on:** April 07, 2020, 01:02:53 PM »

Quote from: 847badgerfan on April 07, 2020, 12:54:22 PM

They don't. They count in rushing stats, officially.

Some "dorks" keep track though. I do, when, let's say UW goes for 500 rushing yards but is only credited with 465. Damn sacks!!

Yeah, I think sack yardage should be it's own thing. So you have -50 in sack yardage and throw for 200 and run for 200, your total yards would be 350. The expectation that rush + pass yards = total yards would have to go away.

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.

Topic: 100 RBs who had lots of carries and didn't stink

betarhoalphadelta

Re: Top 100 RBs of All-Time

OrangeAfroMan

Re: Top 100 RBs of All-Time

OrangeAfroMan

Re: Top 100 RBs of All-Time

Cincydawg

Re: Top 100 RBs of All-Time

FearlessF

Re: Top 100 RBs of All-Time

OrangeAfroMan

Re: Top 100 RBs of All-Time

Cincydawg

Re: Top 100 RBs of All-Time

betarhoalphadelta

Re: Top 100 RBs of All-Time

Cincydawg

Re: Top 100 RBs of All-Time

847badgerfan

Re: Top 100 RBs of All-Time

betarhoalphadelta

Re: Top 100 RBs of All-Time

847badgerfan

Re: Top 100 RBs of All-Time

OrangeAfroMan

Re: Top 100 RBs of All-Time

OrangeAfroMan

Re: Top 100 RBs of All-Time