brovol
Heisman
Posts: 5,947
Joined: Nov 2007
Reputation: 181
I Root For: WMU/ARMY
Location:
|
RE: Run/Pass Strategy
(10-18-2017 05:18 PM)MajorHoople Wrote: (10-18-2017 04:41 PM)brovol Wrote: Nope, that's not the premise at all.
The premise is that when a defense has 8-9 guys in the box to defend the run and are expecting the offense to run on that play, not only will it be virtually impossible to have a successful play running the ball, but the offense has a golden opportunity to be successful with a pass on that play. The opposite is also true, and thus a run can be very successful if it's a "pass down", and the defense has small numbers up front. These things are true regardless of how good a "run game" or "pass game" a team has, so long as they have both a run and a pass game (the academies really don't really have a typical pass offense, but rely upon the basic premise that we are discussing: they pass only because the defense has everyone in the box, and they know if they send a couple receivers out there is a very high likelihood that they will be wide open, and they almost always are. This premise is not only commonsensical, but is is supported by statistics.
I realize that this goes against the old school football maxims that football fans have been brainwashed for years to believe is smart football, just as baseball fans have been led to believe that the sacrifice bunt is "baseball wisdom" when in fact every statistical analysis ever done on that issue (and there have been tons of them) prove that, even assuming a team is successful with the sacrifice bunt, it has just reduced its chances of scoring by half, and also almost eliminated any chance of scoring multiple runs that inning. But, like football coaches who insist on "establishing the run", and pounding it on the ground on first down, baseball coaches who won't open there eyes keep giving away outs deliberately by trying to bunt runners from first to second.
WMU fans this year have watched our team and questioned why our run game wasn't as effective, and why, at least early on, our passing game looks substandard. My response is that we have both the plays and the players to be able to score at will against most teams. We need to quit trying to jam square pegs in round holes. We can still run more than we pass; let's just not run when defenses are hoping we will run, and passing when they know we have to pass. Keeping defenses scratching their heads is not a bad thing. Playing into their hands is. And is nonsensical.
So if the defense puts 8 players in the box, we should pass every 1st Down?
On 3rd Down when they are rushing three and dropping eight into coverage, then we should run?
As I posted earlier, you have to be able to run when defense is playing run (as well as Play-action pass)
and pass when everybody in stadium knows you have to.
Otherwise defense is dictating to you and that is the height of "predictability."
Also, you are not giving opposing defensive coordinators enough credit.
Other teams are coached-prepared too, you know?
Well coachie, I suspect you do actually understand the general concept I am professing, and I likewise expect that you don't necessarily disagree too much with it, and are challenging only to argue, but no, I am not saying that we should run every time the defense has eight men in the box. I am saying we should not predictably run on cue, and thus eliminate any "advantage" we have with our running game. Statistics prove this to be true, and it is actually not a novel concept. Frankly, it only those "old school" coaches who stick to those Bo schembechler/ woody Hayes three yard runs, punt, defend concepts who believe that is good football. And, respectfully, you give some DC's too much credit. Most are fairly predictable, but if not, and if they adjust, then so must the offense. That's what happens. No need to be owned by the defense, but if you are predicable on offense you will be allowing the defense to dictate. WMU has done just that this year; the last couple years not so much.
|
|