The unofficial online home for fans of the Western Michigan University Broncos. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

So I know I complain too often that we run too predictably on first down, and many here disagree, insisting that we are very talented in our backfield. This to me is a basic logic or commonsensical matter, as almost always defenses set themselves in primarily a run-stop formation on first down; and this is particularly true against offenses which run a lot, or have great running backs. But if you believe that you should take what the defense is giving, and the fact that the defense is hedging for the run, it leaves an advantage with the offense, IF the offense passes the ball. And also should be less pressure on the QB than say a third and long, or other more predictable passing downs. Likewise, when the defense is expecting a pass, in a typical third and long situation, and has personnel and a formation designed to defend the pass, it is much easier to run the ball. To the extent that offenses do this in the first half, defenses are not sure what the offense will do in the second half, and that provided a real advantage to the offense.

There have been several overviews of this very same thing over the years. Here are a few, and every one of them concludes the same thing (and the first link they literally say it over and over again); coaches are dumb.

http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blo...s-are-dumb

http://http://archive.advancedfootballan...-down.html

http://http://www.footballperspective.co...0-to-2016/

Send those links to Army's coach so he'll pass more, especially on 1st Down. No doubt that will help them win more.

Mike Leach never calls a running play, only passes. He does let his QB check to a run if defense has less than six in the box (3-2/4-1).

Is that dumb? Or smart?

Analyzing play calling-coaching is easy. If it doesn't work, it was a "dumb" play call. If you lose, it was the "strategy."

It seems like common sense that if the defense is already at a disadvantage against our run game, they'll pretty heavily game plan around that.

That alone should give our offense a huge leg up before the ball is even snapped.

Also, to Major's comment... using one offense that runs a triple option/flex bone (Army), and another that uses the air raid offense (Leach) as examples... those are absurd comparisons and extremes. You would think a football coach like yourself would understand how ridiculous of a comparison those are to the situation we are talking about at WMU.

As you know Major, the academies are built different, but I wont argue that if a team runs an offense which can keep the defenses off balance and on edge in terms of not knowing what is coming, and can become so polished with the plays they run, then it doesnt matter; they can run almost every down or pass almost every down, and still realize efficiency. The academies run offenses which dont allow the defense to identify who will have the ball in the end, and become very proficient running it (over and over). They also can bank on the fact that IF they call a pass play, because the defense will always be sucked in close to the line, the receiver or receivers will be open, likely with a single defender on an island. (I only wish Army's QB, Bradshaw, was even slightly better than a horrible passer). I love Leaches offenses. He takes advantage of conventional defenses, and scores a ton of points.

Analyzing play calling is actually easy. If it defies logic and reason, it is dumb. And if a coach makes it habit to continue to do dumb things his team will probably lose games it should otherwise win. Evidence: Sundays game.

I happen to agree, generally the more unpredictable the better. I don't think we'll see it until the coaches have confidence in the receivers catching every ball, this is not a team that can afford to get behind the sticks. Last year we had a great passing game and I was confident we could pick up anything inside 3rd and 15, because we rarely dropped passes and Zach had forever to make a great decision.

However, if you can run something the other team is expecting very well, you do that and wipe the other team's confidence from their souls. There's something to be said for that.

I agree that for best results have a QB who knows to throw the ball away or scramble for some yards if the play doesnt develop in a positive way. I dont think it is good to coddle a new QB though. Coach him, and be firm with what needs to be done. A reasonable amount of mistakes can be expected, as they can with any other position on the field. I think Wassink is indeed improving most weeks, and has the skill-set to be solid, if not better than that. Now give him the best chance to be successful by allowing him to toss the ball when the defenses are least expecting it.

My point was there are variables such as coach's philosophy (Leach) and personnel (Army).

As far as Strategy - for example, what is the difference between 2nd and 10, and 2nd and 9?

If it's the former, chances are the offense threw an incomplete pass on 1st Down, and (unless you're playing a Washington State, Texas Tech) they are probably going to run, even though it's a long yardage situation.

If it's the latter, the offense ran the ball for only one yard on 1st Down and now is highly likely to pass (unless it's Army or Navy).

Next time you watch a game see how often that holds true.

Do you know who Akron's DC is? Chuck Amato, who was DC at Florida State during Bobby Bowden's heyday and later HC at NC State.

So you can be reasonably sure given his experience he would have his defense prepared and calling a good game, and expecting to win by fooling them (passing when "they least expect it") and most FBS teams for that matter is not a good game plan.

It comes down to matchups and execution.

In FBS last year 15 of teams in top 17 in rushing yardage had winning seasons. Only 12 of the top 18 in passing yardage did. And of the those 18 only eight were in the top 17 in total offense.

Conversely all the teams in top 17 both in Rush Defense and Total Defense had winning seasons.

So it would appear, even in this age of Hurry Up-No Huddle Spread Offenses with more passing than ever, that being able to run the ball and stop the run defensively are the keys to winning.

It would be long and tedious to completely dissect this topic. Which is OK with me.

Short story. The basic premise, I surmise, is that WMU has a strong and deep run game. The proposal is that we pass more because teams are expecting us to run. The most elementary response is that if we do that we are doing exactly what the other team would hope we would do. That is, stop running so much and start passing. So give up what you do well.

If you're going to call something "non commonsensical", wouldn't that be almost the definition? Do less of what you are good at?

(10-18-2017 02:45 PM)Dirty Ernie Wrote:  It would be long and tedious to completely dissect this topic. Which is OK with me.

Short story. The basic premise, I surmise, is that WMU has a strong and deep run game. The proposal is that we pass more because teams are expecting us to run. The most elementary response is that if we do that we are doing exactly what the other team would hope we would do. That is, stop running so much and start passing. So give up what you do well.

If you're going to call something "non commonsensical", wouldn't that be almost the definition? Do less of what you are good at?

kimbosucks?

(10-18-2017 02:45 PM)Dirty Ernie Wrote:  It would be long and tedious to completely dissect this topic. Which is OK with me.

Short story. The basic premise, I surmise, is that WMU has a strong and deep run game. The proposal is that we pass more because teams are expecting us to run. The most elementary response is that if we do that we are doing exactly what the other team would hope we would do. That is, stop running so much and start passing. So give up what you do well.

If you're going to call something "non commonsensical", wouldn't that be almost the definition? Do less of what you are good at?

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.

Run until you can't. Make the defense stop you. Remember when Georgia Southern beat Florida in The Swamp without attempting a single pass? They were able to do that because that's their thing. They execute their one thing very well. Or, they used to anyways. Lol.

The point is...pound the rock. Wear down the defense. Then you can open up the playbook later if necessary. Run the ball, until you can't.

(10-18-2017 02:34 PM)MajorHoople Wrote:  My point was there are variables such as coach's philosophy (Leach) and personnel (Army).

As far as Strategy - for example, what is the difference between 2nd and 10, and 2nd and 9?

If it's the former, chances are the offense threw an incomplete pass on 1st Down, and (unless you're playing a Washington State, Texas Tech) they are probably going to run, even though it's a long yardage situation.

If it's the latter, the offense ran the ball for only one yard on 1st Down and now is highly likely to pass (unless it's Army or Navy).

Next time you watch a game see how often that holds true.

Do you know who Akron's DC is? Chuck Amato, who was DC at Florida State during Bobby Bowden's heyday and later HC at NC State.

So you can be reasonably sure given his experience he would have his defense prepared and calling a good game, and expecting to win by fooling them (passing when "they least expect it") and most FBS teams for that matter is not a good game plan.

It comes down to matchups and execution.

In FBS last year 15 of teams in top 17 in rushing yardage had winning seasons. Only 12 of the top 18 in passing yardage did. And of the those 18 only eight were in the top 17 in total offense.

Conversely all the teams in top 17 both in Rush Defense and Total Defense had winning seasons.

So it would appear, even in this age of Hurry Up-No Huddle Spread Offenses with more passing than ever, that being able to run the ball and stop the run defensively are the keys to winning.

The teams that are very successful running the ball, and thus in the top 15 statistically, are likely either so much better that there competition (Alabama playing almost anyone, or other good P5 schools beefing up running numbers when they play lowers competition), are specialty run teams, like the academies, or, teams that are not running predictably, and are calling plays as I am suggesting.

Make no mistake, I am not saying we shouldn't be running, or that we should pass more than run. I am suggesting, however, that we should not run regularly on first down until we get the defenses to stop loading the box. They will stop if we start throwing on first down and make a few plays.

"...the players to score at will"?

We have a rookie QB with inexperienced WRs, no one near a Corey Davis, and a TE that caught 9 passes last year because he was used mostly as a H-back (blocking back).

Sorry, judgie, but you know not of what you speak.

(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?

(10-18-2017 04:41 PM)brovol Wrote:  

(10-18-2017 02:45 PM)Dirty Ernie Wrote:  It would be long and tedious to completely dissect this topic. Which is OK with me.

Short story. The basic premise, I surmise, is that WMU has a strong and deep run game. The proposal is that we pass more because teams are expecting us to run. The most elementary response is that if we do that we are doing exactly what the other team would hope we would do. That is, stop running so much and start passing. So give up what you do well.

If you're going to call something "non commonsensical", wouldn't that be almost the definition? Do less of what you are good at?

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.

I concede. If only we would throw on first down. Got. It.

holy crap this has gotten out of hand...

I defer to Hoople on most of this diatribe as he's seemingly an educated voice of reason... I look at old school teams like the 1988 Notre Dame team that won the National Championship... All year they just pounded the rock... they BEGGED teams to stop them and still out executed them on the ground... Of course they had an ability to pass, but they used it only when they absolutely needed it or when they had already forced the defense to adjust leaving some blind mismatches... Lou Holtz had the philosophy of running the ball... if successful it kept the clock running and wore down and demoralized the opposing teams defensive front... The actual National Championship game was against West Virgina who was supposed to completely out athlete ND from a defensive perspective... What happened? ND continued to run the ball and and out executed that WV front...

My point is... WMU has the best chance of being succesful offensively right now using the run game to open the pass... They have the schemes and the blocking acumen to be consistently successful... YET... it seems like the OC tries to muddy the waters by throwing in some gadget play or taking entire series and throwing the ball... DO WHAT YOU DO BEST... and beg the other team to FORCE you into something different... At this point I think the last few games have provided us the reality that WMU has a focused running attack... and if used as its primary method of offense could be damning to most all defenses we will face...

One thing that ND team did... was not quit on the run game early on because it wasn't working... they BELIEVED that over time they could wear teams down and eventually it would open up and it DID... That Akron front on Sunday was gassed.. they were sucking wind and making more personnel changes down the stretch than I think they were used to... their #1 LB hobbled off the field with a shoulder injury mid second half after a Jarvion encounter... Gotta find a damn identity and right now running the ball is that identity!

(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.

Sorry but just because you’re a coach doesn’t give you instant credibility here like you wish it did.

Ever heard of occam’s razor?

Sometimes the simplest theory is the right theory. As someone else said, run it until they can stop you. Simple as that.

(10-18-2017 07:13 PM)Hoekjeness Wrote:  Sorry but just because you’re a coach doesn’t give you instant credibility here like you wish it did.

Ever heard of occam’s razor?

Sometimes the simplest theory is the right theory. As someone else said, run it until they can stop you. Simple as that.

Three rushes to open the game, against an 8 man front, for 4 yards, they stop you, forced to punt.

Now what? (not so simple)