-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
NFL-OT | OFF-SEASON - A New Hope (Losers Only)
- Thread starter Fantomex
- Start date
Teams shouldn't run the ball either. Look at yards per carry vs yards per catch. Basic analytics.
I'm not saying they should, this point is being brought up because teams are now thinking they can utilize thier RB in place of slot receivers or TE and create mismatches, when in actuality, they are hurting their chances to score on any given down. RB touches, either rushing or receiving are inefficient and teams that are trying to do both (Giants, Dallas) are hurting their team. You can line your RB up in the slot, but not throw to them, you can also play action without having to establish the run, it works without needing to do so. RBs are replaceable as diapers and do not help any team score optimally, unless you are on the goal line or in third & 1/inches, and it is proven that QB sneaks offer better value than rushes there too.
I want him to make the squad but I don't see him making it over Harris unless Gruden let's Renfrow do PR/PK.
Brady should have never thrown to James White against ATL despite that being what the defense gave him and helping them win the SB cuz it wasn't the most efficient strategy based on analytics 😂
You can be reductive of any analytical based model with that line of thought "It worked for me once so it works" why you have so many stubborn coaches in this league.
If throwing to the RB moves the ball you keep doing it unless you're an idiot. You're also an idiot if you are throwing the ball to the RB and not moving the ball. It's not that complicated.
There is the aspect of how defensive coordinators react to RBs as well. If a defense would put a corner on a slot receiver but is stubborn about having linebackers cover RBs, then there is a mismatch to exploit. On a team by team basis, if that change is a downgrade for the defense, then it's more worthwhile.
Realistically throwing to RBs is a viable strategy in a number of scenarios, just maybe not quite as many scenarios as mainstream thought would lead you to believe.
Realistically throwing to RBs is a viable strategy in a number of scenarios, just maybe not quite as many scenarios as mainstream thought would lead you to believe.
Tom Brady Denied 'Tom Terrific' Trademark by U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Get fucked you racist cheating piece of shit.
Get fucked you racist cheating piece of shit.
There probably data suggesting throwing to a RB in the redzone is an efficient play, I thought Warren Sharp studied this but cannot find the data on it.
Either way, I see the trend of this becoming more mainstream, teams trading for backs that specialize in it or drafting backs who have good hands ect..
The way Dallas has been trying to establish not only a heavy run game but also passes to their RBs for the past three years now, it upsets me how averse they are to the evidence suggesting that plan is not an efficient one.
Lombardi trophy should be renamed to the Belichick trophy
and the AFC championship to Tom Terrific Trophy
and the AFC championship to Tom Terrific Trophy
All these analytics about "RB targets" are bunk. The vast majority of running back targets are dump offs, where the alternative is to throw a high risk throw down the field. Even if the EPA is 0.0 on the RB target, if all your other options were likely to be picked off instead, the RB Target is the clear best option. It's not always about making the play, sometimes it's about mitigating the risk involved with a play.
And all this "when targeted as a receiver, RBs still add less value" talk is ridiculous. Like, no shit, the running back isn't as good as a receiver as your normal receiver. But suddenly the defense has to react to a size or skill mismatch. It causes confusion. It opens up things for the other players on the offense. It leaks information about the defense to the QB. The Saints practically won a super bowl by doing this with Reggie Bush, just making defenses react to what MIGHT happen.
This doesn't even take into account that the RB, outside of screens, is NEVER the primary target of passing play. So yeah, the guys who's routes are literally set up to exploit holes in a defense? Theyre going to seem more efficient because the play was built that way. Meanwhile the "slot RB" is running some kind of backup route where if the defense reacts to those primary routes in a manner that defends them, the Slot-RB might be open somewhere else for an easy shorter gain. Which is deemed "inefficient" even though the alternative was an incomplete pass, an interception, or a dump off behind the line of scrimmage.
Analytics are great until people get too caught up in the pure statistics and don't look at the non-number factors and intangibles involved.
And all this "when targeted as a receiver, RBs still add less value" talk is ridiculous. Like, no shit, the running back isn't as good as a receiver as your normal receiver. But suddenly the defense has to react to a size or skill mismatch. It causes confusion. It opens up things for the other players on the offense. It leaks information about the defense to the QB. The Saints practically won a super bowl by doing this with Reggie Bush, just making defenses react to what MIGHT happen.
This doesn't even take into account that the RB, outside of screens, is NEVER the primary target of passing play. So yeah, the guys who's routes are literally set up to exploit holes in a defense? Theyre going to seem more efficient because the play was built that way. Meanwhile the "slot RB" is running some kind of backup route where if the defense reacts to those primary routes in a manner that defends them, the Slot-RB might be open somewhere else for an easy shorter gain. Which is deemed "inefficient" even though the alternative was an incomplete pass, an interception, or a dump off behind the line of scrimmage.
Analytics are great until people get too caught up in the pure statistics and don't look at the non-number factors and intangibles involved.
I've discussed the benefits of offensive looks where you are lining up the RB in the slot/outside and not throwing them the ball, just like benefiting more from play action based on the evidence that you do not need to run at all to set it up. You do not need to pass to the RB to create a good look. Team ARE doing this, however, and investing in ways to do this specifically, that is the issue. Teams are thinking they've found some hidden value in priotizing this, for a team I watch and want to win a SB, it is upsetting.
Warren Sharp also did a lot of research on this too, showing greater success passing to the RB on early downs, but even there it is not as efficient as passing to any other option.
Last edited:
Often passes to the RB are just an extension of the running game to chew up clock , run more plays, negate and slow down pass rush etc. Those things have value.
check downs to james white is basically how we beat the falcons
More to the Falcons deciding not to run the ball late when it was actually finally beneficial for them to do so.
it's basically how you beat anyone ever since Brady's arm retired in 2015.
I still say Zeke signs that offer that makes him the second highest paid RB and he's there week 1.
