3 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

Right.  Wasn't this what everyone was complaining about over the last several years?  How they would come out flat but "turn it on" in the 2nd half?   How they "needed to play 4Q of football" etc etc

Yea, if anything, it was the slow starts in the last couple years that stick out more to me than a lack of adjustments in the second half of games.

1 minute ago, NCiggles said:

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2018/rushing-success-and-play-action-passing 

Putting this all together, I cannot find any support for the success of play-action passing being related in any way to a team's rushing statistics, whether measured by frequency or effectiveness.

Correlation doesn't equal causation no? If the above were true why do defenders sometime react more strongly to play action than other times. Why do LBs sometimes get sucked in and other times not. Is it just a fluke? 

I don't think this is a phenomenon that can be explained with stats, I think amore effective way would be to ask the players why they reacted the way they did in different situations.

For instance if an O has a 3rd and 1, defense may bite harder on the run than they would on a 3 and 9 whether the O has passed 50 straight times.

I think it comes down more to situations that aren't taken into account of extrapolating the stats.

Common football convention says that if one runs the ball 7 times in a row then calls a play action that that play action pass has a higher chance of being more effective than if one threw the ball 7 times in a row then called a play action no? 

Now in today's game where the run game is an after thought as teams sling the ball 50 times a game maybe it doesn't matter anymore which would be me being stuck in football of the past.

Either way while I can appreciate the stat analysis I don't think like most stats they explain the whole pic.

12 minutes ago, Connecticut Eagle said:

Rank	3Q	2H
2016	8	12
2017	2	2
2018	6	7
2019	5	10

 

<Mic drop>

Was this due to in game adjustments or just finally executing the same plays? Because to be honest I haven't really noticed much difference in the play calling from one half to the next under Pederson.

19 minutes ago, Utebird said:

Yes and if an O has established the threat to run those defenders tend to react and bite harder.

When one runs the ball 5 times and passes 20 times the defenders aren't going to react as strongly to the threat of run.

 

17 minutes ago, NCiggles said:

Do you have evidence of that because statistically there's no evidence of defenders reacting more.  

 

14 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

Wrong. 

He is pretty close to correct. I played DB in college and players during prep during the week are coached up on the team schemes, tendencies etc. Play action % is mentioned during the week and if we should fully respect that hand off or delay on the hand off and stick with your assignment until we are sure its a run. There are little tell signs if they are really running. Rec starts to run block is the given, is not really trying on his release/route and a few more tells. The recs that have the least tells make it very hard. 

But yes players do react differently based off the team they play. This is all determined the week before the game and will change with in game adjustments. 

3 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

To think that a PA pass after 30 runs and 5 passes has the same result as a PA pass after 34 passes and 1 run is silly. 

Go look at Tennessee 

How many examples are there of a team running play action after a 30-5 ratio?

The idea isn’t to never run, it’s to run just enough for teams to honor play action. That number would have to be incredibly low for teams to tell their defenders to stop reading their keys and to just drop back in coverage. 

5 minutes ago, myerstheman said:

He will be reported out for the season in a few weeks.

Makes sense. Gotta burn those roster spots on at least one guy, as is tradition.

4 minutes ago, Utebird said:

Correlation doesn't equal causation no? If the above were true why do defenders sometime react more strongly to play action than other times. Why do LBs sometimes get sucked in and other times not. Is it just a fluke? 

I don't think this is a phenomenon that can be explained with stats, I think amore effective way would be to ask the players why they reacted the way they did in different situations.

For instance if an O has a 3rd and 1, defense may bite harder on the run than they would on a 3 and 9 whether the O has passed 50 straight times.

I think it comes down more to situations that aren't taken into account of extrapolating the stats.

Common football convention says that if one runs the ball 7 times in a row then calls a play action that that play action pass has a higher chance of being more effective than if one threw the ball 7 times in a row then called a play action no? 

Now in today's game where the run game is an after thought as teams sling the ball 50 times a game maybe it doesn't matter anymore which would be me being stuck in football of the past.

Either way while I can appreciate the stat analysis I don't think like most stats they explain the whole pic.

I would love to see examples of LBs not biting on play action. Even two false steps is a huge win. You don’t need them to take five. 

4 minutes ago, DeathByEagle said:

 

 

He is pretty close to correct. Players during prep during the week are coached up on the team schemes, tendencies etc. Play action % is mentioned during the week and if we should fully respect that hand off or delay on the hand off and stick with your assignment until we are sure its a run. There are little tell signs if they are really running. Rec starts to run block is the given, is not really trying on his release/route and a few more tells. The recs that have the least tells make it very hard. 

But yes players do react differently based off the team they play. This is all determined the week before the game and will change with in game adjustments. 

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2019/06/nfl-establish-the-run-play-action-pass-stats

 

He's wrong.

Just now, LeanMeanGM said:

Makes sense. Gotta burn those roster spots on at least one guy, as is tradition.

Think about this year.  Hargrave, Hurts, Jeffrey

2 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

I would love to see examples of LBs not biting on play action. Even two false steps is a huge win. You don’t need them to take five. 

It's not whether they are biting it's how hard they are.

1 hour ago, ManuManu said:

Looks to me like the linebacker was underneath to take away the draft snide route. Because we were in max protect with the two TEs, the corner at the bottom of the screen was dropping into coverage and would have taken Reagor. 

It’s possible that Wentz could have waited for Reagor to clear the LB, but him throwing the ball that quickly tells me he expected Reagor to sit. 

 

Burning a spot would be very on brand for this team and staff.

1 hour ago, LeanMeanGM said:

If Lane is back I hope they slide Driscoll over to RG. I really have no interest in seeing Herbig starting again. 

Made the same comment yesterday after re-watching the game. Herbig just isn’t good enough. On tape it wasn’t just the communication issues he just wasn’t good enough at this level of football. 

6 minutes ago, Utebird said:

It's not whether they are biting it's how hard they are.

Which is, again, a result of what they are coached to do based on what they see.

It's not just the QB faking to the RB.  Tennessee, SF, and LAR are effective play action teams because they are good at setting pass protection after their OL show a run blocking scheme.

Will a LB bite as much on 3rd and long?  Probably not.  But the QB may just need a half-second delay to make the play work.

12 minutes ago, DeathByEagle said:

 

 

He is pretty close to correct. I played DB in college and players during prep during the week are coached up on the team schemes, tendencies etc. Play action % is mentioned during the week and if we should fully respect that hand off or delay on the hand off and stick with your assignment until we are sure its a run. There are little tell signs if they are really running. Rec starts to run block is the given, is not really trying on his release/route and a few more tells. The recs that have the least tells make it very hard. 

But yes players do react differently based off the team they play. This is all determined the week before the game and will change with in game adjustments. 

That’s where marrying your run game and pass game comes into play. Make your play action look just like your staple run plays. 

4 minutes ago, Connecticut Eagle said:

Which is, again, a result of what they are coached to do based on what they see.

It's not just the QB faking the the RB.  Tennessee, SF, and LAR are effective play action teams because they are good at setting pass protection after their OL show a run blocking scheme.

Will a LB bite as much on 3rd and long?  Probably not.  But the QB may just need a half-second delay to make the play work.

Right.  I don't think anyone is doubting that the defense could "bit harder" on play action if a team runs the ball 40 times.  The idea is that they "bite enough" (on average) to afford the QB 1/2 second more to make a decision. 

12 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2019/06/nfl-establish-the-run-play-action-pass-stats

 

He's wrong.

Just read that.

have these stat nerds played football? I have in highschool deathbyeagle has in college.

It's human nature to want to crash down on the run harder if a team is running the ball down your throat. 

Stats are a good way to try and tell a story and they don't tell the whole story.

You can say the stats attempt to disprove my comments and I can say anecdotal evidence suggest otherwise, whose right or wrong. I say neither as stats or anecdotes are neither truth or false they are tools to attempt to support a truth.

For instance here's a stat 97% of stats are lies🧐

 

 

1 minute ago, Utebird said:

Just read that.

have these stat nerds played football? I have in highschool deathbyragle has in college.

It's human nature to want to crash down on the run harder if a team is running the ball down your throat. 

Stats are a good way to try and tell a story and they don't tell the whole story.

You can say the stats attempt to disprove my comments and I can say anecdotal evidence suggest otherwise, whose right or wrong. I say neither as stats or anecdotes are neither truth or false they are tools to attempt to support a truth.

For instance here's a stat 97% of stats are lies🧐

 

 

Ok Karen. 

Just now, TorontoEagle said:

Ok Karen. 

Ok boomer🤔

2 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

I dont care if you are the best selling play action passing team in the world, if you do pass 85% of the time it wont do ish

You’re taking a real conversation and dumbing it down with your exaggerated hypothetical. 

3 minutes ago, Utebird said:

Just read that.

have these stat nerds played football? I have in highschool deathbyragle has in college.

It's human nature to want to crash down on the run harder if a team is running the ball down your throat. 

Stats are a good way to try and tell a story and they don't tell the whole story.

You can say the stats attempt to disprove my comments and I can say anecdotal evidence suggest otherwise, whose right or wrong. I say neither as stats or anecdotes are neither truth or false they are tools to attempt to support a truth.

For instance here's a stat 97% of stats are lies🧐

 

 

Maybe you "crash harder" but the point is all you have to do is crash a little to make it effective. The stats aren't based on how bad they got fooled only that it worked.

1 minute ago, ManuManu said:

You’re taking a real conversation and dumbing it down with your exaggerated hypothetical. 

This what he does. 

 

1 minute ago, greend said:

Maybe you "crash harder" but the point is all you have to do is crash a little to make it effective. The stats aren't based on how bad they got fooled only that it worked.

Exactly.

2 minutes ago, Utebird said:

Ok boomer🤔

Naw, I'm not even close to a boomer, but good try. Keep on with your anti-intellectualism, I'm sure it's served you so well. 

1 minute ago, TorontoEagle said:

Naw, I'm not even close to a boomer, but good try. Keep on with your anti-intellectualism, I'm sure it's served you so well. 

I'm a boomer and it's pretty cool if I do say so myself.