First Down Play Calling - The Facts

[uconnflyer88]

Lies, Damn Lies and Statstistics (and a good portion of your stats are made up).

2nd & 7 is NOT reasonable. If it is, it's certainly not desirable. Look at it this way, If you gain 3 yards on each of 1st, 2nd and 3rd down, you end up with a 4th and 1, 3 and out, Punt. A decent run game should yield AT LEAST 4.0 yards/rush, not counting sacks (which count as a rush in the college game). Only converting 3 1st downs into an additional first down or 2nd & short is pathetic. 2nd & short affords you the opportunity to take a chance deep, which keeps the safeties and LB's honest.

So using your math, yes in a vacuum and premises (i.e. 2nd & 7 is a reasonable situation), running on first down yields a favorable percentage. But when an above average team KNOWS for certain that you are running, 2nd & 7 becomes 2nd and 8, 9, 10, or longer.

Not quite sure where the lies were....I literally displayed ALL my math right in front of you and yes they were all made up....that was the point

2nd and 7/6 IS most certainly reasonable

Am I saying it is ideal or what we should be striving for?....absolutely not

I stick by my math, I mean you can't deny anything I said, there are no opinions in my post, numbers don't lie

And I never talked about what to do on 2nd or 3rd down, YOU made that part up, all I was saying is that a 2nd and 7 opens up the playbook more than a 2nd and 10....because on 2nd and 10 the defense knows you are going to pass and passing leads to an interception a high percentage of the time than running it (at least with our team)

So please try and poke holes in my math.....you can't

 

[Chief00]

I will throw this out there:
1) The team doesn't play with emotion - hence less physicality in run blocking
2) Deleone's blocking schemes are very complicated - too much thinking not enough hitting

 

[businesslawyer]

I will throw this out there:
1) The team doesn't play with emotion - hence less physicality in run blocking
2) Deleone's blocking schemes are very complicated - too much thinking not enough hitting

As to the first point, I would not be surprised if the lack of emotion comes from having to restrain physicality in the runblocking, rather than the other way around.

 

[J187Money]

Simple ... I don't like to watch it.

Then how did you live through the post Orlovsky era?

 

[kcc1442]

Not quite sure where the lies were....I literally displayed ALL my math right in front of you and yes they were all made up....that was the point

2nd and 7/6 IS most certainly reasonable

Am I saying it is ideal or what we should be striving for?....absolutely not

I stick by my math, I mean you can't deny anything I said, there are no opinions in my post, numbers don't lie

And I never talked about what to do on 2nd or 3rd down, YOU made that part up, all I was saying is that a 2nd and 7 opens up the playbook more than a 2nd and 10....because on 2nd and 10 the defense knows you are going to pass and passing leads to an interception a high percentage of the time than running it (at least with our team)

So please try and poke holes in my math.....you can't

Ill poke holes because I'm bored........The problem with your math is saying that because we averaged 3.7 yards per rushing (against Buffalo let alone) (and yes that is without sacks factored in) we were on average sitting at 2 and 7/6 and 3rd and 3/2......The problem with AVERAGE rushing is it takes into affect outliers such as the 50 yard rushing TD by Hyppolite.....What would be more beneficial is to find the median range and discard the outliers......This would give you a better indication of where we sat the entire game......Our median range would probably sit a lot closer to 1.8 if I had to guess (not bored enough to go and look up stats).....Save 2 or 3 big runs (which predominantly came on running plays that WEREN'T up the gut dives) and the rushing stats are abysmal....Which means we constantly put our offense at a disadvantage by running up the gut every first down....If there was no big gains and our median range sat at 3.5 I would agree with you and wouldn't mind the playcalling as much.........But the other aspect that factors in, is that if you are constantly needing 3 downs and in certain cases 4 to get a first down then you are leaving more opportunity for your offense to turn the ball over........which apparently we are prone to doing this year....apart from the Buffalo game....

 

[kcc1442]

I don't mind rushing on first down but frequency and creativity needed to be factored in.......Different types of runs....and we need to pass more out of first down.....Even if we had a 65ru/35pa split I wouldn't mind. I mean seriously how about a screen to a rb or NW in particular, or an off tackle run, jet sweep, trap play something........

 

[Husky25]

1) and I mean this in the least patranizing way possible...Thank you...

Not quite sure where the lies were....I literally displayed ALL my math right in front of you and yes they were all made up....that was the point

2) From Wikipedia-"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments. It is also sometimes colloquially used to doubt statistics used to prove an opponent's point (Also, the bold excerpts contradict each other...)

2nd and 7/6 IS most certainly reasonable

Am I saying it is ideal or what we should be striving for?....absolutely not

I stick by my math, I mean you can't deny anything I said, there are no opinions in my post, numbers don't lie

3) 2nd & 6 might be reasonable 2nd & 7 is certainly not in my opinion. That is a gain of 3 yards, and extrapulated over a series, leaves you with 4th down and 1 yard to go and a certain punting situation. 2nd and 6 = a gain of 4. Extrapulate that over 3 downs = 1st down. The more 1st downs, the closer to the opposite endzone and, dare I say, points.

4) Numbers may not lie, but they can be spun to support almost anything you like, but we alread covered that.

And I never talked about what to do on 2nd or 3rd down, YOU made that part up, all I was saying is that a 2nd and 7 opens up the playbook more than a 2nd and 10....because on 2nd and 10 the defense knows you are going to pass and passing leads to an interception a high percentage of the time than running it (at least with our team)

5) I never made anything up. I stated my opinion ("...Only converting 3 1st downs into an additional first down or 2nd & short is pathetic.) and then mentioned a common notion from College Gameday, NFL Countdown, and most any live game broadcast over any given weekend (2nd & short affords you the opportunity to take a chance deep, which keeps the safeties and LB's honest.").

I suppose what I left out is that if your deep pass on 2nd & short falls incomplete, it is much easier to convert on 3rd down. My question to you is, why do you assume an interception? 6 Interceptions in 134 attempts = 4.4%. Whitmer has completed 62% of his passes to his own team.

So please try and poke holes in my math.....you can't

I don't need to poke holes in your math, and I don't want to. My feeling is that your premises are off.

 

[uconnflyer88]

Ill poke holes because I'm bored........The problem with your math is saying that because we averaged 3.7 yards per rushing (against Buffalo let alone) (and yes that is without sacks factored in) we were on average sitting at 2 and 7/6 and 3rd and 3/2......The problem with AVERAGE rushing is it takes into affect outliers such as the 50 yard rushing TD by Hyppolite.....What would be more beneficial is to find the median range and discard the outliers......This would give you a better indication of where we sat the entire game......Our median range would probably sit a lot closer to 1.8 if I had to guess (not bored enough to go and look up stats).....Save 2 or 3 big runs (which predominantly came on running plays that WEREN'T up the gut dives) and the rushing stats are abysmal....Which means we constantly put our offense at a disadvantage by running up the gut every first down....If there was no big gains and our median range sat at 3.5 I would agree with you and wouldn't mind the playcalling as much.........But the other aspect that factors in, is that if you are constantly needing 3 downs and in certain cases 4 to get a first down then you are leaving more opportunity for your offense to turn the ball over........which apparently we are prone to doing this year....apart from the Buffalo game....

well 3.2yards per carry was based on McCombs average yards per carry....soo.....the 50 yard hyppolite run was not factored into that

so you basically wasted your time

 

[uconnflyer88]

1) and I mean this in the least patranizing way possible...Thank you...



2) From Wikipedia-"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments. It is also sometimes colloquially used to doubt statistics used to prove an opponent's point (Also, the bold excerpts contradict each other...)



3) 2nd & 6 might be reasonable 2nd & 7 is certainly not in my opinion. That is a gain of 3 yards, and extrapulated over a series, leaves you with 4th down and 1 yard to go and a certain punting situation. 2nd and 6 = a gain of 4. Extrapulate that over 3 downs = 1st down. The more 1st downs, the closer to the opposite endzone and, dare I say, points.

4) Numbers may not lie, but they can be spun to support almost anything you like, but we alread covered that.



5) I never made anything up. I stated my opinion ("...Only converting 3 1st downs into an additional first down or 2nd & short is pathetic.) and then mentioned a common notion from College Gameday, NFL Countdown, and most any live game broadcast over any given weekend (2nd & short affords you the opportunity to take a chance deep, which keeps the safeties and LB's honest.").

I suppose what I left out is that if your deep pass on 2nd & short falls incomplete, it is much easier to convert on 3rd down. My question to you is, why do you assume an interception? 6 Interceptions in 134 attempts = 4.4%. Whitmer has completed 62% of his passes to his own team.



I don't need to poke holes in your math, and I don't want to. My feeling is that your premises are off.

I literally laughed out loud at your entire post

When I say I "made up numbers", that is not implying that they are fake, I used numbers that didn't exist to prove a point about the numbers that did exist.....no where did I lie, you just sound stupid for that one

Again, the argument was about FIRST DOWN play calls....not subsequent downs, so yes obvioulsy if you run 3 times for 3 yards that is not a first down and nowhere did I imply that.....all I was saying is, 2nd and 7 is better than 2nd and 10 after an incomplete pass (which occurs 40% of the time based on Whitmer's completion percentage)

And why do I assume an interception.....I don't......if you actually read my post all I was saying is that it is statistically more a probability than a fumble, when was the last time McCombs fumbled it?

Any more brain busters?

 

[spsct]

I would guess 50% of the complaints about running on first down would disappear if the runs were at least mixed up, as kc1442 pointed out. And played to our strengths... A 150 lb RB (see what I did there!) should not be going up the gut every first down.

 

[UCername]

And our RB and run set online results are on all appearances worse YoY, it's completely backwards..

 

[Husky25]

I literally laughed out loud at your entire post

When I say I "made up numbers", that is not implying that they are fake, I used numbers that didn't exist to prove a point about the numbers that did exist.....no where did I lie, you just sound stupid for that one

Again, the argument was about FIRST DOWN play calls....not subsequent downs, so yes obvioulsy if you run 3 times for 3 yards that is not a first down and nowhere did I imply that.....all I was saying is, 2nd and 7 is better than 2nd and 10 after an incomplete pass (which occurs 40% of the time based on Whitmer's completion percentage)

And why do I assume an interception.....I don't......if you actually read my post all I was saying is that it is statistically more a probability than a fumble, when was the last time McCombs fumbled it?

Any more brain busters?

You're continually hung up on splitting hairs over what your made up stats are called...You also can't seem to comprehend that "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics" is a historical saying. So no. No more. I fear I'm either going over your head or Coach D has something on you, which compells you to defend him at every turn.

I will leave you with this and then I'm done: Going by the sight test, it is my opinion that the coaching staff is not calling the most ideal plays to put this team in the best possible position to succeed. Running a 166 lb ball carrier into the middle of the line on virtually every 1st down, gaining 3 or less yards on 11 of them, is losing football.

 

[nimzovich]

So every time we ran it we gained about 3 - 4 yards per carry on first down leaving us with 2nd and 7 or 2nd and 6 meaning that 75% of the time we were left with a reasonable 2nd down which opens up the play book and subsequently creates a better 3rd down situation

So lets say we pass it 66.6% (2/3s) of the time and run in 33.3% (which I'm assuming is what you want)...

25 first downs......taking one away for the knee.....that gives us 24

66.6 % is 16 pass plays.....33.3% would mean 8

And lets be GENEROUS and say 20% of the time we get a completion of 8 yards or greater.....40% completion of 3 yards or greater......40% incomplete

8 yards or better - 3.2 approx. 3
3 yards or better - 6.4 approx 7 (i'll even give you it)
incomplete - 6.4 approx 6

so after all that math we are left with....
3 plays that got us to a 2nd and short situation (or a first down)
15 plays that got us to a 2nd and reasonable (6 or 7 yards to go)
6 plays that put is in a hole and now we have to pass on 2nd and 10

doing it your way on first down yields us 75% 2nd and reasonable

running it on first down yields us the EXACT same percentage
.... .........................................
I have watched this argument with interest, and i can't resist poking holes in the math. Sorry, UConnflyer88, but your application of the math really is incorrect. You say:
So every time we ran it we gained about 3 - 4 yards per carry on first down leaving us with 2nd and 7 or 2nd and 6 meaning that 75% of the time we were left with a reasonable 2nd down

...This is at odds with the facts. 10 of the 24 first down carries actually resulted in 2 yards or less. 4 carries netted exactly 3 yards. 10 carries gained more than 3 yards, including one new first down.

you say: running it on first down yields us the EXACT same percentage

your guestimate was that passing would have yielded 75% "reasonable gains" - i have no opinion on that, but your conclusion that we achieved that 75% result by running Mcombs so often on first down is again at odds with the facts.

Reasonable people can certainly differ on whether 3 yards is a reasonable result, but apparently our conservative coaching staff felt it was not "reasonable", because it precipitated the passing game.
.
Here is what UConn did on 2nd downs:
2nd and more than 7 yards to go- 2 runs, 8 passes.
2nd and exactly 7 yards to go - 1 run, 3 passes.
2nd and less than 3 yards to go - 6 runs, 2 passes.
only 22 plays, cause one run resulted in another first down and one run ended the first half.

If we INCLUDE 3 yards as reasonable, we still only achieved that 14 of 24 plays (including a meaningless last play of the first half) for 58%

If we EXCLUDE 3 yards as reasonable, we only achieved that 10 of 24 plays - an unpromising 42%

So

 

[Husky25]

I would guess 50% of the complaints about running on first down would disappear if the runs were at least mixed up, as kc1442 pointed out. And played to our strengths... A 150 lb RB (see what I did there!) should not be going up the gut every first down.

50% of the complaints about running on 1st down would disappear if it was remotely effective. This strategy appears ineffective according to the sight test. When you dig even remotely below the surface (3.43 yard average, not counting the 12 and -4 yard outliers, with 11 attempts going for 3 yards or less), you now have empirical data to back up that conclusion.

 

[spsct]

50% of the complaints about running on 1st down would disappear if it was remotely effective. This strategy appears ineffective according to the sight test. When you dig even remotely below the surface (3.43 yard average, not counting the 12 and -4 yard outliers, with 11 attempts going for 3 yards or less), you now have empirical data to back up that conclusion.

I agree with you 100%, maybe I didn't word it properly... My meaning was that if were diversified with the running plays we could quite possibly be more successful, ergo less complaints.

Maybe...

 

[J187Money]

50% of the complaints about running on 1st down would disappear if it was remotely effective. This strategy appears ineffective according to the sight test. When you dig even remotely below the surface (3.43 yard average, not counting the 12 and -4 yard outliers, with 11 attempts going for 3 yards or less), you now have empirical data to back up that conclusion.

People complained about it when Brown and Todman ran all of the time also.

 

[Uconnalliance]

We need 2 possibly 3 backs rotated at all times we are so predictable,how bout a little shake and bake on 1st down? Hook and ladder? Anything fuckin thing god!

 

[pj]

Running on first down would be great if we did it 60% of the time or less. Doing it 80%-90% of the time is disastrous. It's not calling the play that's wrong, it's calling the play every damn time so that the defense is prepared for it.