Proposed CFB rule change

My initial response had nothing to do with what you prefer to watch. I was responding mostly to this part of your post:

My point was that they don't need to come up with new shit when they have the template for winning right in front of them. There's a reason shit like the wildcat formation doesn't really last in the NFL.

 

I really am curious to hear what you think about using passing attempts/rushing attempts instead of yards to come up with percentages.

Just to give some examples of how it changes things:

2013 Seattle: 45% pass, 55% run.
2013 San Fran: 45% pass, 55% run.
2013 Broncos: 59% pass, 41% run.

We would still have to consider factors like the best teams are usually winning, and teams that are winning usually run the ball more to run out the clock. It also doesnt account for teams like Philly. but im not sure anything can. I'll look at the other teams we have mentioned tomorrow.

 

Because I think it's more intuitive to look at what actually moved the team down the field.

As an example, if you ever watched Louisville play football this year,* you would see a lot of the following sequence:
1st and 10: run up the middle for 2 yards
2nd and 8: run up the middle for a loss of a yard
3rd and 9: Bridgewater pass complete for 11 yards for a first down.

And the stats reflect this:
Passing: attempts: 432. yards: 4082
Rushing: attempts: 455. yards: 1909

So which is more important? I think this is a pretty easy question. Clearly the yardage is more important. Charlie Strong horribly mismanaged his team -- this year and every year prior -- by trying to be a power running team when in fact Bridgewater's video-game accuracy was the only thing the offense had going for it.

And is this example a bit extreme? Maybe...I'm not sure....I would need to look more data. But even if it is, I contend that what was actually accomplished on the field is the ultimate question.


___________________
*Or Tennessee in 2012 where Bray was constantly having to convert 3rd and long

 

But they don't have a template for winning. The NFL isn't COMPLETELY devoid of offensive innovation. Bill Walsh's offense is the only great example I can think of. He came in and did things differently and kicked ass doing so, and then next thing you know half the league is running the west-coast offense. It's a copycat league.

It will be interesting to see how much success Chip Kelly ends up having in the NFL. And if he does have success, whether the NFL will begin to hire college guys -- like, say, Malzahn -- who are putting up big offensive numbers in very un-NFL ways. Until then, how do you know whether different kinds of offenses would work unless they're tried?

 

The 2012 Tennessee offense was hamstrung by terrible coaching. There was no effort to run the ball other than the token first down dive. It was pathetic playcalling and coaching, as the run game was an afterthought in practice. If Bray is a student of the game and you put in a short, tempo passing game, the offense wouldn't have looked so bad. Instead, it was run on first down, deep ball on 2nd down and deep ball on 3rd down. It was the most aggravating offense I've ever watched. Bray's arm and two first round talents at WR (to go along with an NFL TE) kept that from being a God awful abomination.

And what really bugged me was they had no answer when Bray was either hurt or not completing passes.

 

I think making a blanket statement based off one team would be a mistake. Some teams run to set up the pass, and teams know they are going to run, so they load the box to stop it. Also, teams that are winning games by large margins are going to run the ball more because that's what you do when you are up big. There may not be a good way to statistically test it, or both ways may be a good aid to the eye test.

 

The last form of NFL innovation I remember was the wildcat, and it didn't last long at all. Tim Tebow could be considered "innovative" I suppose, and he didnt last either. The league is a different animal than college, in that the speed and athleticism of defenses often smother attempts of any gimmicky forms of offense.

I agree, Kelly is the newest big deal in the NFL. His offense was very successful this year, but it will be interesting to see if he can sustain that success. Most new offensive schemes experience at least temporary success.

 

I do believe it's harder to implement a physical run game than it is passing.

 

(1)
I wasn't making a blanket statement based off one team. i was providing an example to illustrate why yards gained makes more sense to look at than attempts.

(2)
I think that's exactly what Charlie Strong was trying to do in the example I gave. He was either honestly trying run an offense that relied on the run game, and just never caught on to the fact that he didn't have the personnel to pull it off, or he was keeping the defense honest so Bridgewater could complete deep throws downfield. Either way, it's the throws downfield that were moving the chains.

(3)
This cuts against an argument that attempts are more important. A team that is up by a lot is going to mostly run in the fourth quarter, which artificially pads rushing attempts (and rushing yards).

 

1. LSU gains more yards passing than rushing, but they can hardly be considered a passing team. Most of their passing yards happen because teams load the box to stop the run. I don't know if looking at rush/pass yard totals is the best way either.

3. That's why I'm saying there may not be a good way to test it statistically. Similarly, teams who are always losing typically have inflated passing stats because they're always playing catch up. Every good fantasy owner knows that a good receiver on a crappy team has a higher potential of posting a big game because his team will be losing a lot - forcing them to pass the ball.

 

The only thing wrong with #1, almost any offense at the college or NFL level is going to have more yards passing than rushing unless it's a service academy or Auburn.

 

Josh Gordon is a perfect example of this

 

(1)
The wildcat also didn't last long in the college ranks. I don't know of any college team that runs the wildcat as a base formation. There's just a limited amount that can be run out of it.

(2)
I don't know if a player can be considered innovative. But, regardless, Tim Tebow is a QB who can't throw a football for shit. That's why he's no longer in the league.

(3)
This is the reason that's always tossed out, and I've never bought it. It isn't just the defenses that are faster and more athletic. Everybody on the field is faster and more athletic. I don't see it as being any different than when Urban Meyer got hired by Florida and nobody thought his offense would work against faster SEC defense. And we know how that played out.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1104253/2/index.htm

 

Urban's offense wasn't that great without Tebow at the helm.


It was downright shitty at times in 2006 but they had a defense full of NFL players to keep teams from scoring.

 

LSU this past year had the best receiving corps in the country and a competent QB. They still ran plenty, but they threw more than normal, and it wasn't because teams loaded up to stop the run. There wasn't a defensive coordinator they faced who wasn't more concerned with Jarvis Landry and Odell Beckham than Jeremy Hill. And that's no knock on Jeremy Hill, who is a stud.

 

It was serviceable in '06, but he didn't have a QB for his system, so he had to make due with Leak, who, let's call a spade a spade, was pretty terrible at football.

 

I can't disagree with this.

 

So, a once a generation player in Tebow made Urban's offense work.

That's not really innovative.

 

Why do you think that's the case?

 

The only games LSU lost was when Hill didn't go over 100 yards