The Jaguars are currently last in the league in playaction attempts.

Only 43 playaction pass attempts despite Minshew having these stats while doing it : 33/43 76.7% completion rate  534 yards 3 TDs 0 picks, 141 passer rating(!)

They should do it more. Many of us have said it for 5 weeks now. I'd have liked them to double the number of 1st and 2nd down play action passes with Minshew. 

That's one aspect of the offense I agree they could be more aggressive about. (that and some of the run-play design)

The general amount of actual play-calls with receivers being looked to well beyond the sticks however, is not conservative after all, which was the point of the thread.

I tend to think they're more hesitant to do with the pass protection and fumbles becuase otherwise there isn't really a good reason not to. 

And yeah sorry I just didn't know where else to put this

---

They should do it more. Many of us have said it for 5 weeks now. I'd have liked them to double the number of 1st and 2nd down play action passes with Minshew. 

That's one aspect of the offense I agree they could be more aggressive about. (that and some of the run-play design)

The general amount of actual play-calls with receivers being looked to well beyond the sticks however, is not conservative after all, which was the point of the thread.

I tend to think they're more hesitant to do with the pass protection and fumbles becuase otherwise there isn't really a good reason not to. 

And yeah sorry I just didn't know where else to put this

No apology needed. Valid point relevant to the thread.  Pass pro issues are my only decent guess as well.

---

I tend to think they're more hesitant to do with the pass protection and fumbles becuase otherwise there isn't really a good reason not to. 

And yeah sorry I just didn't know where else to put this

No apology needed. Valid point relevant to the thread.  Pass pro issues are my only decent guess as well.

PA can be done without a run game being really good but you'd also think with Fournette playing as well as he is you'd have even more reason to ramp it up. 

Would be a good question for Flip

---

No apology needed. Valid point relevant to the thread.  Pass pro issues are my only decent guess as well.

PA can be done without a run game being really good but you'd also think with Fournette playing as well as he is you'd have even more reason to ramp it up. 

Would be a good question for Flip

Agreed.  

And that whole "good run stats not needed for effective play action"  is a fool's errand, BTW.
It's a big picture stat look that completely fails to account for what makes p.a. fool defenses.
Which is a play-to-play, drive-to-drive chess match. Not a broad view of a team's run game. 

Think of it as a catcher and pitcher calling the change up at the perfect moment.
That pitcher's fastball may not be that great - but if the hitter is expecting 88mph and gets 71...

---

PA can be done without a run game being really good but you'd also think with Fournette playing as well as he is you'd have even more reason to ramp it up. 

Would be a good question for Flip

Agreed.  

And that whole "good run stats not needed for effective play action"  is a fool's errand, BTW.
It's a big picture stat look that completely fails to account for what makes p.a. fool defenses.
Which is a play-to-play, drive-to-drive chess match. Not a broad view of a team's run game. 

Think of it as a catcher and pitcher calling the change up at the perfect moment.
That pitcher's fastball may not be that great - but if the hitter is expecting 88mph and gets 71...

That's kind of the entire theory behind it though. There's a lot more to PA than just running effectively, which is why we often see teams who are very bad at running still maintain elite levels of production and effectiveness from PA.

---

Agreed.  

And that whole "good run stats not needed for effective play action"  is a fool's errand, BTW.
It's a big picture stat look that completely fails to account for what makes p.a. fool defenses.
Which is a play-to-play, drive-to-drive chess match. Not a broad view of a team's run game. 

Think of it as a catcher and pitcher calling the change up at the perfect moment.
That pitcher's fastball may not be that great - but if the hitter is expecting 88mph and gets 71...

That's kind of the entire theory behind it though. There's a lot more to PA than just running effectively, which is why we often see teams who are very bad at running still maintain elite levels of production and effectiveness from PA.

I'll be more specific. 

Say a  team has a crappy YPC average and very low ranked run game coming into a game.

They begin their third possession by ripping off a 7 yard run and follow that up with another for 5 yards on the ensuing 2nd down.  They have now set up play action more effectively within that drive by actually running the ball well within a microcosm of sorts. 
 Doesn't matter that they don't do it consistently. 
Ripping a couple of decent runs in a drive or a succession of drives will definitely aid the effectiveness of a play action call compared to not being able to make anything happen all day on the ground in that game. 

Sure you can call it when you are pumping out 2 yards and a cloud of dust all day and it may still work, but you ABSOLUTELY have a better chance to catch a defense more off guard if they have a well executed run play fresh in their minds.

---

That's kind of the entire theory behind it though. There's a lot more to PA than just running effectively, which is why we often see teams who are very bad at running still maintain elite levels of production and effectiveness from PA.

I'll be more specific. 

Say a  team has a crappy YPC average and very low ranked run game coming into a game.

They begin their third possession by ripping off a 7 yard run and follow that up with another for 5 yards on the ensuing 2nd down.  They have now set up play action more effectively within that drive by actually running the ball well within a microcosm of sorts. 
 Doesn't matter that they don't do it consistently. 
Ripping a couple of decent runs in a drive or a succession of drives will definitely aid the effectiveness of a play action call compared to not being able to make anything happen all day on the ground in that game. 

Sure you can call it when you are pumping out 2 yards and a cloud of dust all day and it may still work, but you ABSOLUTELY have a better chance to catch a defense more off guard if they have a well executed run play fresh in their minds.

Yeah... play action only works if the run game is working within that game (or more specifically, that drive)
For teams that are known for running the ball on early downs and to start games I think opening up with PA would be quite effective but I don't see it that often. Probably because the actual threat of the run has yet to be established within that game or drive.

---

It's so easy for a fan to criticize the play calling, but in reality they have no clue what they are talking about.  They don't watch hours and hours of the opponent's game film, they don't sit in on coaches' meetings where opponents' strengths and weaknesses are discussed, they don't develop a list of plays that they think will work based on all of that, and most importantly of all, they have no clue what play was actually called- what all 11 guys were supposed to be doing and why, or whether the QB changed the play at the line of scrimmage and why he did that.  

That's why when I read people criticizing the play calling, I roll my eyes, because it is so ridiculous for a fan to think they know anything about the subject.

All the fans know is, it worked so it's a good play call, or it didn't work so it's a bad play call.

---

It's so easy for a fan to criticize the play calling, but in reality they have no clue what they are talking about.  They don't watch hours and hours of the opponent's game film, they don't sit in on coaches' meetings where opponents' strengths and weaknesses are discussed, they don't develop a list of plays that they think will work based on all of that, and most importantly of all, they have no clue what play was actually called- what all 11 guys were supposed to be doing and why, or whether the QB changed the play at the line of scrimmage and why he did that.  

That's why when I read people criticizing the play calling, I roll my eyes, because it is so ridiculous for a fan to think they know anything about the subject.

All the fans know is, it worked so it's a good play call, or it didn't work so it's a bad play call.

Well... fans shouldn't be critical of anything. Since we don't really know how to run a team, draft and scout, coach, play..........

---

It's so easy for a fan to criticize the play calling, but in reality they have no clue what they are talking about.  They don't watch hours and hours of the opponent's game film, they don't sit in on coaches' meetings where opponents' strengths and weaknesses are discussed, they don't develop a list of plays that they think will work based on all of that, and most importantly of all, they have no clue what play was actually called- what all 11 guys were supposed to be doing and why, or whether the QB changed the play at the line of scrimmage and why he did that.  

That's why when I read people criticizing the play calling, I roll my eyes, because it is so ridiculous for a fan to think they know anything about the subject.

All the fans know is, it worked so it's a good play call, or it didn't work so it's a bad play call.

I understand this sentiment and it is fair to a point. Apparently our coaches don't know how to beat a single play that the other team gouges us with over and over again. Don't they watch film?  Why is it that we are so bad within the division?

---

The Khan Years

Patience, Persistence, and Piss Poor General Managers.

That's kind of the entire theory behind it though. There's a lot more to PA than just running effectively, which is why we often see teams who are very bad at running still maintain elite levels of production and effectiveness from PA.

I'll be more specific. 

Say a  team has a crappy YPC average and very low ranked run game coming into a game.

They begin their third possession by ripping off a 7 yard run and follow that up with another for 5 yards on the ensuing 2nd down.  They have now set up play action more effectively within that drive by actually running the ball well within a microcosm of sorts. 
 Doesn't matter that they don't do it consistently. 
Ripping a couple of decent runs in a drive or a succession of drives will definitely aid the effectiveness of a play action call compared to not being able to make anything happen all day on the ground in that game. 

Sure you can call it when you are pumping out 2 yards and a cloud of dust all day and it may still work, but you ABSOLUTELY have a better chance to catch a defense more off guard if they have a well executed run play fresh in their minds.

And in that same exact game they can have multiple PA passes just as successful without any successful runs or attempts. How much does your effectiveness increase on PA after a 6 yard run Vs a 3 yard run? Or a run Vs no run? 

I tend to to think if they did a study on blown coverage in PA situations they'd find its due to that team running the ball to a higher degree of success than usual. And also those Kubiak style schemes are absolutely built off run and counter PAs.  

But we see if every year that teams who are consistently unsuccessful at running the ball on a down to down basis can still be top 5 in PA effectiveness due to formation/QB fake/route combinations etc etc. The old adage if *needing* to run well to make PA work effectively doesn't hold up anymore, even if the argument can be made it makes it slightly more effective (which the studies don't believe but I do)

---

I'll be more specific. 

Say a  team has a crappy YPC average and very low ranked run game coming into a game.

They begin their third possession by ripping off a 7 yard run and follow that up with another for 5 yards on the ensuing 2nd down.  They have now set up play action more effectively within that drive by actually running the ball well within a microcosm of sorts. 
 Doesn't matter that they don't do it consistently. 
Ripping a couple of decent runs in a drive or a succession of drives will definitely aid the effectiveness of a play action call compared to not being able to make anything happen all day on the ground in that game. 

Sure you can call it when you are pumping out 2 yards and a cloud of dust all day and it may still work, but you ABSOLUTELY have a better chance to catch a defense more off guard if they have a well executed run play fresh in their minds.

Yeah... play action only works if the run game is working within that game (or more specifically, that drive)
For teams that are known for running the ball on early downs and to start games I think opening up with PA would be quite effective but I don't see it that often. Probably because the actual threat of the run has yet to be established within that game or drives

This isn't really backed up by anything. You can have elite PA effectiveness with consistently unsuccessful running and consistently low attempts too.

---

I'll be more specific. 

Say a  team has a crappy YPC average and very low ranked run game coming into a game.

They begin their third possession by ripping off a 7 yard run and follow that up with another for 5 yards on the ensuing 2nd down.  They have now set up play action more effectively within that drive by actually running the ball well within a microcosm of sorts. 
 Doesn't matter that they don't do it consistently. 
Ripping a couple of decent runs in a drive or a succession of drives will definitely aid the effectiveness of a play action call compared to not being able to make anything happen all day on the ground in that game. 

Sure you can call it when you are pumping out 2 yards and a cloud of dust all day and it may still work, but you ABSOLUTELY have a better chance to catch a defense more off guard if they have a well executed run play fresh in their minds.

And in that same exact game they can have multiple PA passes just as successful without any successful runs or attempts. How much does your effectiveness increase on PA after a 6 yard run Vs a 3 yard run? Or a run Vs no run? 

I tend to to think if they did a study on blown coverage in PA situations they'd find its due to that team running the ball to a higher degree of success than usual. And also those Kubiak style schemes are absolutely built off run and counter PAs.  

But we see if every year that teams who are consistently unsuccessful at running the ball on a down to down basis can still be top 5 in PA effectiveness due to formation/QB fake/route combinations etc etc. The old adage if *needing* to run well to make PA work effectively doesn't hold up anymore, even if the argument can be made it makes it slightly more effective (which the studies don't believe but I do)

 
 I've read the articles. I understand what they say. 
They don't account for the most basic element which is individual defenders cheating in their alignment to favor a run. 

If anyone wants to tell me that a LB or Safety won't sometimes be more inclined to creep out of position to stop a run after recently giving up a run opposed to having confidently stopped the run all day, I'm going to tell them they haven't watched enough NFL football.  

It's basic strategy.  

 Giving defenders a present reason to want to creep, and giving a coordinator a reason to double down against a run is better than not giving them a reason to do so.  
You just stand a better chance of baiting them into a mistake if you actually possess some bait and let them get a sniff of it. The play can work without the glaring mistake from a defender or without a coordinator calling a really bad coverage, but tricking them into these things is the better outcome. I firmly believe that outcome has a better chance of occurring if it's properly baited.

---