(09-28-2019, 05:38 PM)Upper Wrote:

(09-28-2019, 02:40 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: No.
No we don't. 
I want the run game to function enough that we can set up more play-action shots downfield. 
Which is also something DeFilippo alluded to in his presser a few days ago.

There's actually no correlation between rushing success and play action success.  Play action is more successful than non play action no matter how often or how successfully you have run previously. Just do more play actions period and prosper.

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-a...on-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. Coming into this, I did not know what to expect. Since play-by-play data on play-action passing is not readily available, it was something I had long wondered but never been able to look into. After measuring this every way I could think if, it appears that the conventional wisdom that running is necessary for play-action passes to be effective should be questioned. We have a lot of evidence that play-action passing is more effective than non-play-action passing, so the big question that remains is why teams run play-action so infrequently (the percentage of passes that are play-action has hovered around 20 percent since 2011). What would happen if teams started devoting a higher share of their plays to play-action passing?"

Setting up play action with the run has little to do with a team's rushing statistics. It's merely a tactic within the chess match between offensive and defensive coordinators. 

If the defensive formation and personnel is showing respect to the run threat, play action becomes more effective as long as your line can protect. The protection factor is the reason teams don't run it more frequently.

---