(11-08-2019, 10:55 PM)JackCity Wrote: (11-07-2019, 12:34 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: 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.
