RB/QB Success (1 Viewer)

[Bankerguy]

I have compiled data on the number of yards gained by NFC running backs (this was extremely time consuming so I just used NFC backs) by the numbers of TE's on the field and the formation. I'll be the first to say that this is not scientific by any means, however there were some interesting findings that have me question the type of RB's I will be targeting in the coming year.

******************Number of TE's on the Field*************************

Formation..Attempts...Yards....AVG...TD's..Catches..Yards...AVG..TD's..Tot Yds....

No TE..........375........1541.....4.1....12.......126.........1096....8.7.....4...

..2367

1 TE............1753.......8073....4.6....34........245........1852....7.6.....3..

...9925

2 TE............995.........3970...4.0......20........65..........482.....7.4....4

.....4452

3 TE...........140..........257.....1.8......27........4............17......4.3...

0......274

************By formation regardless of the # of TE's on the field***********

Formation..Attempts...Yards....AVG...TD's..Catches..Yards...AVG..TD's..Tot Yds....

Split Backs...693.......2768......4.0.....20......108........799......7.4...5........3

67

I form.........1373......5923......4.3.....37......44..........325......7.4...0...

....6248

Single back..1150......4947.....4.3.....29......259.........2074....7.9...5........3224

***********************Touch to TD Ratio**************************

Formation....Rushing Touch/TD....................Receiving Touch/TD ratio

No TE............2.13%................................................3.17%

1 TE..............1.94%................................................1.22%

2 TE..............2.01%................................................6.15%

3 TE..............19.3%................................................0.00%

Split Back......2.89%................................................4.63%

I Form...........2.69%................................................0.00%

Single Back....2.52%................................................1.93%

*** I do find the data on the 0 TE vs. 1 TE vs 2 TE's VERY interesting.

***The TD Ratio seems like worthless info (Goal line formations tend to favour more TE's)

Part 2 of this will be my look at the NFC QB's using this same tracking.

I am trying to prove that RB's who run primarily in a 1 TE Set or Single Back tend to produce better results. RB's who run out of a 2 TE set don't produce as well as the other backs.

Conversely, QB's who primarily throw out of the 2 TE set will produce better results. We'll see......I will try to finish this today.

I would really appreciate any thoughts or observations on this.

 

[pigskinliquors]

Thanks Bankerguy. It's always nice seeing data sliced in different ways. While nothing in your results is surprising (as they are driven more by down/distance), it confirms that it's easier to get rushing yards w/ 1 TE in, and easier to get receiving yards with no TE in. It's also interesting to see that formation makes little difference in results (probably due to differences in situation, talent, etc., which confound the relationship).

I don't think there is much in the data to suggest drafting strateties (i.e., who to target), but it is interesting nonetheless!

 

[rabidfireweasel]

I mean no offense, because you have put in a bunch of work to open up new possibilities in terms of considering rb production. Unfortunately, I think your premise is flawed based on small sample set and narrow thinking on interpretation of the data. There are few if any conclusions to be drawn from this little data. Two and three TE sets happen at the goal line. That results in a lower YPC and fewer catches. Most goal line and short yardage passing comes on play action, the pass rarely goes to the rb. 0 TE sets are in a spread offense. 0 and 1 TE sets are part of the two minute no huddle offense. Every team uses these, and running backs every player on offense is more productive in terms of points per touch. Also, it is hard to know what we are looking at. I would say that Tiki produces better than Julius Jones, not because he is in a 1 TE set, but because he is better. The Packers ran a bunch of 2 TE sets, because their wr's were hurt. Unfortunately so were their rb's and their o-line.

I think it would be more worthwhile to look individually at teams that use the 2 TE set at different levels based on percentage, and look at their running backs (by name so you see what you are evaluating) and then make these comparisions.

 

[Bankerguy]

I mean no offense, because you have put in a bunch of work to open up new possibilities in terms of considering rb production. Unfortunately, I think your premise is flawed based on small sample set and narrow thinking on interpretation of the data. There are few if any conclusions to be drawn from this little data. Two and three TE sets happen at the goal line. That results in a lower YPC and fewer catches. Most goal line and short yardage passing comes on play action, the pass rarely goes to the rb. 0 TE sets are in a spread offense. 0 and 1 TE sets are part of the two minute no huddle offense. Every team uses these, and running backs every player on offense is more productive in terms of points per touch. Also, it is hard to know what we are looking at. I would say that Tiki produces better than Julius Jones, not because he is in a 1 TE set, but because he is better. The Packers ran a bunch of 2 TE sets, because their wr's were hurt. Unfortunately so were their rb's and their o-line.

I think it would be more worthwhile to look individually at teams that use the 2 TE set at different levels based on percentage, and look at their running backs (by name so you see what you are evaluating) and then make these comparisions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree that much of this data confirms what we already know. Especially as is relates to goal line and 3 TE sets. However, I do think more and more teams are changing to a 2 TE- Single Back type of base offense. I could be crazy, but I think there is something to it. 2TE's 1 RB

So far the data indicates that this is not necessarily RB friendly. As I mentioned I am going to finish this by looking at the QB data. I still believe at this point that the 2 TE 1 RB base is very good for QB production.

Thanks for the comments though, I appreciate the feedback.

 

[Bankerguy]

OK...Here is the QB portion of my analysis.

**************QB Stats based on # of TE's in the game***********

# of TE's.......Completions....Attempts.......Yards/Completion.......TD's

0 TE....................829...........1420..................11.75.................

..44

1 TE....................1690.........2847..................11.14..................

.93

2 TE....................479...........806...................12.59.................

..57

3 TE....................47.............79.....................6.87................

....19

*******************Attempts/TD Ratio**********************

0 TE - 3.1%

1 TE - 3.3%

2 TE - 7.1%

3 TE - 24.1%

This shows though that the 2 TE set nets the highest Avg. Yards per Completion.

It also shows a larger proportion of TD's. I think we all agree we can just look past the 3 TE numbers.....as these are almost 100% play action fakes at the goal line.

Again the combo of yards/play and TD % is very compelling to me.

 

[redman]

OK...Here is the QB portion of my analysis.

**************QB Stats based on # of TE's in the game***********

# of TE's.......Completions....Attempts.......Yards/Completion.......TD's

0 TE....................829...........1420..................11.75.................

..44

1 TE....................1690.........2847..................11.14..................

.93

2 TE....................479...........806...................12.59.................

..57

3 TE....................47.............79.....................6.87................

....19

*******************Attempts/TD Ratio**********************

0 TE - 3.1%

1 TE - 3.3%

2 TE - 7.1%

3 TE - 24.1%

This shows though that the 2 TE set nets the highest Avg. Yards per Completion.

It also shows a larger proportion of TD's. I think we all agree we can just look past the 3 TE numbers.....as these are almost 100% play action fakes at the goal line. 

Again the combo of yards/play and TD % is very compelling to me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your point above is, if anything, made better by using the the more commonly used and understood yds/att rather than yds/comp. Here's the data with yds/att:# of TE's.......Completions....Attempts.......Yards/Completion.......TD's......Yards/Att

0 TE....................829...........1420..................11.75.................

..44.......6.85

1 TE....................1690.........2847..................11.14..................

.93.......6.61

2 TE....................479...........806...................12.59.................

..57........7.48

3 TE....................47.............79.....................6.87................

....19........4.08

Edit to add: yards per completion primarily measures explosiveness, or ability to make long passes; yards per attempt tends to be a better overall measure of passing game effectiveness as it implicitly acknowledges big plays, in addition to completion percentage.

 

[GregR_2]

I agree that much of this data confirms what we already know.  Especially as is relates to goal line and 3 TE sets.  However, I do think more and more teams are changing to a 2 TE- Single Back type of base offense.  I could be crazy, but I think there is something to it.

2TE's 1 RB

So far the data indicates that this is not necessarily RB friendly.  As I mentioned I am going to finish this by looking at the QB data.  I still believe at this point that the 2 TE 1 RB base is very good for QB production.

Thanks for for comments though, I appreciate the feedback.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for posting this, and I look forward to seeing what else you come up with.I also would suggest a few other things to think about. One is that I'd suspect that down and distance might be a good predictor of yards per carry as defenses shift to stop the long or short gain. I think formation would also be tied to down and distance a lot as well.

So I'm not sure that I'd look at more yards from 1 TE sets and decide it meant teams that run from 1 TE sets as their base do better, until I'd determined how the breakdown of down/distance affected 1 TE sets.

 

[Bankerguy]

I agree that much of this data confirms what we already know.  Especially as is relates to goal line and 3 TE sets.  However, I do think more and more teams are changing to a 2 TE- Single Back type of base offense.  I could be crazy, but I think there is something to it.

2TE's 1 RB

So far the data indicates that this is not necessarily RB friendly.  As I mentioned I am going to finish this by looking at the QB data.  I still believe at this point that the 2 TE 1 RB base is very good for QB production.

Thanks for for comments though, I appreciate the feedback.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for posting this, and I look forward to seeing what else you come up with.I also would suggest a few other things to think about. One is that I'd suspect that down and distance might be a good predictor of yards per carry as defenses shift to stop the long or short gain. I think formation would also be tied to down and distance a lot as well.

So I'm not sure that I'd look at more yards from 1 TE sets and decide it meant teams that run from 1 TE sets as their base do better, until I'd determined how the breakdown of down/distance affected 1 TE sets.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

At this point I haven't found any stats that show down and distance combined with number of TE's on the field, but at the same time I'm not sure how it would afect the analysis.I did this work because of the Cowboys moving to this base offense this year. So, I went back and looked how the Cowboys fared when they ran this. It overwhelmingly showed a huge spike in the passing game. The biggest benfactor was Terry Glenn, his YPC/TD's all were positively affected. Julius Jones however, struggled badly.

I just wanted to take this a step further to see if there was a correlation. While, I still believe this formation hurts the RB and helps the QB. The data has certainly been mixed so far.

For me..........

Bumping up Bledsoe's projections especially in yards.

Dropping JJ again in yards....TDs will be somewhat static.

 

[redman]

The problems you've got here are fundamentally these:

1) the data doesn't account for down and distance, and hence the defensive schemes facing the offenses running out of those formations or even the offensive play-calling;

2) the data doesn't account for differences in quality of offensive personnel or the defensive personnel facing them.

You may have a very good observation that you've made as to the Cowboys, but I'm having trouble so far seeing how it's holding true across the board.

 

[dudaman]

Based upon their 2006 draft, I look for the Pats to have three TE's on the field more than average. Since the "3TE" numbers above don't give a large enough representation, it'll be interesting to see how it's going to affect the team and all the weapons on it. I believe this is the year Brady eclipses 40 TD's, regardless of the number of TE's. He has many weapons and the OL is solid. Plus the defense stands to take a step back, so more points may be necessary. Dillon feels the sense of urgency and will be spelled by a guy that can take it all the way.

 

[Mungo Burrows]

The problems you've got here are fundamentally these:

1) the data doesn't account for down and distance, and hence the defensive schemes facing the offenses running out of those formations or even the offensive play-calling;

2) the data doesn't account for differences in quality of offensive personnel or the defensive personnel facing them. 

You may have a very good observation that you've made as to the Cowboys, but I'm having trouble so far seeing how it's holding true across the board.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly. You need to hold the other variables constant, then look for correlation with your variable (# of TEs). You should look at each team separately, and each down/distance separately, etc, and see if there are trends based on the number of TEs that apply within each of those situations. Even then, other variables like personnel used may be the cause of results variability (e.g., a team may tend to put Joe CrappyBack in for 2 TE sets but Joe StudBack in 1 TE sets at the same down/distance, or perhaps when Joe Studback got hurt, they also switched formation to compensate)

 

[Bankerguy]

As I mentioned before.......I can't find any stats that are by the number of TE's on the field plus down and distance. If anyone can provide this I will continue the analysis.

Other than that, I believe this is the fad for Offense. Here are the main benefits of the Ace Tight Formation from a Cowboy perspective:

Ace tight is a formation that traditionally gives defenses and DC(s) fits. It is as balance of a formation you can run. Usually offensive strengths give ‘tip offs’ coupled with down and distances. In a ace tight formation the defense dam near have to play a goal line type defense and go big but with our big play potential on the outside with TO and Glenn will lend themselves to be easily exploited. Also, if they go nickel against ace tight our running game should be able to exploit it.

When you potentially take away one of the defensive keys it makes their pre-snap that much harder because now they are mostly relying on down and distance with little help from tendencies. Of course this is all predicated on how fast Fasano acclimates himself to the pro game. I am loving this move because it has the makings of making us pretty balanced and dangerous on offense.

 

[Ridgelake]

Bankerguy, this is fun analysis. Thanks for taking it on.

One variable that should be identified is the presense of a FB. As you know, Dallas more or less interchanged the TE/FB. Witten often lined up as the FB, though he's obviously a TE. I don't know if your 1 TE data included a FB or not, or how it handled this situation.

Regards,

Ridge