Tacosman

for the browns to take the next step. The next step being rising to the top of the division, or at least alongside the top of the division with the steelers and Ravens. Right now the steelers and the ravens rightfully consider themselves rivals to each other and measure their success against each other. We are not part of that equation right now, and the steelers do not consider us relevant or a rival to them. The question is can they get there, and how do they get to that point. So let's start with one key point- This is a passing league, has been for a long time, and the only way a team is going to get to the top of the mountain is with an uber efficient and successful passing game and/or an atypical running game(like Baltimore has founded on the qb running) which complements a successful passing attack(like Baltimore has). A team isn't going to have traditional running back handoffs as a foundation of offensive success in 2020, so let's throw that nonsense out right now. So given that the browns have to throw the ball a bunch successfully to be successful against upper end competition, how do they get there? The reality is baker just has to play better.....but the browns could help him by using fewer 1st and 2nd down plays to run the ball. In a hypothetical situation where a team has the league's worst qb, marginal recievers, and the league's best traditional running game(again to remove a team like baltimore from the equation).....throwing the football on first and second down is *still* going to be more efficient than running the ball. That's just the way it is. The likely 'break even point* for when running the ball on 1st and 2nd down equals the efficiency of the passing game would likely be 7.4-7.5 yards per carry when you consider the downsides of running(more holding penalties, fewer chunk plays leading directly to points) against the positives(eliminating the interception risk). Obviously no team is going to average 7 and a half yards per carry, but the other side of this is the browns don't have the league's worst qbs and certainly don't have marginal recievers. So if the browns are going to take the next step, they are going to do so throwing the football a lot better than they are doing now. One way to increase the odds of doing that is fewer runs on 1st and 2nd down.....time and time again when baker struggles and the browns get thumped, when you go back and look at the game log on offense we see handoffs to the running backs which set up 2nd and 3rd and log. Converting more of those less efficient runs into first and second down play action passing is going to put Baker in a better situation.... and remember, running the football successfully *DOES NOT* set up play action pass. This has been disproven in that we now know that play action passing is successful completely independently of running the football.

having the 'best running game in the league' is a nice and all, but it's a passing league. You aren't going to consistently win on offense just handing the ball to running backs in game neutral situations. And certainly not in this game against the steelers defense- we've run the ball too much in this game, and that's set baker up in second and third and long. Running the ball(with running backs) isn't going to be the foundation of any successful teams offense in the nfl today. It's just not efficient enough, especially against a defense like the steelers. We're going to sink or swim in these types of games on the arm of baker...thats the way it has to be in todays nfl

two runs in a row? This is 2020.....

bad mistake by baker. Hopefully stefanski won't start getting conservative now and will still throw a lot

Let mixon get is. If he gets 14 rushes in the first half, I'll feel good about things. Let him 'have success' and run the ball for 65 yards on 14 carries...we'll take that all day. The more they are handing the ball off to him in neutral game situations the better. Prevent Burrow from making big running plays(he can be deadly as we've already seen with the sneak) Force burrow into turnovers Use the short passing game to set up the deep throw. Go up tempo a little with the passing game. Heavy heavy pass/run balance on 1st and 2nd down. We do all this in the first half, and we'll easily be in control of the game by halftime.

Let mixon get is. If he gets 14 rushes in the first half, I'll feel good about things. Let him 'have success' and run the ball for 65 yards on 14 carries...we'll take that all day. The more they are handing the ball off to him in neutral game situations the better. Prevent Burrow from making big running plays(he can be deadly as we've already seen with the sneak) Force burrow into turnovers Use the short passing game to set up the deep throw. Go up tempo a little with the passing game. Heavy heavy pass/run balance on 1st and 2nd down. We do all this in the first half, and we'll easily be in control of the game by halftime.

"We believe in today’s football that the passing game on both sides of the ball has the biggest impact on wins and losses" I like how he said both sides of the ball....making it clear that the importance of decreasing the opponent's pass game(and most importantly it's efficiency) >>>>> stopping their running game. Let's hope that all the moves going forward are reflecting that and that Stefanski takes note as well in game planning.

Another way to look at it- a defense in today's game should *never* be suckered by play action, regardless of how well a team is running. Because any passing attempt thrown by a non-disastrous qb is going to have a better positive value expectation than even the most well oiled running game. Especially a play action pass thrown in a favorable situation for the offense. It just takes training I'm sure to not react that way even when you 'see' run initially. Hell you are hoping they run anyways, so if you are little slow to react to it because you were playing pass....thats fine. Thats a far superior situation(having to recover as a defense TO a running play) than having to recover into a pass defense situation when you have already bit on the run. the first time I heard that running the football had absolutely no effect on the success of later play action passing, I was like "what? how so?".....but it doesn't.

Oh, so you are one of those "running the ball sets up the play action huh?".....no, no, no, and no. Just because something has been said a million times doesn't make it true. The evidence that we have is that play action passing(which is generally a good idea) has success that is really independent of 'establishing the run'. There was a seminal paper on this recently. You may think that in theory that would be the case. But real life data suggests otherwise..... It's simple- people(and that includes the browns) can look at data in doing things, or they can make decisions based on what they heard watching Berman and Tom Jackson on prime time growing up. You're either going to go in an evidence based direction or your not. All the evidence suggests that teams should invest as much as possible in throwing the ball efficiently early in games(meaning the first half to 3 qtrs) and defending the pass. The run both ways(at least the traditional running game where you hand it off to a back) is just filler.....if a team is having a little success doing it, that actually may be a negative for them(and a positive for their opponent) if it leads to them doing it more than sparingly in meaningful action. Now I'm sure I'll get a lot of pushback about how I'm an idiot, how running the ball and stopping the run is super duper important, etc.....all that sounds nice(and heck I am an idiot sometimes), but the truth is the truth. We're seeing a fundamental shift towards analytics and efficiency in each of the three major sports leagues. Each at a somewhat different pace/time. Over the last 7 years or so in the nba we've seen it with a complete abandonment of the mid range game and traditional post play. Why? Because data indicated that the difference in shooting percentage from a 5 foot shot to a 20 foot shot are roughly the same. You need to get inside 5 feet, and if you can't you better go past the 3 point line. In baseball in the late 90s an analytical revolution happened in the mainstream(there was always a small group of bill james types even in the 70s/80s).....things like WAR, OPS+, VORP, WAR, rc/27 etc came into being. There was a guy on the internet who had an Newton like epiphany: Pitchers have little control over balls in play(meaning everything but strikeouts, walks, and home runs allowed). Whoa...that blew peoples minds. But when they started looking at the data.....yep, there it was. Suddenly anomaly years made sense in that was just random chance and luck. Now in football given the nature of it, the analytical revolution has come at a different pace in a little different form. After establishing that stopping the run is far more important than stopping the pass, it involves essential questions like- is coverage or pass rush that more dictates success in this regard? An important question since it involves organizations deciding whether they should commit most of their money to corners or DEs/OLBs. There are lots of unanswered questions and nobody has figured it out yet.....but we've figured out enough to know that the emphasis for successful defenses are going to be towards stopping the passing game. And no, that *doesn't mean* stopping the running game first so you don't get suckered into PA pass. Anyone looking at it that way is also probably arguing that their favorite mlb team should do more hit and run and try to steal more bases, or that their favorite nba team needs a big hulking center who plays with his back to the basket.

is *not* something an nfl team in today's game needs to prioritize. That's why I wasn't a huge fan of the stefanski hire like I said when it happened, because I was afraid he would take this mindset. We stopped the ravens running backs just fine today. Who cares though? It sounds weird, but had Ingram and co had more success it may have been a good thing because they would have maybe pounded the rock a little more to those guys....which is obviously preferable than Lamar torching our secondary to the tune of 11 yards per attempt. The ravens led the league in rushing last year, but they didn't do so with this "line up and hand the ball to the back" mindset. As noted before, some of those running plays were garbage time(since they were so far ahead many games) and some were lamar runs(which could either be designed runs or original pass attempts and scrambles). The ravens offense is so good because they don't have a mindset of pounding the rock with their running backs. They understand thats not how to win in today's game. Likewise, they take the same mindset on defense.....they pour all their resources into stopping the other teams passing game. Same thing with the chiefs- they won the super bowl last year with complete stiffs in the backfield. They used alloted resources on defense to give them an average pass defense...they blew off 'run defense' as they noted it's unimportant. I'm just worried Stefanski won't de-prioritize the running game and run defense. Already hearing rumblings about a big extension for chubb one day. Giving a big extension to a running back who isn't good in the pass game in today's game would be absurd. Not a huge fan of how the saints and vikes just paid Cook and Kamara, but those guys can help a ton in the passing game(ie they can help your offense a lot). Opponents are going to be more than happy to give Chubb and Hunt 120 yards or so a game on the ground if it gobbles up 25ish plays to do it. Thats not winning football....it's fine when you have a big lead and you need to run clock, but in the first half of games we don't need to be 'pounding the rock'. And we don't need to be putting our resources on game day into stopping the other team from doing so. At one point in the first half of the game today it looked like Ingram was running into a loaded front. WTF? Sure it helped us strong ingram, but he's irrelevant. Mark Andrews running wide open down the gaping middle of the field past our linebackers are one of the things(amongst others) that gets you beat.....

of course I have refuted your point....there are multiple studies on this very matter, and they provide a clear answer. https://ftw.usatoday.com/2019/06/nfl-establish-the-run-play-action-pass-stats Essentially, play action pass is a very good thing. But the old mantra that you have to establish the run to effectively PaP is junk science. That's just what the data shows. Not interested in getting to the how and whys of it all...because it is what it is.

of course...there are all kinds of anomalies here and there. But you either choose to believe in data and well established likelihoods going forward as the basis of scheming....or you choose to believe in "you see that (one time something happened)" example..... I know I prefer the former approach

no, you don't. Chubb averaged 5.0 ypc last year. Which is very very good for a running back. Where would it average in the passing game? Last. Dead Last. And not even close to the bottom 25th percentile in terms of average yards per pass play. But even in such a simplistic look like that(just comparing ypa), there are reasons why passing is more advantageous. One is passing plays at any given point on the field have a much higher touchdown rate. So for example for a random snap taking place at the opponents 16 yard line, a passing play of x ypa is going to have a higher touchdown rate than a traditional running play of x ypa. So that's extra value for passing. Another big difference is with how holding is being called now. Holding is a tremendously costly penalty for offenses, and for some reason nfl officials are skewing more and more towards calling holding on running plays today. I don't have the exact number of holding calls offhand on chubb rushes in 2019, but I remember several killers. These two disadvantages for running(apart from just the ypa comparison) add to the difference in efficiency. The only advantage for running is that you take interception rate out of the equation, but with interception rates continuing to be at all time lows, this is less important than before. But back to your original statement- no, when you have a chance to give the ball to a guy who averages 5.0 yards per carry(in a year ypc he may not replicate btw) and who has a very low td rate relative to passing(short yard situations aside), you don't give him the ball too much. Chubb should be used as a complimentary back to the main offense- which is passing. In fact, I look at the short passing game and running game as somewhat similar, except the short passing game is more effective and leads to more than 4-5 ypa and fewer holding calls.

the problem for your perspective is that a 'top ten running back' running the ball is still far far far less efficient and valuable than a middling passer having a mediocre game throwing the ball. I understand that some fans are stuck in this mindset that 'running is good'. I'm not saying a team should never run; just that they should definitely pass a lot more(especially in early downs early in the game or close games). here is a good 538 article from just a few days ago: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-running-the-ball-back/ Note that it makes the same point I did with the pats/titans game- BB likely baited Vrabel into all those runs and it worked great for BB. yet the mainstream sports medias take after the game was that Henry had a 'big game'......it's like they totally ignored the fact that Tennessee didn't actually score any points the entire second half on offense.

The traditional running game does have it's uses- killing clock(although you need first downs to kill clock best) and ideally an occasional change of pace. But you definitely don't want a 'balanced' attack in the nfl in close games, if part of that balance is giving your rbs 30-35 carries total. That means you are going to be wasting far too many plays. As we all know a lot of times we will see teams with a ton of rushing attempts end up in winning the game. In most of those cases, that team jumped out to be a big lead....by passing.

who said anything about PFF? I am interested in looking at the data in a way as to determine what is more efficient. A few points: 1) You use the word 'establish' the run, but as I pointed out that's a myth. We have data that suggests play action pass is effective *independent* of whether the run has been 'established'. We all grew up listening to talking heads ramble on about how they are running the ball so that play action will be more effective. turns out it doesn't work that way. You say later than play action works when the defense respects it. This is not true. Play action...just works. Even if the other team hasn't been running the ball or hasn't run it effectively. 2) I really wouldn't say New England salvaged much of anything. They were consistently poor on offense the entire second half of the year. Sony Michelle was terrible all year, and the passing game for NE was bad as well. 3) speaking of the dallas-seattle game, you talk about their offensive line struggling on the edges but when Wilson did drop back to pass that game GOOD THINGS HAPPENED. So it didn't look like it was struggling to protect Wilson that game, as evident by his ypa and how effective he was. Moreover as I pointed out in 1 and the data indicates, seattle couldnt run the ball at all and yet play action was still very effective for seattle. What killed them was all the first and second down running which went nowhere. You can talk about pressure rates and such all you want...but that doesn't change the data or what actually happened. this issue has been settled some time ago. Will teams continue to run the ball too much early in the game and on 1st down? Maybe...but its definitely improved from several years ago. Teams also do dumb non-analytically oriented things like punt too much. The smart teams are catching on. Smart coaches/teams knew this truth decades ago- remember what BB said to Lawrence Taylor and the rest of the giants defense(he was DC then) before the giants/bills sb. He said "if Thurman Thomas runs for over 100 yards we will probably win this game". BB recognizes that letting Thurman 'get his' was a great strategy. And TT did. But his carries are still a hell of a lot less effective than the real danger- Kelly getting the ball down the field to Reed and Lofton and using the short passing game as well. So BB baited the Bills into pounding Thomas and the Bills offense was held in check. Almost 30 years later we see BB do the same thing with the titans and it almost cost them the titans a game they should have won. Watch tonight's Baltimore-Tennessee game. I bet Tennessee comes out and tries to run henry a ton on first down, and I bet that goes nowhere and puts them in a ton of 2nd and 3rd and long. Meanwhile Baltimore isn't going to do that early- they are going to run Lamar a lot, and throw with Lamar, and then mix in a *little* traditional runs. Now the final rushing stats for ingram and the Baltimore backs may be respectable, but how many of those will come in the second half after the ravens get a big lead? If Tennessee was smart, they would come out and do nothing but spread things out and throw. Throw 14/15 plays to open the game. Instead they are going to play right into the ravens hand and try to ground and pound, and it's going to turn out poorly for them. On offense at least.

no...you didn't read(or understand maybe) my post. I said traditional running plays. Baltimore runs a ton with Lamar Jackson, sometimes in designed plays and sometimes broken plays. Those runs(especially the broken ones which were passing plays by design) are ultra efficient. That's pro-analytics. Unless Baker Mayfield is going to have lots of ultra efficient/successful designed running plays(hint- he isn't), Baltimore is a horrible example. Baltimore is actually a team that runs way less than average early in games and in close games out of traditional running plays. Which is a reason they are so successful. As for your other teams, except for maybe san fran they go towards MY point. NE's offense blew goats most all year. Seattle is a perfect example of a team that should pass A LOT MORE. It's running as much as they do that's holding them back and cost them the division. It certainly cost them a playoff game against dallas last year, and multiple articles showing the data have been written about that(and that game in particular) As for Tennessee, they ran the ball a zillion times last week against NE. NE perfectly baited them into doing so. How did it work out for them? Pretty poorly, as in doing so they only scored 14 pts total and ZERO in the entire second half. They almost lost the game despite an amazing defensive performance because they were so infatuated with 'ground and pound'. Running the ball is just a lot less efficient than passing the ball. And no, it doesn't 'set up the pass'. We have tons of data that suggest play action pass works independently of whether the run has been 'established' or not. The nfl is very much being grouped into two different factions- those who understand data, what it means, how to use it. And those who don't. Those who don't are still running a lot early in games on 1st and 2nd down. This is a terrible strategy. I'll leave it with a famous quote(or close to it) from Bill Walsh(he was kind of a smart guy in case you didn't know)- "If you gain 4 yards on a running play they say you are beating them. If you gain 4 yards on a passing play, they are beating you". Walsh's point was none of that makes sense. He understood brilliantly that the short passing game was more efficient and successful than a monotonous running game. And he won a few super bowls and changed the game btw....

1st and ten to open the game: run for short game 2nd and long: run for short game Far far too much running on 1st and 2nd down. He's had a pretty decent qb and this 'ground and pound' approach is anti-analytics and a losing strategy. Running Dalvin cook like 36 times for not even 3 yards per carry almost cost them the saints game. If a guy cannot understand that running the ball on 1st and 2nd down in the nfl early in games(blowouts are different) is not a good strategy relative to passing.....well, that's a problem. And don't cite what Baltimore is doing. A large portion of those aren't traditional runs but ultra efficient qb runs, and another large portion of them are after the game is already a blowout. They actually run the ball with traditional running plays in the first half less than most teams, which is a key to maximizing their success. Chubb is a fine back, but in the current NFL(and probably the former nfl, teams were just dumb) you don't win by running the ball. Teams that run a ton in a game have a good record, but that has nothing to do with causative factor. I don't know that stefansky fully understands this

ugh....hate the idea of MM. He is way too conservative and doesn't understand risk/reward, point expectation charts, etc He SINGLEHANDEDLY lost the nfc championship game in Seattle some years ago with numerous terrible decisions. He kicked two field goals at the 1 yard line in the 1st quarter. That's terrible and not defensible. Then, as if that weren't bad enough, with 4-5 minutes in the game GB had the ball up 11(?) and he ran the ball into the line 3 straight times. Didn't even try to get a first down.....with prime Aaron Rodgers. GB punted and the next time they touched the ball they were behind. I do not want the coach responsible for that coaching malpractice to coach the Cleveland Browns.

the problem with rivera is he doesn't seem very analytically oriented. Yes he does have a rep for going for it on 4th down which is good, but other than that he isn't an analytics guy The one guy I definately dont want is Mike Mccarthy. Would rather have freddie back than that loser

maybe 8 carries too many?? Running the ball early in the game(especially on 1st and 2nd down) is a bad strategy in the nfl in today's game. It's been proven time and time again. Teams just cannot afford to run the ball in tradtional ways(exempting many of the ravens runs) unless they are way ahead late in game. In many ways, it's better to have a completely ineffective running game any given day than a 'good' running game, because the team with the ineffective running game may not even try and not waste key first downs. And you look at Chubb today and he's put them in some bad situations and 2nd/3rd and long. It's just too easy to get behind the sticks trying to run the ball.

People who want to 'establish the run' and run more don't understand efficiency and such. The reality is we, and most teams, should be running even less. Baltimore is a horrible example. Subtract all of Jackson's runs for starters as they are not traditional runs(the scrambles or the designed runs).

It's interesting that Jarvis Landry, after two pretty bad seasons(2017 ranks as one of the worst receiving seasons in nfl history imo) has had a nice year so far this year. He's getting down the field more, and his average route run appears to be longer. In 2017 he somewhere managed to turn 160 targets into less than 1000 receiving yards. How does one do that? 2018 was mediocre at best. Then in 2019 he's become a plus player. The question is whether or not 2019 represents something, or whether or he will revert back to 2017 and 2018? Because if this year represents a move towards running routes of more value and more YAC in general, he's ok even at his current contract. But I sense it is more the former, and if so he will be cut whenever that contract means the Browns can get out of it without a cap hit. IIRC it's not this offseason but the next.

this is a bizarre comparison now. I'm NOT an Allen fan, but he has a starting job in the nfl now and is supposedly improving. Is he good? Well I don't think so....but he's on a completely different level than Rosen who cannot get on the field for one of the worst teams in the nfl who has nothing to lose by playing a young qb they basically took a flyer in. So at this point the book is very much open on Allen, but nobody is comparing Josh Rosen to him at this point in a serious way. If you had to rate their level of NFL success/performance to this point you would have to give Allen about a 4 I guess and Rosen a 0.

the problem with this argument is that when the Dolphins made the switch to Fitz(a crappy veteran journeyman by all accounts) it was clear he was a major upgrade over Rosen. That's why fins fans were ticked, because they were hoping to continue losing every game and going from the disaster Rosen was to more marginally capable qb play hurt those chances. If a marginally capable crappy journeyman vet comes in and is CLEARLY the superior option, what the hell does that say about Rosen? Has Rosen been put in dumpster fire type situations at both places? Sure, but he also looks like he sucks. At least that seems to be the consensus. If the Dolphins were to move on from Rosen after this year, they would get almost nothing for him. Like 5th round pick type value. Which speaks to how everyone in the nfl views him now. There is nothing that says a qb can't be thrown into poor situations and also suck. That very much appears to be the case with Mr Rosen. And I don't know jack about college to nfl qb evaluations and liked rosen coming out of UCLA too, but I can admit he's looked pretty poor. And I'm not sure why you bring up character issues in defending Rosen. That was some(admittedly BS) whispers 2 years ago. Now nobody cares about that in the least and the issue has nothing to do with that.