I do like the amnesty rule the NBA has, Celtics were able to use it last season. The truth with Wentz is that he was payed out of obligation by the Eagles. If I remember correctly Foles had won the last remaining games of the season and went onto win the SB but they didn’t want to commit to Foles and instead gave Wentz the big contract. Went has had an up and down career as an NFL starter and has been injured, honestly I’m not sure he deserved that type of contract. However I understand the Eagles wanting to show loyalty and support for him, but now that Hurts has outplayed him and can outplay him, it’s a nightmare worse case scenario for Eagles. Whatever HC ends up there, is going to have his hands full.
I think you have the right analysis here which is why it makes no sense to give him that contract and draft Hurts to complicate a bad situation. I guess they anticipated Hurts not being nearly ready for a couple years and tried to do the Packers thing of 3+ years on the bench. Either way, it's a dumpster fire for the Eagles especially with the cap situation. That's a 2 year rebuild and they'll likely have to purge a lot of that roster just to get under the cap. There aren't a lot of low dead cap numbers either so it's going to be awfully difficult. I'd scoop up Derek Barnett (underwhelming but definitely has potential) and I believe Douglas was there when he was drafted.
tell me if you know of a study on this but every study i have seen has defined efficiency as yards per play (butdone so without regard to standard deviation). that's why they're misleading. It's like the difference between arithmetic mean and geometric mean -- huge! in other words these studies would have drawn the same conclusion as my hypothetical; passing is more efficient because it was 10/pay verse 3.34/play And without doubt that simplified analysis is just wrong It's like me asking would you rather have a stock fund that returns 25%/year on average or 1%? The correct answer is there's not enough information provided. In fact the 1%return can do better, e.g., sexy fund: year one does +100%, year two does -50%. Arithmetic average is 25%/year, yet at the end of two years you have gained 0. you're right back to where you started. boring fund. Year one gains 1%. Year 2 gains 1%. Average is 1%. Have gained slight over 2% for two years And no I am not advocating running every play -- three yards and a cloud of dust, etc. WHat i am saying is there is real wisdom behind running because the expected gain has lower variation. People shouldn't assume it's boring, old, conservative and losing. Instead it's boring, old, conservative and winning
I really think you're overthinking this. For the investment analogy I would clearly rather get 25% per year than 1%. Whether I'd have the conviction to hold such a volatile investment is another question. I don't know how this relates to football. Let's say average Y/A in the NFL is 8, and 63% of passes get completed. Roughly 2/3 passes are complete for an average of 8 yards. So over 6 plays we might expect something like: 15 yard completion incomplete pass 4 yard completion 15 yard completion incomplete pass 12 yard completion Average YPC is probably about 4, so over 6 plays we might expect something like this: 2 yard run 0 yard run 8 yard run 6 yard run 3 yard run 5 yard run You're way discounting the amount of variance that happens with running in your example, effectively reducing it to 0. The average RB in the NFL runs for about 4 yards per carry - why don't teams just never pass and run for a first down every single series? Because it doesn't work like that in the real world. Your argument is basically that variance=bad. But you're ignoring that variance happens to the upside as well. If you pass enough you'll sometimes complete 40 yard passes which basically constitute an entire drive in one play. That happens with running sometimes too, but less frequently and at a smaller magnitude.
I dont think running the ball is boring. I love a good running game actually. In college and high school I think your argument has merit. But I think in the NFL the linebackers are just too good. You have to have a good passing game or you can't run it well. - I also think penalties in the NFL are a huge factor that you aren't accounting for. They throw out pass interference flags relentlessly. So you don't even have to have a good passing game to get down the field. they also throw out roughing the passer flags the same way. whereas in the running game, the holding on the offense is crippling and you make yourself susceptible to that.
Chandler is making a theoretically correct argument about volatility drag, but in practice, the volatility drag for passing isn't large enough to make passing less effective than running. Empirically, passing is better outside of certain situations.
Something that has to be taken into account in the (very interesting) debate is the notion that a team that runs 100% of the time allows a defense to sell out vs the run 100% of the time. Numerically the defense has enough players to stuff at least 1 run per set of downs for less than 3 yards. The only thing keeping defenses more spread out is the threat of the pass. Using even one down for a passing attempt upsets the whole theoretical debate for running every down for 3.4 yards.
Good points and I would also add that some interceptions are basically short punts whereas fumbles are almost always devastating in terms of field position flip. Now, strip sacks are a definite concern and can't be discounted either.
Good points and I would also add that it's been proven that running doesn't actually "set up" play action in practice. Play action works, because of the fake itself, but running doesn't increase the chances of a defense negatively reacting to the fake. The motion of the fake is enough without needing to be hammering them in the run game for them to really respect it.
The argument is very clever but somewhat mute to me. To be a winner in the NFL you must be able to both pass and run the ball effectively and consistently. One dimensional teams don’t go far in this league. You might favor one versus the other more depending on your team strengths and your opponent weaknesses. But at the end of the day, if you don’t have both in your quiver on game day the better teams will eat you alive.
I don't know about the rest of your post, but I sure as shit disagree with this part. I'll watch RBs all day over WRs.
the bold is all i needed to see. you're clearly not understanding the point; and that's ok. it's up to you whether you actually want to think about the math. and if you're thinking i'm saying variance is bad, that's a double negative. i'm not saying variance is bad. I'm saying not considering variance when you're considering averages is bad because numbers can be otherwise very misleading (just as you would be misled into making a bad financial decision in your admission).
i'm not disagreeing with anything you're saying about it from football standpoint. What i am saying is that if you look at stats like 3 yards/carry or 11 yards/reception those numbers by themselves can be immensely misleading (not a little but hugely). People lose huge amounts of money each year unwittingly because this fact is lost on them. So too when considering football stats (conventional means/averages). People will look at some stats (e.g., for passing) and think that's the answer and have little idea about what that stat is actually reflecting and NOT reflecting and perhaps how it could be VERY misleading there are plenty of things in life and football that seem boring, not sexy, but in fact are also very smart
i like running too !! the point i was making was in response to criticism over a candidate's offense being run heavy as if that were bad./boring I am just saying (obviously not clearly) that the sexy stats attributed to passing (and passing efficiency) can be EXTREMELY misleading because arithmetic averages do not account for variance. ANd yes everything has variance . but some things have meaningfully higher variance than others and that is lost with arithmetic averages. I used the crazy but true example that a 1% fund can outperform a 25% fund to show how misleading averages can be. In reality though what if the difference were 10 and 3 (perhaps a better parallel to pass versus run). it's the same answer -- you need to know the deviation to know which is actually better. And to Maximus's point, there is a whole other body of game theory and strategic thinking which would explain why it would be dumb to run every time for precisely the same reason he says. I have seen it there used in connection with tennis and explaining why it's dumb to consistently hit the ball to the opponents backhand even assuming that's the opponent's weakest shot in isolation. That said, i am sure that when someone hits the ball to the opponent's forehand and loses the point many fans would yell "you idiot, that's what you get for playing to his forehand" even though there's a lot of analysis that says you need to do that often enough to play smart (essentially for the same reason Maximus says -- to keep the opponent offbalance/honest because in the aggregate that's better) and then you have the whole issue of conditional probabilities. if you run so that you're in a third and short, you are in an immensely superior position than 3d and ten for precisely the same reasons Maximus implictly states. the opponent is almost forced to play the run because running is so much more likely to be able to achieve those short yards. Obviously this increases the chance for pass completion as a result
3 of the 8 teams left are pretty one dimensional (Bills, Chiefs, Bucs are not good running teams.) That being said, I agree that running isn’t all bad (Rams, Browns, Ravens predominantly run based teams.) Saints and Packers are probably the most well balanced offensive teams right now.
The Buccaneers and Chiefs are actually pretty good running teams though. They just don't run the ball at volume because their passing games are loaded with talent and engineered by two all-time great quarterbacks. Both coaches historically call plays in favor of the passing game. The Bills are a weird anomaly especially because they were a good rushing team last year. They need to beef up their guard spots and for some reason let Quinton Spain go.
