Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Rams Huddle › Some stuff about Fisher offenses
- This topic has 5 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 3 months ago by
Isiah58.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 7, 2016 at 10:42 pm #50382
znModeratorI see what I regard as some misconceptions out there. So I want to stress something about about Chicago and the Gase offense Fisher likes. Something a lot of people don’t realize.
First a set-up. I generally (and crudely) group offenses into pass heavy, balanced, and run heavy. In the passing era, balanced no longer means 50-50.
These numbers are not arbitrary. I get them from looking at pass play percentages.
A pass heavy offense throws 60% of the time or (obviously) more. Last year that included New England, New Orleans, and Indianapolis.
A balanced offense throws anywhere from 56-60% of the time. Last year that included Green Bay, Washington, and Arizona.
A run-heavy offense runs the ball 44% of the time or more. Last year that included Kansas City, Seattle, and Carolina.
Guess where the vaunted Gase offense was located.
It was run-heavy. They passed about 54.3% of the time (last year the Rams passed about 53.4% of the time).
I mention this for a reason.
Often in conversations about all this people assume a few things that hold up. First, people assume that Fisher offenses are traditionally run-heavy. Actually no, last year was an exception. They are usually balanced (by my definition). For example in 2012 they threw the ball about 59% of the time (11th in the league) and in 2013, even with Clemens for half the season, they threw the ball about 56% of the time (right at the cusp). In 2014, even with Hill and Davis, they threw the ball 58.7% of the time. Last year’s pass percentage of 53.4% of the time is the lowest in the Fisher years.
Not only do people often think that Fisher’s offense is predominantly run heavy (when it was that way only once), they mistakenly assume that the more you throw, the more sophisticated your passing game is, and the less you throw, the more primitive it is.
No.
Groh comes from Gase’s sophisticated passing offense. That’s why Fisher liked him—he has openly praised Chicago’s passing offense, particularly how they handled Cutler. Fisher tried to hire Gase himself. So I assume we all agree that Groh brings some of that smart Chicago Gase-style offense with him. BUT the Chicago offense last year was run heavy, not pass heavy. In fact in terms of pass percentage it ranked 25th.
So in other words, having a run-heavy offense does NOT mean “lack of sophistication.”
In terms of whether Fisher will be more run-heavy or balanced in 2016, I assume that with Gurley and the qb situation (including a rookie) they will be more run-heavy. BUT I also assume, based on the history, that when Goff is fully up to par, they will go back to being a more balanced type of attack.
…
I also assume the reason the offense has been stalled so often is 2 things. First, OL issues (it has been either extensively injured or very inexperienced or both), and 2nd, qb issues (Bradford hurt, Foles melted down, the rest are #2 types). So it was always personnel and execution and not scheme.
They need to upgrade the weapons but to me, that’s 3rd on the list behind stabilizing the OL and getting a consistent starting caliber qb in there.
.,..
.,..
August 7, 2016 at 11:25 pm #50384
Isiah58ParticipantI have another thought that is wholly unsupported by any empiracle evidence. The premise is that having a crappy pass offense can actually result in a higher pass to run percentage. Normally, we associate high pass ratios with better QBs and more sophisticated passing offenses. But the Rams have been a very poor passing offense since Bradford went down for the last time, with some notable exceptions.
If you try to pass unsuccessfully on first or second down, it virtually assures that you will need to pass again on third down. A better indicator would be how the offense runs when it’s running well (both running and passing). Evaluating what a coach or coordinator does in that situation I submit is a better view of what tendencies are organic rather than imposed.
Just a thought,
Isiah 58“Marge, don't discourage the boy! Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals! Except the weasel.” - Homer Simpson
August 8, 2016 at 12:10 am #50388znModeratorI have another thought that is wholly unsupported by any empiracle evidence. The premise is that having a crappy pass offense can actually result in a higher pass to run percentage. Normally, we associate high pass ratios with better QBs and more sophisticated passing offenses. But the Rams have been a very poor passing offense since Bradford went down for the last time, with some notable exceptions.
If you try to pass unsuccessfully on first or second down, it virtually assures that you will need to pass again on third down. A better indicator would be how the offense runs when it’s running well (both running and passing). Evaluating what a coach or coordinator does in that situation I submit is a better view of what tendencies are organic rather than imposed.
Just a thought,
Isiah 58But actually applying an empirical matrix to that…how does it break down if you add together pass percentage, passing TD%, and wins? This is a made-up on the spot hypothetical but I will try it. I don’t know if it addresses what you’re saying, but it’s at least a tangential exercise related to what you;re saying.
I will list the top 10 teams in terms pass percentage and then rank them according to a general passing TD% + wins rubric. This doesn’t tell you why they won or lost, because of course that could be many things. Let’s see what it does tell us if anything.
All from the 2015 season.
New England: 5.7% TD percentage (ranked 7th), record = 12/4
Indianapolis: 4.2% TD percentage (ranked 20th), record = 8/8
Oakland: 5.6% TD percentage (ranked 8th), record = 7/9
Detroit: 5.2% TD percentage (ranked 12th), record = 7/9
New Orleans: 4.8% TD percentage (ranked 14th), record = 7/9
Miami: 4.1% TD percentage (ranked 23rd), record = 6/10
Jacksonville: 5.8% TD percentage (ranked 6th), record = 5/11
Baltimore: 3.1% TD percentage (ranked 28th), record = 5/11
San Diego: 4.5% TD percentage (ranked 17th), record = 4/12
Cleveland: 3.3% TD percentage (ranked 27th), record = 3/13OUt of the top 10 passing percentage teams only one has a winning record. You would have to go case by case but most (except the Patz) were clearly passing to try to stay in games. Whether they were efficient or not? Either they weren’t and that was the oddly negative reason they passed more (as you said, they weren’t good passing on 1st and 2nd downs and so had more 3rd downs passing), or they were but it’s all the team had (it had no defense or running game)…or both.
August 8, 2016 at 12:43 pm #50395Isiah58ParticipantI guess my premise is that there are two types of high percentage passing teams: those that are good to very good at it, and those that are rather bad at it. In the Rams’ case, I suspect that their percentage is not necessarily a reflection of Fisher’s true model but rather a by-product of an offense that miserable passing and on third down.
So let’s look at the Tampa Bay game from last year (because it is the only game that I can remember where the offense was working, both pass and run). The Rams jumped out to a big lead through Keenum’s passing and some decent balanced offense, and won 31 – 23. In that game, Keenum threw 17 passes and the Rams had 33 rushing attempts, so basically a 2:1 run to pass ratio. Now, the Rams jumped out to a big lead so they ran the ball more in the second half, but my point is that when the Rams pass WELL, the pass more infrequently and when the pass POORLY, they pass more.
Isiah 58
“Marge, don't discourage the boy! Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals! Except the weasel.” - Homer Simpson
August 8, 2016 at 1:57 pm #50399znModeratorI guess my premise is that there are two types of high percentage passing teams: those that are good to very good at it, and those that are rather bad at it. In the Rams’ case, I suspect that their percentage is not necessarily a reflection of Fisher’s true model but rather a by-product of an offense that miserable passing and on third down.
So let’s look at the Tampa Bay game from last year (because it is the only game that I can remember where the offense was working, both pass and run). The Rams jumped out to a big lead through Keenum’s passing and some decent balanced offense, and won 31 – 23. In that game, Keenum threw 17 passes and the Rams had 33 rushing attempts, so basically a 2:1 run to pass ratio. Now, the Rams jumped out to a big lead so they ran the ball more in the second half, but my point is that when the Rams pass WELL, the pass more infrequently and when the pass POORLY, they pass more.
Isiah 58
I took that game (Tampa) as just being how they would use Keenum.
In 2012, for example, they tried the Rams offensive signature stuff in game after game—play action passing, running the ball, setting up shots (Rams are always in the top 3rd in the league in percentage of total attempts thrown 31 yards or more). BUT they also had a great “comeback win” 4th quarter offense (they won 4 comeback games that year though actually one was a tie not a win). So they put more on the qb.
With Keenum, it’s different.
My bet is that with Goff, when he’s up to speed, it will be different still again.
Yes, meanwhile, 3rd down is an issue. Which I bet they also fix.
August 8, 2016 at 5:01 pm #50406Isiah58ParticipantI agree with all of that. And if Goff is who they think he is, then I would expect that the Rams would fall within your “balanced” criteria : )
“Marge, don't discourage the boy! Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals! Except the weasel.” - Homer Simpson
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
