Jump to content

The Benefits Of Going Big


MIKE75

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 32
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Thought for a second we were going to hear your detailed case for large women.

I think that's Kyle.

While we used 0 or 1 WR sets more than other teams, that still only amounted to 23% of the snaps.  The other 77% was 2+ WR.  In fact, our most common formation was 1 RB, 1 TE and 3 WR and we used that

6 hours ago, OILERMAN said:

Opposite, all 3 WRs made big plays off of playaction in 1 WR sets and actually created big plays.

 

Easy to say they did... but just as easy to say it limited the offensive output the first 4 and eventually last 4 games. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, begooode said:

I understood that the 3 WR heavy offense used by the Giants was one of the most predictable in the NFL last year -- esp with their inability to run effectively from it.

May be true. But who did the giants have at RB and who was their online? 

Also, this is about 1 or 0 WR sets... not about 2 or 3. 

We ran more 1 or 0 wr sets than anyone. Like 200 plays and the next closest was at 150. We had a great offense but we overdid it. It was definitely predictable even if we got 3-4 td's out of it 

its a complete fallacy to say we wouldn't have scored other ways, especially with the ability our QB has shown. 

The coaches are doing a decent job but they are over thinking things. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, titanruss said:

May be true. But who did the giants have at RB and who was their online? 

Also, this is about 1 or 0 WR sets... not about 2 or 3. 

We ran more 1 or 0 wr sets than anyone. Like 200 plays and the next closest was at 150. We had a great offense but we overdid it. It was definitely predictable even if we got 3-4 td's out of it 

its a complete fallacy to say we wouldn't have scored other ways, especially with the ability our QB has shown. 

The coaches are doing a decent job but they are over thinking things. 

You seem to be grasping at straws a bit here. The only thing that matters is offensive efficiency along with, potentially, ball control for lesser defenses. "complete fallacy to say we wouldn't have scored other ways",... perhaps you're the one overthinking things?

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, begooode said:

You seem to be grasping at straws a bit here. The only thing that matters is offensive efficiency along with, potentially, ball control for lesser defenses. "complete fallacy to say we wouldn't have scored other ways",... perhaps you're the one overthinking things?

Yes and half the year we were very efficient and half we weren't. 

Though it wouldn't be the first time I've over thought things. 

I see the run pass ratios that win and I know how effective our QB was even in a shit offense his rookie year ( btw.. better completion % and didn't know how to throw the deep ball yet... match those up and see what happens), and I see some wasted time. Last year wasn't our sb year no matter what... so I guess the argument is for naught. If things don't change slightly towards a more open passing offense this year then we are seriously holding our QB back. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, titanruss said:

yep and it hurt us too. hindered marcus, hindered the ability of the WR to get open. made us predictable. 

Our guys weren't getting separation no matter the formation. You put Mariota out there with five routes and no separation you're asking for disaster. I think we'll see more spread concepts this year with all the speed we've added. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

While we used 0 or 1 WR sets more than other teams, that still only amounted to 23% of the snaps.  The other 77% was 2+ WR.  In fact, our most common formation was 1 RB, 1 TE and 3 WR and we used that 401 snaps, which is almost 40% by itself.

I posted this data before to show that 2 TE wasn't our most common set.  Here it is again since it is relevant to this discussion.

In this data, a WR is one of the WRs (Matthews, Sharpe, etc) and not a RB or TE lined up as a WR.  Likewise, a FB is Fowler and not one of the TEs lined up as a FB.  I differentiated between TE and OLTE, which is one of the OL (Kelly) lined up as a TE.

Here are the number of plays including the pass/run percentage based on different personnel -

401 plays (77.1% pass, 22.9% run) 1 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE
192 plays (42.7% pass, 57.3% run) 1 RB, 2 WR, 2 TE
90 plays (31.1% pass, 68.9% run) 1 RB, 1 WR, 3 TE
78 plays (28.2% pass, 71.8% run) 1 RB, 1 FB, 2 WR, 1 TE
65 plays (13.8% pass, 86.2% run) 1 RB, 1 FB, 1 WR, 2 TE
47 plays (80.9% pass, 19.1% run) 2 RB, 2 WR, 1 TE
22 plays (22.7% pass, 77.3% run) 1 RB, 2 WR, 1 TE, 1 OLTE
22 plays (22.7% pass, 77.3% run) 1 RB, 1 WR, 2 TE, 1 OLTE
17 plays (11.8% pass, 88.2% run) 2 RB, 1 WR, 2 TE
16 plays (18.8% pass, 81.3% run) 1 RB, 1 FB, 1 WR, 1 TE, 1 OLTE
14 plays (57.1% pass, 42.9% run) 1 RB, 4 WR
10 plays (30.0% pass, 70.0% run) 2 RB, 1 FB, 1 WR, 1 TE
9 plays (44.4% pass, 55.6% run) 2 RB, 3 WR
9 plays (11.1% pass, 88.9% run) 1 RB, 1 FB, 2 TE, 1 OLTE
7 plays (100.0% pass, 0.0% run) 2 WR, 3 TE
5 plays (100.0% pass, 0.0% run) 3 WR, 2 TE
3 plays (33.3% pass, 66.7% run) 1 RB, 1 FB, 3 WR
2 plays (0.0% pass, 100.0% run) 1 RB, 1 FB, 3 TE
1 plays (0.0% pass, 100.0% run) 1 RB, 1 FB, 2 WR, 1 OLTE
1 plays (0.0% pass, 100.0% run) No QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, 2 TE
1 plays (0.0% pass, 100.0% run) No QB, 2 RB, 1 WR, 3 TE

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, begooode said:

I understood that the 3 WR heavy offense used by the Giants was one of the most predictable in the NFL last year -- esp with their inability to run effectively from it.

The Giants used 3 WRs 95% of the time!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...