Does a great RB make Play Action passing better?

[Number9]

Read This entire Article

https://broadwaysportsmedia.com/what-the-analytics-nerds-are-missing-when-it-comes-to-derrick-henry-and-the-tennessee-titans/

 

We have been talking about this, but I think it needs it's own thread.

[Starkiller]

The better the RB, the more likely defenses are going to be fixated on stopping him and bite on the play action.

[MikeKeith2020]

[pat]

A great RB means you can run the ball more often without hurting the offense.  Any RB can suck in the LBs on a play action play.  Derrick Henry can take a first down run to the house.  Derrick is not a great RB because he's a decoy; he's a great RB because he makes plays.

[Callidus]

Have we not had threads about this before and all the data says it means nothing and then we argue like morons about nothing for a few pages?

 

I have not read it yet but I'll give it a look and if it says something different I'll check back.

[Number9]

1 hour ago, Callidus said:

Have we not had threads about this before and all the data says it means nothing and then we argue like morons about nothing for a few pages?

 

I have not read it yet but I'll give it a look and if it says something different I'll check back.

I thought it could be an interesting topic.  I welcome the moderators to just put this into another thread.

 

Play action is a major part of the Titans game.  I think play action is a big part of how the Titans win.  To win big like the Titans do, it takes a QB who can make teams play for biting on the run.  Tannehill is definitely top five in accuracy.  He processes the field way faster than most QB and has little trouble making decisions.  With him, the ball is coming out.  I could be wrong, but I don't think many of the QBs ranked higher than him are as quick. And I can't remember a game where people were saying he didn't see a lot of open targets.

 

 

[abenjami]

The RB is less significant than the offensive running game as a whole.

 

Peyton Manning's best play action years were with lesser backs but an OL anyone could run behind.

[AJClown]

4 hours ago, pat said:

A great RB means you can run the ball more often without hurting the offense.  Any RB can suck in the LBs on a play action play.  Derrick Henry can take a first down run to the house.  Derrick is not a great RB because he's a decoy; he's a great RB because he makes plays.

Lulz. Not any defense will fall for it that heavily if you got a guy like Sankey vs Henry on the back field....

 

The way you set up play action is first you must convince the defense that a run play is developing by appearing to hand the ball to the back. Then, when the defense reacts -- creating critical time and space -- the ball materializes in the quarterback's hand. When run properly, the pass rush has been neutralized, the linebackers and safeties lured a few steps closer to the line of scrimmage and the receivers have more room to maneuver. 

 

2 hours ago, abenjami said:

The RB is less significant than the offensive running game as a whole.

 

Peyton Manning's best play action years were with lesser backs but an OL anyone could run behind.

All teams have different versions of the play-action pass, but clearly, teams that run the ball well are going to have an easier time fooling the defense

 

This has been proven by coaches. But not sure why we need to look up to PFF nerds to tell us otherwise.

Edited September 25, 2021 by unauthorizedcinnamon

[titanruss]

RT fits the offense perfectly. But it's a play action based offense with the greatest run threat in 2 decades. 
 

If you ever played a sport and they told you all week to focus on something ... you commit quicker.  It's just natural. The stats have shown that on the whole it doesn't make sense but they ignore the anomaly. 

I'll read the article in the morning. 

[oldschool]

6 hours ago, Starkiller said:

The better the RB, the more likely defenses are going to be fixated on stopping him and bite on the play action.

 

Jfc no no no no. It'd been proven over and over again. One of the biggest misconceptions in sports.

[oldschool]

5 hours ago, pat said:

A great RB means you can run the ball more often without hurting the offense.  Any RB can suck in the LBs on a play action play.  Derrick Henry can take a first down run to the house.  Derrick is not a great RB because he's a decoy; he's a great RB because he makes plays.

 

Correct playaction is effective no matter who the RB is or whether the offense is good at or sucks at rushing. LBs have to key off the RB period, doesn't matter who it is.

[AJClown]

1 hour ago, oldschool said:

 

Correct playaction is effective no matter who the RB is or whether the offense is good at or sucks at rushing. LBs have to key off the RB period, doesn't matter who it is.

Ignorant take.

 

The same playaction that Manning or Brady might run are completetly different from what we run. Doesnt mean that we would be effective if we ran the same way that they called it.

[OILERMAN]

Greg Cosell talks about this all the time.

 

Defenses line up vs formation and tendency. If the Titans line up with two TEs/FB(heavy sets). The defense is going to play a run defense and likely put a safety in the box, play cover 3 etc.....No matter who the RB is. 

 

Playaction is all the rage across the league because it's so effective. 31 teams use playaction very well that don't have Derrick Henry. Kyle Shanahan is the master at it and the 9ers have a different RB every week and it works fine. 

 

Derrick Henry is a great RB, there is no need to try and make him more than what he is to prove that point. 

 

The reason the offense has become very good is because of Tannehill. 

 

 

[nine]

I'd say it probably depends on how disciplined the defense is.    If they focus strictly on executing their assignments and reading their keys, then the RB probably doesn't matter as much.   

But there's also the element of human nature and defenders who are less disciplined.    They know Henry's reputation and they've seen what he does.....so when he's on the field,  they're probably going to be more aggressive and take more risks than they would if it was McNichol or Sargent in the backfield.

[AJClown]

1 minute ago, nine said:

 

But there's also the element of human nature and defenders who are less disciplined.    They know Henry's reputation and they've seen what he does.....so when he's on the field,  they're probably going to be more aggressive and take more risks than they would if it was McNichol or Sargent in the backfield.

On top of that not all play action offenses are the same.

 

You try to put an offense on this very team without the threat of a run, tannehill would fail just as failed in Miami all this other years.

 

It's going to be fun bumping this thread in the upcoming years.