Don't throw to RBs; it's not efficient

[sushihorn 3233]

 

There are lies, damn lies and statistics.  This article suggests that teams stop throwing the ball to their backs because it's not "efficient."  It's stuff like this that gives sports stats such a bad name.  Like Bastiat's bad economist, the bad statistician focuses solely on what is directly in front of them rather than looking at the big picture.  It starts with the obvious fact that throwing to WRs (mostly downfield) is better than throwing to RBs, mostly short check downs and often behind the LOS.  The authors then beat the dead horse with statistical proofs of the obvious.

Assuming a competent QB, the throws will be mostly to open receivers so of course going to an open WR downfield ia going to yield better results than going to a RB short on average.  And the real question is should the QB throw to a covered WR rather than an open RB?  Secondarily does it make the offense better to take away a threat of passing to the backs?  They don't address those questions at all.

The focus on early downs is particularly disingenuous.  Threat of the run will keep the LBs near the LOS and create more room behind them.  That definitely favors WR patterns over those typically used by RBs in the crowded short zones that are even more crowded on 1st down.  Does anyone really need to be told that a team with Ezekiel Elliot might be better off throwing a PA pass over the LBs than a swing pass when the defense has 9-10 guys line up within 5 yds of the LOS?  His other example just reinforce the bias.  Neither the NY Giants nor the NE Patriots are teams that spread it out and throw the ball around on early downs.

I'd be much more interested to see what the numbers look like for pass heavy teams running spread attacks.  I'd bet those numbers look a lot different for the KC Chiefs for example.  I would also love to see how the productivity of the offense generally and of the other receivers specifically is affected by incorporating the RBs into the passing game.  I have no idea where to even begin with that one though.

[taybo20 2815]

It’s all situational. I mean I’m not even going to read the link because if you only worried about passing the ball every down I guess it makes sense. But strategy means something and if you can slip a back behind an over aggressive DE and get him in space against a slower LB...it’s gonna be efficient. Generally speaking of course. It’s inky inefficient if you have no plan to create opportunities to exploit the defense with a throw to the RB.

[Parliament 14149]

Ohio State used to run this play where the QB would audible to an empty backfield and the RB would like up on the far end of the wide side. At the snap, he'd pretty much just stand there and be the last checkdown? As dumb as it sounds, it kinda worked.

[Bernard 879]

Didn’t read the article, but I assume he’s including all RB passes in the analysis. The problem with this is that lots of times the QB throws the ball to the RB as a receiver of last resort. When nothing is open down field and the pocket is collapsing, dump it off to the RB. This is not at all the same a specifically designed pass play where the RB is the primary receiver. Stats lie. 

Bernard

[gyroprotagonist 2591]

6 minutes ago, Bernard said:

Didn’t read the article, but I assume he’s including all RB passes in the analysis. The problem with this is that lots of times the QB throws the ball to the RB as a receiver of last resort. When nothing is open down field and the pocket is collapsing, dump it off to the RB. This is not at all the same a specifically designed pass play where the RB is the primary receiver. Stats lie. 

Bernard

well duh.  Call the touchdown play to the WR instead of the checkdown play the RB for a 3 yard gain.

[Magus Ossis 2784]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the following are all statistically desirable: WRs that get separation, OL that give QBs time, and QBs that can read more than one WR route. Subtract from that list, and you have the conclusion of the "analysis."

[XYZ 2154]

I fucking hate economists.

[crash_davis 23087]

17 minutes ago, Bernard said:

Didn’t read the article, but I assume he’s including all RB passes in the analysis. The problem with this is that lots of times the QB throws the ball to the RB as a receiver of last resort. When nothing is open down field and the pocket is collapsing, dump it off to the RB. This is not at all the same a specifically designed pass play where the RB is the primary receiver. Stats lie. 

Bernard

stats do not lie.  people misuse stats to false conclusions.  

your premise can easily be validated by additional check downs vs primary target data.

[Magus Ossis 2784]

No one here is arguing that throwing regularly to the RB as a primary target is good. If the study supports that that WRs are generally better 1st reads than RBs, it will have achieved "water is wet" levels of insight.

Edited August 23, 2019 by Magus Ossis

[Tex Long 4355]

+rep for Bastiat mention.

[Slacks 6792]

sacks aren't efficient

[ImissWallyPryor 9045]

Statistically speaking, he’s in favor of eliminating any type of play that makes the defense have to think. 

[ShaggyBevo RIP 3868]

1 hour ago, Snacks said:

sacks aren't efficient

They sure as hell are....

 

 

 

...for the defense.

[msbesq 385]

Show this article to Brady and James White and then show the Pats-Falcons game to the author.

[52-80 19108]

1 hour ago, Snacks said:

sacks aren't efficient

I don't believe you.  Show me the numbers.

[runthebone 7933]

All I know is that the shovel pass to Robin was fan-fuckin-tastic

[tbone_ 14028]

Shovel? Shuttle? Shuffle?

[runthebone 7933]

4 hours ago, tbone_ said:

Shovel? Shuttle? Shuffle?

Shitful