Dallas Likes to Draw
by Aaron Schatz
Ah, June... the dead days of the NFL, unless you enjoy contract whining. We're super hard at work finishing up Football Outsiders Almanac 2010 but we also want to provide our readers with content that keeps them excited for the arrival of football season. (It can't come soon enough, can it?) So we're going to toss up some of the myriad of data tables we've developed from the Football Outsiders game charting project.
Bill Barnwell begun this last week, looking at dropped passes on defense as well as offense. Today, we're going to run some numbers on draw plays. The charters are generally told to mark a draw play on a run where the offensive linemen take their first step backwards to pass block rather than firing out to run block. A run from shotgun is not necessarily a draw play -- a lot of teams are now running plays that we might categorize as "shotgun sweeps," where the quarterback hands the ball off to a running back on one side who sweeps across and runs behind the tackle on the other side. (In Madden, this play is sometimes called "45 Quick Base.")
Obviously, these numbers are subject to a small sample size -- some teams ran very few draws -- as well as the usual game charter variation.
Dallas ran more draws than any other team, and by a significant amount. (No, that's not charter bias -- we didn't have a high number of draws marked when Dallas was on defense.) The Cowboys actually didn't end up any more successful on draws than they did on runs in general.
Seattle, Minnesota, and San Diego were significantly better on draws than on other runs (although the San Diego number is a really small sample size). Philadelphia really seemed to struggle on draws -- although, again, small sample.
Tampa Bay and Houston had good yardage and poor DVOA on draws, so what you are seeing there is a lot of "give up" draws on third-and-long.
Alas, duty calls -- and by duty, I mean book editing -- so I can't provide a more intensive analysis of these numbers. I'll leave that up to you, the readers, in the comments. Next week we'll run the numbers for defenses against draws, and we'll keep running these tables for the next couple weeks to get everyone excited for FOA 2010.
| Offense | Draws | RB Runs | Draws as Pct of Runs |
Yds | Rank | DVOA on Draws |
Rank | DVOA All Runs |
Rank |
| BAL | 22 | 418 | 5% | 8.5 | 2 | 96.9% | 1 | 16.8% | 3 |
| ARI | 30 | 330 | 9% | 5.7 | 10 | 48.8% | 2 | 0.3% | 16 |
| CAR | 28 | 491 | 6% | 7.4 | 3 | 46.9% | 3 | 6.8% | 10 |
| NE | 59 | 418 | 14% | 5.9 | 8 | 45.6% | 4 | 9.3% | 9 |
| SEA | 41 | 349 | 12% | 6.6 | 6 | 33.1% | 5 | -6.4% | 27 |
| CIN | 14 | 452 | 3% | 7.4 | 4 | 31.3% | 6 | 1.1% | 14 |
| MIN | 35 | 426 | 8% | 5.7 | 9 | 28.0% | 7 | -3.9% | 23 |
| NO | 20 | 431 | 5% | 5.4 | 14 | 27.6% | 8 | 17.6% | 1 |
| JAC | 32 | 355 | 9% | 5.6 | 11 | 24.6% | 9 | 10.7% | 8 |
| TEN | 37 | 431 | 9% | 8.6 | 1 | 23.7% | 10 | 11.3% | 6 |
| GB | 24 | 374 | 6% | 4.8 | 18 | 22.9% | 11 | 17.4% | 2 |
| SD | 18 | 385 | 5% | 5.3 | 15 | 22.5% | 12 | -11.2% | 32 |
| ATL | 20 | 405 | 5% | 5.2 | 16 | 22.3% | 13 | 1.0% | 15 |
| DAL | 77 | 393 | 20% | 4.6 | 20 | 15.4% | 14 | 16.6% | 4 |
| NYG | 50 | 414 | 12% | 5.6 | 12 | 10.5% | 15 | -1.7% | 19 |
| IND | 41 | 338 | 12% | 5.4 | 13 | 9.3% | 16 | -2.5% | 20 |
| Offense | Draws | RB Runs | Draws as Pct of Runs |
Yds | Rank | DVOA on Draws |
Rank | DVOA All Runs |
Rank |
| WAS | 24 | 338 | 7% | 4.3 | 25 | 5.6% | 17 | -7.3% | 28 |
| MIA | 45 | 455 | 10% | 4.8 | 17 | -4.2% | 18 | 11.0% | 7 |
| SF | 33 | 328 | 10% | 4.4 | 23 | -4.3% | 19 | 1.5% | 13 |
| PIT | 21 | 377 | 6% | 4.0 | 27 | -9.4% | 20 | 0.1% | 17 |
| TB | 17 | 343 | 5% | 6.2 | 7 | -14.0% | 21 | -4.5% | 24 |
| DET | 45 | 353 | 13% | 3.3 | 31 | -14.9% | 22 | -7.7% | 29 |
| STL | 39 | 377 | 10% | 4.2 | 26 | -15.1% | 23 | -4.7% | 25 |
| KC | 47 | 378 | 12% | 4.5 | 21 | -17.1% | 24 | -3.0% | 21 |
| CHI | 15 | 327 | 5% | 3.3 | 32 | -18.7% | 25 | -10.6% | 30 |
| HOU | 10 | 365 | 3% | 6.6 | 5 | -26.4% | 26 | -11.2% | 31 |
| PHI | 20 | 301 | 7% | 3.4 | 30 | -30.6% | 27 | 13.6% | 5 |
| NYJ | 28 | 533 | 5% | 4.5 | 22 | -31.3% | 28 | 5.0% | 11 |
| DEN | 32 | 405 | 8% | 3.7 | 28 | -31.7% | 29 | -3.0% | 22 |
| CLE | 20 | 408 | 5% | 3.6 | 29 | -43.4% | 30 | 2.4% | 12 |
| BUF | 31 | 367 | 8% | 4.4 | 24 | -46.1% | 31 | -0.7% | 18 |
| OAK | 14 | 360 | 4% | 4.6 | 19 | -63.5% | 32 | -5.5% | 26 |
| NFL | 31 | 388 | 8% | 5.2 | 7.2% | 2.2% |
Comments
47 comments, Last at 25 Jun 2010, 3:36pm
#1 by Ben B. // Jun 18, 2010 - 1:02pm
Ah, getting into the soccer spirit by discussing draws.
#2 by Only saying th… (not verified) // Jun 18, 2010 - 1:23pm
Kevin Kolb will run the draw better than McNabb.
#7 by chemical burn // Jun 18, 2010 - 5:06pm
That is nonsense! NONSENSE! Kolb clearly cannot execute the draw!
It's funny, I've actually noticed that the draws never work for Philadelphia and I've always tried to put my finger on what was wrong, but... they just seemed to be bad at it. Especially for a such a well-coached offensive line that does great with other timing/misdirection running plays like that backdoor flip to the RB that they like to call on 3rd and short or their famous execution of screen-passes...
#8 by >implying impl… (not verified) // Jun 18, 2010 - 5:26pm
Maybe that the line isn't really set up / trained / drafted to do run blocking?
#14 by chemical burn // Jun 18, 2010 - 9:21pm
Well, you might notice they ranked 5th in rushing overall (just imagine if they never ran a single draw and lost that -30% DVOA on 7% of their running plays how high they would've ranked), so... they clearly can run the ball better than almost any other team in the league. It would be pretty impressive if they were able to accomplish that with no training or set up.
#41 by Kevin from Philly // Jun 22, 2010 - 6:59am
Seriously? The argument for letting McNabb go or keeping him comes down who executes the DRAW PLAY better? God, I hate the off-season.
#44 by Mr Shush // Jun 25, 2010 - 9:39am
I suggest you take your irony detector in for tuning. At the moment it might struggle to pick up the Eiffel Tower.
#3 by Bobman // Jun 18, 2010 - 1:26pm
Interesting that some of the teams with the weakest QB play are at the bottom-- that's logical until you get to teams with Schaub and McNabb, also hovering near the bottom.
As I read this, the average DVOA "bump" that a draw provides is 5.0%--that's your baseline and if you are above, good, if you are below, you are not getting what you should out of a draw. So the Colts getting about 11% are roughly getting twice the average bang for their draw buck. Of course Seattle, whose non-draw rushing is worse but whose draw rushing is 3.5 times as productive gets a bump of nearly 40%! Eight times average. Minny has negative non-draw DVOA? Do AP's fumbles have anything to do with that? Yikes!
What are the main components of this success? Not just D's fear of the QB, not just the RB quality, not just a good OL. I guess it's a combination plus good execution? Small sample size?
#11 by UTchamps (not verified) // Jun 18, 2010 - 6:18pm
Texans run game last year was terrible (see 31st ranked DVOA but they failed the eye test as well). Chalk it up to losing the two starting guards in week two and the No.1 RB requiring spinal fusion surgery in the off-season. I wonder how they would have fared in the 08-09 season.
#45 by Mr Shush // Jun 25, 2010 - 9:45am
Well, there's that, and the fact that the Texans ran the fewest draw plays of any team in the league, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of all runs (and they didn't run too much in the first place, due to sucking at it).
I think Aaron's explanation is the right one: draws pretty much only come into the Texans game-plan on third and very long, and they probably don't spend a whole lot of time practicing a play they intend to barely ever use.
Also, while my eyes also said the interior run-blocking was questionable, the objective evidence seems to suggest that almost all the problem was Slaton and Brown. Moats and (especially) Foster performed vastly better behind the same line, by just about any metric you care to use, and Joyner's analysis of the individual linemen's performances in the run game suggested that while none of them was stellar, they were all (with the partial exception of Caldwell in his rookie season) pretty solid.
#4 by buzz // Jun 18, 2010 - 1:40pm
My first question/thought is how much does the passing game threat help make a succesful draw play. Obviously a good portion of the advantage of a draw is to catch the defense off guard and do teams that have a better QB do this more effectively. This could be a good way to test cross position benefits. To do so completely it would be best to have a column in the table showing non-Draw rush play DVOA.
That said even though it is only a small 1 year sample I did a quick correlation between pass offense DVOA and draw play DVOA and found a correlation of .51. The correlation between all runs and draws was only .40 even though draws were a subset of all runs which you would think would make that correlation higher. The P-Value is also lower for the pass dvoa variable at .01 vs all runs at .09 if you run a regression leading me to believe that pass offense certainly effects draw plays at least to some degree - or at least it did this year in a small sample.
#6 by buzz // Jun 18, 2010 - 2:27pm
Actually if I try to back into non-draw runs - which i am sure isn't right but might be in the ball park pretty much all of the correlation between draws and other runs disappears (around .16) and the P-value for passing dvoa vs. draw dvoa is even more significant without the running variables. ALY correlation is also pretty low despite again having draw plays included. Kinda seems like QB play is more important that rb play (or OL) on draw plays. Would be interesting to see more years of data.
#5 by britt (not verified) // Jun 18, 2010 - 2:03pm
Oakland was last on the draw because teams only had to drop 2 back in coverage on shotgun plays, because they know JaMarcus Russell wasn't getting rid of the ball within 6 seconds. SACK or LOSS OF YARDS RUSHING.
#31 by Bobman // Jun 19, 2010 - 8:33pm
Or if he DID throw it in time, it hardly mattered how many defenders you had back because the location of the pass was random. Two guys can't cover the whole field, but neither can 11, so they just dropped two and told them to keep away from the receivers to have a better chance of intercepting.
#9 by staubach (not verified) // Jun 18, 2010 - 5:44pm
I used to love this site.
On your home page 4/5 articles are ESPN INSIDER only. And these are (as usual) the best 4 articles. Today you wrote the first two paragraphs of what could have been a really interesting article, and then ended the article prematurely by saying you are too busy to finish it because you are working on your book.
I don't blame you for trying to earn money. Also, I don't suggest you stop writing articles and books for people who are paying you, because you deserve to get paid. I appreciate the free content that you do produce, but I just want to make sure you are aware of the fact that there seems to be FAR less interesting content on FO than there used to be, say 1-2 years ago.
I will continue to tune in every few weeks because you still have some of the best articles on the web, but I used to check out your site almost every day.
-Disappointed in Dallas
#10 by staubach (not verified) // Jun 18, 2010 - 5:45pm
I used to love this site.
On your home page 4/5 articles are ESPN INSIDER only. And these are (as usual) the best 4 articles. Today you wrote the first two paragraphs of what could have been a really interesting article, and then ended the article prematurely by saying you are too busy to finish it because you are working on your book.
I don't blame you for trying to earn money. Also, I don't suggest you stop writing articles and books for people who are paying you, because you deserve to get paid. I appreciate the free content that you do produce, but I just want to make sure you are aware of the fact that there seems to be FAR less interesting content on FO than there used to be, say 1-2 years ago.
I will continue to tune in every few weeks because you still have some of the best articles on the web, but I used to check out your site almost every day.
-Disappointed in Dallas
#13 by Aaron Schatz // Jun 18, 2010 - 8:25pm
If you used to check our website every day during the offseason, you must have been really bored. Can you guess how many pieces of content were published on Football Outsiders during the month of May 2006, not including Extra Points links? Let's see if someone can come up with the answer.
#15 by chemical burn // Jun 18, 2010 - 9:26pm
Aaron, I'll never understand why you are so defensive towards your fans. He's registering a thoughtful complaint in non-overly hyperbolic/aggressive language and he's treated to some snide bullshit. I just don't get it - this isn't the NFL.com message boards where everybody is calling the author names and mindlessly slagging everything in 4th grade language, why bother responding if you're just going to be dismissive?
And way to make me and your other most loyal fans feel like assholes and losers for coming to the site everyday and commenting.
#16 by Key19 // Jun 18, 2010 - 10:25pm
It's not just Aaron, most of the staff is guilty of this from time to time as well. And honestly, it's one of the few (and main) drawbacks of this site. I like the staff here most of the time, because they really seem like nice and cool guys, but when they're in "you don't know what it's like to have a website so stop talking"-mode, I find myself quickly moving on to something else somewhere else. I agree with the original poster though: this site seems to be hit harder than most by the offseason. The content just dries up almost completely. I would give some ideas I have of things the FO writers could talk about in the offseason, but they'd probably be dismissed away so I'll just save my time. :)
I understand that Aaron and CO have to do what they think is best for the site as a whole, but honestly, I don't see how dismissing loyal fans really helps the site in any way. If you want to have a business, you have to act like a businesspeople. And no businessperson is gonna be successful if they essentially call their customers idiots when they voice concerns about the product. And honestly, we're all guilty of being idiots at times (some like me, more often than others), both here and anywhere else. But if you want to be a good businessperson, you have to understand that idiots pay your bills, and mocking the people who pay your bills gets you nowhere. I put up with idiots at work all the time, and if I mocked them, I'd be fired. Plain and simple.
So forgive us if we are idiots at times, and at least give us customers the respect we deserve for taking the time to even come to your site, read your content, buy your material, etc. If one person posts a concern about the site, there are probably a lot of other people thinking the same thing that just didn't feel like posting about it. So one snide reply can alienate a lot more people than you can see. Anyways, I think this is a great site, and I think I can speak for everyone when I say that I want to see it become as good as it can be. And the only way for that to happen is for the higher-ups to listen to the voice of the people. And honestly, even if the answer to a suggestion is "no way," at least be polite about it and maybe even explain why the suggestion isn't possible/won't be done. Then the person at least feels like you listened to their concerns and they walk away a lot more pleased than if you just dismissed them.
But hey, what do I know. I'm just some pathetic idiot who comes here just about every day looking for interesting content (who also buys FOA and KUBIAK every year I might add). :)
#25 by zlionsfan // Jun 19, 2010 - 2:35pm
Conversely, a number of posters are guilty of the same thing, ripping pretty much everything that is posted on the site, no matter who posts it or what it's about. At some point, I would guess pretty much everyone who runs a well-trafficked site tires of the incessant "you need to change how you do things" criticism, especially if it amounts to "I don't want to pay for any of your stuff, make it free." Yeah, everyone wants that, but it's not practical.
Fans who say something along the lines of "I don't visit as much as I used to" or "I'm outta here" or whatever aren't loyal readers anyway; their loyalty has shifted, and that's perfectly fine. It happens all the time, particularly at this point when a site starts moving some of its content behind a pay wall.
We have visited this issue a number of times in the past. FO decided the best move was to partner with ESPN, the deal is done, and we can't change that. (Other than by not reading the articles and explaining to ESPN and FO why we don't, and even then I doubt it would make much difference.) I'm not sure it necessarily adds to the discussion if every time FO posts something, somebody complains about the pay format. (This wasn't even an article behind the ESPN wall; the comment's really out of place here.)
I'm not sure Aaron's reply is a good way to handle the situation, but then I've seen several sites post similar replies to people who chose not to understand the direction in which the site was heading. Yes, people don't like the decision. Yes, they don't like it. Yes, they don't like it. Yes, they don't like it ... okay, we understand, you've registered your complaints, thank you.
What else is FO supposed to do, post a pat response any time someone complains about the pay wall? That will just make people complain about the response. "I've been a loyal reader for X years and I would think I deserve more than a canned response, I'm disappointed, etc. etc." (It might not be a bad idea to add it to the FAQ, though.)
Sure, I'm probably less affected by the decision than many because I was already an ESPN Insider, and I'm probably more inclined to side with FO because I've met some of the people who write for the site, but really, the decision was made months ago, the fact that some people don't want to pay for some FO content as soon as it's released has been noted, let's move on.
If you oppose the decision, contact FO directly and let them know. Commenting about it here doesn't accomplish anything.
#30 by Aaron Schatz // Jun 19, 2010 - 7:09pm
I apologize for coming off snarky, but the problem was that the criticism is just straight out wrong. We run more free content now than we ever have. More free content in the regular season, and more free content in the offseason.
I don't mind suggestions of "It would be cool if Football Outsiders did new thing you haven't done before." Those are nice. But Bill and I, who each work upwards of 50 hours a week during the months when we aren't writing the book, get really frustrated with posts that say "I don't like Football Outsiders anymore because you aren't publishing as much content as I incorrectly imagine you once published once upon a time."
Remember, in our first offseason, we were so pathetically desperate for content that we ran weekly reviews of ESPN's American Idol-esque sportscaster tryout show. Seriously.
By the way, the answer to the question is six. In May 2006, we ran six articles on FO. In May 2008, we ran 10 articles on FO, not counting XP or ESPN articles. (That includes the Draft Card Report, which ran in May that year but in April this year.) In May 2010, we ran 13 free FO articles, not counting XP or ESPN articles.
I do appreciate that people love what we do. It's because of the readers that I get to do this awesome thing for a living. But readers need to understand that complaints about there not being enough articles will result in more short articles. More short articles will result in complaints about articles being too short. Complaints about articles being too short are going to result in fewer articles because we want to take the time to make them longer. And so forth.
Actually, a better complaint than "write more" would be "I would like FO to write more articles like X and not as many articles like Y." That's cool. That's not asking us to do more work, just to do different work.
#34 by Bigwoody (not verified) // Jun 20, 2010 - 10:22pm
OK...I'll try this again.
A couple years back during these doldrum months, FO readers would submit discussion board (?) topics and they would be linked in Extra Points to get readers over there to make comments. There was some fun stuff to waste an hour on every day. Some was technical. Some just for grins.* Can we do that again? I've got one that might be fun.
Just a suggestion to help us addicts get through till real football and the almanac. These readers are a HUGE source of fun, thought provoking football stuff.
*The classic RaiderJoe "Do you like football now more over before over?" springs to mind.
#35 by Thomas_beardown // Jun 20, 2010 - 10:38pm
We should just have a weekly RaiderJoe live chat.
#38 by Guy #1 (not verified) // Jun 21, 2010 - 3:31pm
I once asked these guys about a guest article idea I had and they responded like "Actually I'd rather set myself on fire." It's really typical of stats people not to be too socially adept though so I just grinned.
#40 by Aaron Schatz // Jun 21, 2010 - 10:47pm
I'm not sure what your specific guest article idea was, but "I'd rather set myself on fire" is generally our response when we are pitched guest articles about certain quarterbacks from New England and Indianapolis.
#42 by Guy #1 (not verified) // Jun 22, 2010 - 8:10am
I make no warranties about the quality of my article idea ;) but to be fair you guys work hard and I always come back for your perspective, so you must be doing something right!
#20 by Confused (not verified) // Jun 19, 2010 - 8:18am
May 2006 was 1-2 years ago?
#23 by BigWoody (not verified) // Jun 19, 2010 - 1:23pm
A couple years back during these doldrum months, FO readers would submit discussion board (?) topics and they would be linked in Extra Points to get readers over there to make comments. There was some fun stuff to waste an hour on every day. Some was technical. Some just for grins. Can we do that again? I've got one that might be fun.
#24 by staubach (not verified) // Jun 19, 2010 - 1:46pm
To answer your question- yes, I do get bored in the offseason and I miss football. That is one of the reasons that I love your site- you provide in depth informative articles that teach me more about the game of football. I love your tutorials describing how teams use different formations and plays. I love your (relatively) unbiased statistical approach to evaluating the performance of teams and players and to test widely spouted assumptions. I love what you do- I just want more of it. Maybe I'm just being greedy.
I realize how much work goes into your articles- this isn't some blog where you spew forth whatever is at the top of your mind at the moment so you can publish articles three times a day. I realize that your articles take time and that your time is worth money. I also realize that ESPN is willing to pay you money for your articles and give you additional exposure to promote this site, and that you would be a fool to turn that down. I have my own reasons for not wanting to pay my money to ESPN, but I know you must make your money wherever you can get it in this business. I don't have an alternative business model that would allow you to write more free articles.
As another reader suggested, my goal was to give you feedback to hopefully make this site better, that is all. I'll just have to get over my frustration and do the only productive thing I can to help FO get better: buy the Football Outsiders Almanac.
#27 by Staubach12 // Jun 19, 2010 - 3:37pm
Aaron, this guy is just an ingrate. You guys provide tons of free content for us.
To my namesake: You really can't complain about a site that puts up this much free analysis.
#37 by Rusty G. (not verified) // Jun 21, 2010 - 10:20am
Why not? It's a pleasant idea to call it charity, but the "free" content hosted here helps them market their products, maintain their reputation and foster a community of loyal customers. If that community feels like its commitment is being abused (rightly or wrongly), is it really so bad to communicate that in a respectful way, as the original poster did?
My view is that the volume of "publications" or "articles" has increased, but that the proportion of them that have been trimmed to "ESPN" parameters, which probably constrain size, length and complexity, has grown substantially as well. I very rarely finish an FO/ESPN Insider article anymore without thinking, "Why did they just list the best and worst at each offensive line position?" or "Why did they only list the top 10 in this statistic at each position?" The sense that there's cherry picking and poor statistical analysis, which I don't think FO is really intending to engage in (we can only guess what stipulations ESPN places on them!), is hard to avoid because of these ESPN constraints.
But the acrimony toward other sources of game charting data, the snarkiness towards members of the community, these things are a bit disappointing. The site is still fabulous, and I'm glad they're doing it, but really? Biting and defensive sarcasm? You guys are awesome, and way above that.
#18 by Overrated (not verified) // Jun 18, 2010 - 11:06pm
Two words: RSS Feed.
#19 by ammek // Jun 19, 2010 - 3:26am
Submit a guest column. There used to be more of those (though perhaps not in May 2006).
#22 by dafrk3in // Jun 19, 2010 - 11:06am
I was a bit disappointed at first too. Then I learned that you can get ESPN Magazine subscriptions incredibly cheaply through places like Amazon. With the magazine subscription, you get access to insider. $4 is an incredible price to pay for access to these Football Outsider articles for a year.
For more info, you can check out http://slickdeals.net/discountmags.com-coupons/
#12 by Thomas_beardown // Jun 18, 2010 - 7:17pm
Speaking of draws, what ever happened to the QB draw?
It seems like some teams used to call it 1 or 2 times per game, and you almost never see it these days.
#26 by zlionsfan // Jun 19, 2010 - 2:39pm
I think what happened was that defensive players got bigger and faster and the talent of backup QBs got worse (well, there are more QB spots now, depending on how far back you go, and there certainly doesn't seem to be an excess of talent at the position). The risk of injury on a running play seems to be considered more these days.
Maybe another factor is that fewer and fewer NFL QBs are designed for running - I don't know if they run less often in college, but that's my feeling for the majority of QBs - so they know less about what to do in a situation where they could be legally hit, you know? Not taking a direct hit, all that. So they're worse at running, so they're asked to run less often, repeat.
#17 by Key19 // Jun 18, 2010 - 10:33pm
It's interesting how good Baltimore was on draws and yet how sparingly they used them. Maybe it's a situational thing for them. For example, if they were to tend to throw really deep fairly regularly in specific situations (say, 2nd and medium at around their 40 yard line), teams might see that and back off instinctively. But then the draw is extremely effective because the defense reads pass and backs up thinking deep ball, but then the run comes and gets mega yardage.
I've got no backing to this idea of course, just going off hearsay about the Ravens offense and trying to figure out why they were so damn good at draws.
#32 by Bobman // Jun 19, 2010 - 8:38pm
I love Ray Rice despite him playing for a rival AFC power. But I suspect Balt's success is a combination of a few things: 1) Rice, 2) the infrequency (as you point out) and 3) small sample size.
If they had 20 more of them #2 and #3 would probably bring them closer to the mean. A little at least, because they still have #1 going for them.
#21 by ammek // Jun 19, 2010 - 8:43am
DVOA is both helpful and unhelpful in this analysis. Helpful because it shows up the Sons of Holmgren offenses which call draw plays on third and long. Unhelpful because DVOA includes fumbles, which aren't really connected to what this stat is trying to measure.
It would be interesting for next year to see ALY added to the numbers, to get an idea of the offensive lines' success at pulling off this play.
#29 by Sidewards // Jun 19, 2010 - 3:43pm
Why aren't fumbles relevant to the success of a play?
If the draw sucks and the runner is hit without securing his grip on the ball, or is jostled unexpectedly, it's a negative play.
#28 by Staubach12 // Jun 19, 2010 - 3:43pm
Interesting post. This goes against my unscientific impression that the Cowboys were significantly more successful on draw plays than on other plays. But most of that success came with Felix Jones. I wonder if there was a significant difference between Jones and Barber on draw plays.
#33 by speedegg // Jun 20, 2010 - 2:46pm
Dudes, if we're complaining about the lack of content during (of all months) JUNE, then it must be ADDICTION.
There's no methadone for the Football Addict and the only fix is FO Almanac 2010 which arrives in a few weeks. IF you really can't wait that long, sign up for NFL's Game Rewind.
If that doesn't help, you can sign up for the 7 step process......
#46 by Mr Shush // Jun 25, 2010 - 10:04am
Thing is, when I do finally get that hit, I know I'll be dead to the world for days, and I just can't afford to do that until the middle of August. Which is going to have me climbing walls, and/or rubbing PFR blog posts into my gums. For the next six weeks.
#36 by TheRealJosh (not verified) // Jun 21, 2010 - 5:58am
Is the new book ever going to come out?
#39 by Vincent Verhei // Jun 21, 2010 - 10:11pm
Yes. The release date is hidden somewhere on this page.
(Hint: It's near the top.)
(Bonus hint: It's right above the cover mock-up.)
(Super Bonus hint: The book comes out July 8.)
#43 by Temo // Jun 24, 2010 - 12:58pm
Please explain that again, and slower this time if you please.
#47 by TheRealJosh (not verified) // Jun 25, 2010 - 3:36pm
I still couldn't find it.