Post by spreadattack on Jul 12, 2006 6:17:47 GMT -6
In the Carolina playbook Dan Henning said this:
"Football, in any classification is a percentage game. A Quarterback who goes against percentages too often will fail. He'll have to be extremely lucky. No one figures to be that lucky due to so many extenuating circumstances involved in a 22 man game.
The following rules for play calling have been established for the Panthers to reduce the margin for tactical error. Errors in play calling will kill us quicker than mistakes in any other phase of football.
60% run
40% pass
The above percentage between pass and run is the healthy approach to pro football in any tightly played football game. To run more than 60% of the time will result in low scoring unless we are definitely superior. To pass more than 40% could mean costly losses as the result of failure in pass protection with loss of ball possession and field position due to interceptions."
---
I thought this was really interesting and very important. I thought it was interesting what he did not say: He did not say "We run to be physical" or "We run to establish the run and set a tone" and he did not say "We throw to be exciting" or any of those things. It appeared that he basically broke it down into a very basic tradeoff:
Passes score points, but because of interceptions and sacks can be too risky and we will lose games if we throw too much.
Runs are much less risky, but if we run the ball too much we will not score enough points to win.
Now this seems basic but actually I thought was in some ways a revelation, because it cut through all the crap of why you run or pass, etc (again we do get back into situational football, and if anyone is curious that Carolina playbook has an AMAZING section on exactly what he tries to do situation by situation).
I think this is also right: You run to reduce risk, control the ball, and the like but you will not, at least in a truly competitive game with equal or lesser talent against very good coaches score enough points strictly off running, but to just be a "chuck 'n duck" team you may score points but will lose some games off turnovers and bad field position (and I'd add poor third down conversion % because even good passing teams wind up in a lot of 3rd and 10s, it's just a math certainty).
You might tell your players it's because of all these reasons like being tough, or running down their throats, or being exciting or whatever but that's just hype, and as a coach you can't afford to think like a player, at least when it comes to this stuff.
That's it. The only caveat I'll mention is that if people say short passes in the spread or WCO are like runs, I think the option is like a pass in that it averages more per play, there are multiple options, and there is a greater chance of loss or turnover risk.
Just some thoughts to spark discussion.
"Football, in any classification is a percentage game. A Quarterback who goes against percentages too often will fail. He'll have to be extremely lucky. No one figures to be that lucky due to so many extenuating circumstances involved in a 22 man game.
The following rules for play calling have been established for the Panthers to reduce the margin for tactical error. Errors in play calling will kill us quicker than mistakes in any other phase of football.
60% run
40% pass
The above percentage between pass and run is the healthy approach to pro football in any tightly played football game. To run more than 60% of the time will result in low scoring unless we are definitely superior. To pass more than 40% could mean costly losses as the result of failure in pass protection with loss of ball possession and field position due to interceptions."
---
I thought this was really interesting and very important. I thought it was interesting what he did not say: He did not say "We run to be physical" or "We run to establish the run and set a tone" and he did not say "We throw to be exciting" or any of those things. It appeared that he basically broke it down into a very basic tradeoff:
Passes score points, but because of interceptions and sacks can be too risky and we will lose games if we throw too much.
Runs are much less risky, but if we run the ball too much we will not score enough points to win.
Now this seems basic but actually I thought was in some ways a revelation, because it cut through all the crap of why you run or pass, etc (again we do get back into situational football, and if anyone is curious that Carolina playbook has an AMAZING section on exactly what he tries to do situation by situation).
I think this is also right: You run to reduce risk, control the ball, and the like but you will not, at least in a truly competitive game with equal or lesser talent against very good coaches score enough points strictly off running, but to just be a "chuck 'n duck" team you may score points but will lose some games off turnovers and bad field position (and I'd add poor third down conversion % because even good passing teams wind up in a lot of 3rd and 10s, it's just a math certainty).
You might tell your players it's because of all these reasons like being tough, or running down their throats, or being exciting or whatever but that's just hype, and as a coach you can't afford to think like a player, at least when it comes to this stuff.
That's it. The only caveat I'll mention is that if people say short passes in the spread or WCO are like runs, I think the option is like a pass in that it averages more per play, there are multiple options, and there is a greater chance of loss or turnover risk.
Just some thoughts to spark discussion.
